FORT MYERS, Fla. - An online video shows a prank some would say went too far.
Three young girls from Dunbar Middle school videotaped themselves tackling an 11 year old boy and taking off his clothes. The group can be heard laughing at times and mocking the boy as he struggled to break free.
"He stopped to chat with his friend and they thought it would be funny," said the boy's mother.
The child who we are not identifying is a 5Th grader at Ray Pottorf Elementary. His mom says she only found out about the video when her older son, who goes to school with the girls, said his friends had seen the video online.
"You take his clothes off in broad daylight, in the middle of a busy neighborhood and then you post it on YouTube to tell all your friends look at what I did. Crime or not, it shouldn't happen," she added.
Fort Myers Police says the girl would have faced misdemeanor battery charges, but that the boy's mother has refused to press charges. She wants the girls' parents to hand out a punishment instead.
I find it pretty ridiculous that the mother of the boy isn't pressing charges and seems to be disregarding this simply as a prank that went a bit too far. I can't imagine not pursuing something like this to the fullest extent I have available to me if I were the parent. I've seen some arguments made that putting the boy through court proceedings would cause further trauma but I don't buy that. If I were the boy I'd look back on something like this and want to know that justice was done, or at least pursued.
There is discussion in the Escapist forum thread I found this on raised the point that if this were done with the gender's reversed this would be taking a very different route. I'm fairly inclined to agree, I think there would be much more outcry if 3 boys did this to a girl.
Lastly, I do find it somewhat entertaining that Anonymous seems to have taken an interest in this incident. The /b/ thread is linked in the Escapist forum OP.
Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
I'm blown away by how stupidly the boy's mother is acting. If I were abused like that and a video of me getting abused like that were posted on youtube, I would make the girls' life a living hell and use every shred of legal I had to get them into juvie. I bet the boy's life sucks because everyone at school is making fun of him and teasing him and taunting him and harassing him. I would hate my mother for not pressing charges.
It's right if this was 3 14 year old boys and an 11 year old girl. they'd be facing sexual assault charges. People should stop needlessly messing with other people, pulling pranks on your friends is one thing, but strangers makes for over-complex situations. I'm not a fan of saying stuff should go to court over child hijinks, it was a one off thing that wasn't pre-planned (well not on a particular kid) but they should definitely be suspended and given a police warning or something.
This situation pisses me off, everything from the what those 3 bitches did to the mother not pressing any charges... seriously? I just can't comprehend how she takes this as a prank at most, I bet those 3 girls parents aren't going to punish them to the extent they deserve or at all for that matter.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
If I was to make an original post, it would pretty much be exactly what vetinari said. The girls should be punished, and harshly.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
The hell is wrong with you?
An 11 year old boy is ganged up on and humiliated by three high school students, and your reaction is to call the kid 'pathetic' and 'weak'.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
Explain to me why he would be the laughing stock of the whole school.
I would post charges on those girls. That's absolutely cruel and they absolutely deserved to be charged.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
You have a valid point and I agree with this. I guess my idea was more selfish and If i were in that situation, that would be the right choice. Either way, this incident is so immoral.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
I couldn't imagine the shitstorm that would be generated if it were 3 boys stripping a girl and the result were put on Youtube. It would be treated akin to child pornography.
Just imagine if the sexes were reversed and it was 3 young boys assaulting a 11 year old girl. Shit would get 100x the coverage and people would be going crazy.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
Explain to me why he would be the laughing stock of the whole school.
As if they don't know who it is already. Mother should have pressed charges, so stupid. It should be less about his embarrassment and more about making sure shit like this doesn't happen again.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
The son already is the laughing stock of the whole school considering the video was posted on youtube + news and stuff, everyone knows what happened and I bet he's going to be bullied and humiliated further more. At the very least, pressing charges would punish the girls well, and I would like for them to get punishment from school as well but alas, the girls face ZERO consequences for their actions.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
Explain to me why he would be the laughing stock of the whole school.
haduken, I'm pretty sure the poor boy is already the laughing stock of the entire school. If the uncensored video is distributed on the web or through other means, than someone definitely needs to step up and press charges against the girls.
On June 05 2011 14:53 DeepBlu2 wrote: I would post charges on those girls. That's absolutely cruel and they absolutely deserved to be charged.
Seriously? Give me a break.
I edited my post and I think that it's a bit selfish to press charges. The only reason I wouldn't would so that my son wouldn't be bullied even more. I guess i overreacted but you can't deny what they did was absolutely cruel and deserve some punishment, if not through law. The kid is going to be bullied as it is and he didn't deserve any of it.
It's just so frustrating for me that if it were 3 boys doing it to the girl shit would explode but it seems like nobody gives a fuck when the victim is the boy, why god damnit it why!?
What they did was flat out illegal, They should be brought up on charges regardless of what the kids mother thinks, this kind of conduct sickens me.
And like was said, if it was boys that did this to a girl there would be no argument over whether charges should be pressed, hell I don't even think it would be up to the parents of the girl if its what happened and there was a video of it on fucking youtube.
The kid is 11, seriously. When you were that age, anyone of 14 would've beaten you up, girl or not. It's horrible that this stuff happens and even worse that the news anchor couldn't surpress a smile at the end.
As many stated before, if the roles were reversed. This would've been a case of "attempted rape, mollestation, etc. " and the boys responsible would've been kicked from the school instantly. I don't get why these girls are getting away with no punishment whatsoever.
I feel horrible to say it but: gang up on these bitches and do the same on them...
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
So wait, since you seem to be playing this man card and think it's no big deal aside from the kid being pathetic. What would you say if it were 3 boys doing this to a girl? Would you want charges pressed then or would you just say it's the same "weak" person and that they shouldn't bother with charges?
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
Yes, brilliant idea.
Instead of protecting our young from those who are stronger by virtue of age alone, we should leave them to their suffering.
That could seriously scar a kid for life. Why the hell would those girls think that they would be able to do that with impunity.
Mom did the right thing, if the girls parents are right in the head, then the punishment they give will be much more effective than anything the police could do to them.
I looked up the /b/ threads before they 404ed. They don't have the names of the girls but they do have their addresses/phone #s and parent names already. Those /b/ guys are real creepy.
Wow I can't believe you guys are whining about it not being 'fair' that girls can get away with it, but boys can't. Boys and girls aren't the same, welcome to reality kids. Boys can walk around shirtless, but girls can't. Are you starting to see a trend here.
Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
It is really fun and the perfect sexual fantasy until you are in that situation. Then it becomes miserable and humiliating.
I guess that this type of mindset is related to a rape fantasy. One of my friends loves it when her partner does rape role play or bondage but I know damn well that she would be traumatized and resist will all of her might if some random person tried to rape her.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
Yes, brilliant idea.
Instead of protecting our young from those who are stronger by virtue of age alone, we should leave them to their suffering.
Jesus.
Oh no! The poor boy was ambushed and viciously attacked! Did you see the same video as me. He was crying like a baby. This didn't happen out of random chance the boy is pathetic. Its okay admitting your faults is the first step to recovering from them. You cannot change human nature, I am sure you have mocking somebody for being stupid before and that is no difference in bullying. In the game of life, survival and evolution are the goals. It happens everyday, the bigger pups will bully the run to death. Why should the other puppies give up food to a weakling? You have lived a comfortable life so i wouldn't expect you to understand. In any case, all animals, including humans, are bound to their emotions. Those girls felt the urge to pick on him and delight in carrying out the act. Do these girls deserve hellfire like the other poster here suggested. Maybe if your a Christian, but lets not get into that.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
Nature's way for the weaker to be bullied? That is your justification for saying this is okay? On top of that, if you were bullied you would tell yourself you are "pathetic"? You've got a very warped sense of reality there.
Back here in the real world, might doesn't always give you the right to impose yourself on others. The law protects the weaker from the stronger. If being able to out fight someone meant you had the right to push them around we'd all just go out an buy the deadliest weapon possible. Small kid gets pushed around by big kid, small kid brings a gun to the table... instant arms race into insanity.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
You get bullied and the video is posted on the internet. You are a guy, get over it ... ? Really? I have no idea how old you are, but imagine that is your kid that got assaulted. Would it still be cool? If so, never get kids, please.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Wow I can't believe you guys are whining about it not being 'fair' that girls can get away with it, but boys can't. Boys and girls aren't the same, welcome to reality kids. Boys can walk around shirtless, but girls can't. Are you starting to see a trend here.
Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
How about the part where it was three on one and they were older.
I know that at age 11, there were tons of 13/14 year olds who could take me out, boy or girl.
Your stupid, "Strong pick on weak, no big deal" attitude is full of holes as is your double standard since it leaves so much room for stupidity. The ability to run around shirtless is not exactly comparable to the ability to publicly strip and humiliate someone without equal repercussion or condemnation.
I honestly think the mother should have pursued some sort of action, but I can understand her wanting to just move on and forget, particularly if the boy just wanted to forget about it.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
Yes, brilliant idea.
Instead of protecting our young from those who are stronger by virtue of age alone, we should leave them to their suffering.
Jesus.
Oh no! The poor boy was ambushed and viciously attacked! Did you see the same video as me. He was crying like a baby. This didn't happen out of random chance the boy is pathetic. Its okay admitting your faults is the first step to recovering from them. You cannot change human nature, I am sure you have mocking somebody for being stupid before and that is no difference in bullying. In the game of life, survival and evolution are the goals. It happens everyday, the bigger pups will bully the run to death. Why should the other puppies give up food to a weakling? You have lived a comfortable life so i wouldn't expect you to understand. In any case, all animals, including humans, are bound to their emotions. Those girls felt the urge to pick on him and delight in carrying out the act. Do these girls deserve hellfire like the other poster here suggested. Maybe if your a Christian, but lets not get into that.
Can we get this guy banned for trolling? Seriously. I can't think of any other reasoning why you would be "pro-bullying" except for that, barring being a sociopath.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Well..just took a look on 4chan and the picture/faces of the girls just surfaced. Probably might get worse than whatever charges they would have faced...lol
On June 05 2011 14:53 DeepBlu2 wrote: I would post charges on those girls. That's absolutely cruel and they absolutely deserved to be charged.
Seriously? Give me a break.
Yes ... because that video got uploaded to Youtube and anything that is on the internet will stay there ... even if Youtube takes it down there are probably a few copies of the video on some kids mobile phones.
The girls need severe punishment and at least they need to apologize to the boy ... in public. If nothing is done you basically show other "courageous girls" that it is ok to do it, because there wont be a punishment. That is how laws work ... as a deterrent ... and if they dont act as a deterrent you only deliver the message that its ok to do it.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You have to be fucking trolling?
Or do you want to actually clear up your application of these beliefs, because using this men should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to women and subjugate them as they please.
Fort Myers Police says the girl would have faced misdemeanor battery charges, but that the boy's mother has refused to press charges. She wants the girls' parents to hand out a punishment instead.
?????
If the sexes were reversed the title would read "Teenage gang raped young girl - to tried as adult offenders"
So lets say I go rape those girls "as a prank" to retaliate for the boy would I only have my parents yell at me?
Feminists kept fighting for equal rights, and in many places both sexes are seen as equals - but "rape/misconduct/sexual assault" remain mostly as a crime against men.
retributive justice is neither just nor efficacious, and 14 year old perpetrators regardless of offence (or gender, for that matter) need therapy, not punishment. the mother in this case is doing the right thing, assuming she pursues some seriously necessary discussions with the parents of the perpetrators -- which, frankly, are none of our business. honestly, the saddest thing about this case is that it became a news cycle item for anchors to smirk about and web forum commentators to chew apart, as this is nothing but harmful to the actual people involved.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You have to be fucking trolling?
Or do you want to actually clear up your application of these beliefs, because using this men should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to women and subjugate them as they please.
It's a shitty outlook in modern day application.
Agreed. This guy has to be trolling, no one is this devoid of intelligence.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
But females are the ones rallying for equality...what?
I wish the world was different and equality meant equality, because whenever there's an uprising about equality the governing body makes the protesting group legally superior...foreigners/Aboriginals in Australia is an example that comes to mind for me.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You have to be fucking trolling?
Or do you want to actually clear up your application of these beliefs, because using this men should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to women and subjugate them as they please.
It's a shitty outlook in modern day application.
Agreed. This guy has to be trolling, no one is this devoid of intelligence.
You guys are even more devoid of intelligence for feeding him.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
You get bullied and the video is posted on the internet. You are a guy, get over it ... ? Really? I have no idea how old you are, but imagine that is your kid that got assaulted. Would it still be cool? If so, never get kids, please.
TT I am met with such hostility. There are only 2 kinds of ideas. One's that match nature and ones that don't. As a scientist I look for those that match nature, all others that don't match reality are worthless. Information is used to make better decisions. Hiding behind ideals makes you weaker.
If that was my son, god forbid, I would have disciplined him. I would teach him not to blame others for things, but to blame himself. You cannot control other people so don't try to. There is always a way around a problem. And that solution is to be one that people wouldn't think to pick on. Do you think these girls would do this to a popular 5th grader. No. They chose the awkward whiny little one because he was easy. I would delude him with ideals I would save him by teaching him how never face an issue like this again. If you don't change the boy it will happen again. He will have to grow up someday.
Let me put this in starcraft terms since we are on TL. Don't be an IdrA and complain its a fault with the game or the player. There is always a solution, an algorithm, to achieve victory. New strategies are still being found in brood war don't fucking tell me something is impossible in sc2.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You don't have to lecture me on evolution. But humans are a particular case in that we have no need to thin out the physically weak from our gene pool (edit: clarified word). We really need to be preserving the most mentally capable, because physical strength means next to nothing.
We don't fight wars with our bare hands. We don't chase our food on foot. We don't even have to carry heavy boxes if we don't need to. We have tools. And those tools are designed by those with the mental capacity to do so.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I think that the girls should be punished and disciplined. On the other hand I'm not sure I agree that the criminal system is the best place for it. The more research I do, the less I think that our criminal justice system is...fair and just.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
Yes, brilliant idea.
Instead of protecting our young from those who are stronger by virtue of age alone, we should leave them to their suffering.
Jesus.
Oh no! The poor boy was ambushed and viciously attacked! Did you see the same video as me. He was crying like a baby. This didn't happen out of random chance the boy is pathetic. Its okay admitting your faults is the first step to recovering from them. You cannot change human nature, I am sure you have mocking somebody for being stupid before and that is no difference in bullying. In the game of life, survival and evolution are the goals. It happens everyday, the bigger pups will bully the run to death. Why should the other puppies give up food to a weakling? You have lived a comfortable life so i wouldn't expect you to understand. In any case, all animals, including humans, are bound to their emotions. Those girls felt the urge to pick on him and delight in carrying out the act. Do these girls deserve hellfire like the other poster here suggested. Maybe if your a Christian, but lets not get into that.
Are you stupid? Or does your petty little mind not comprehend the valid argument that others have said? Hopefully you just thought that this boy was the same age as the girls. Otherwise, you might be the most ignorant poster in all of TL. You sure talk big for an internet poster. Maybe you have been troubled during your life.
This kid get's jumped and tackled by 3 older, stronger people and he get's called a pussy, just because their girls. What the hell is he suppose to do? Now if the video was him fighting his way out of it and hurting 1 one of these girls, he would be the one getting in shit for this. God bless Amurca
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Wow you are a fucking retard.
ONE 11 year old vs THREE 14 year old girls.
Dont trivialize this shit just because the genders were reversed.
Haha i love this, it really shows who we are as a people! Imagine instead were three boys and one girl-rape or something Or imagine instead it were three white kids and a black kid- hate crime Or imagine instead it were three black kids and a white kid- something about black people and crime But haha three white chicks and a dude- it's all good just a prank!
Not really saying anything is good/bad just funny how differently each subgroup of people is treated. Edit: lol all of these scenarios would be bad
also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status too freely to minors in America.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
The kid isn't "weak", he looks like a normal 11 year old kid. If three 8th grade girls attacked you when you were in 5th grade you, also, would have lost.
If I was in that situation I would've acted like it was enjoyable so the girls would look like sluts and I, a fifth grader that gets it in with eighth grade girls.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
You get bullied and the video is posted on the internet. You are a guy, get over it ... ? Really? I have no idea how old you are, but imagine that is your kid that got assaulted. Would it still be cool? If so, never get kids, please.
TT I am met with such hostility. There are only 2 kinds of ideas. One's that match nature and ones that don't. As a scientist I look for those that match nature, all others that don't match reality are worthless. Information is used to make better decisions. Hiding behind ideals makes you weaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw
If that was my son, god forbid, I would have disciplined him. I would teach him not to blame others for things, but to blame himself. You cannot control other people so don't try to. There is always a way around a problem. And that solution is to be one that people wouldn't think to pick on. Do you think these girls would do this to a popular 5th grader. No. They chose the awkward whiny little one because he was easy. I would delude him with ideals I would save him by teaching him how never face an issue like this again. If you don't change the boy it will happen again. He will have to grow up someday.
Let me put this in starcraft terms since we are on TL. Don't be an IdrA and complain its a fault with the game or the player. There is always a solution, an algorithm, to achieve victory. New strategies are still being found in brood war don't fucking tell me something is impossible in sc2.
Okay, so you're fine with men beating and subjugating women? Doing whatever they want to them if they're stronger?
You'd be fine with this boy getting together a bunch of his friends and beating the shit out of those girls? You be fine with his mother beating the shit out of the girls?
If you use this standard, it has to be consistent...
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
You get bullied and the video is posted on the internet. You are a guy, get over it ... ? Really? I have no idea how old you are, but imagine that is your kid that got assaulted. Would it still be cool? If so, never get kids, please.
TT I am met with such hostility. There are only 2 kinds of ideas. One's that match nature and ones that don't. As a scientist I look for those that match nature, all others that don't match reality are worthless. Information is used to make better decisions. Hiding behind ideals makes you weaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw
If that was my son, god forbid, I would have disciplined him. I would teach him not to blame others for things, but to blame himself. You cannot control other people so don't try to. There is always a way around a problem. And that solution is to be one that people wouldn't think to pick on. Do you think these girls would do this to a popular 5th grader. No. They chose the awkward whiny little one because he was easy. I would delude him with ideals I would save him by teaching him how never face an issue like this again. If you don't change the boy it will happen again. He will have to grow up someday.
Let me put this in starcraft terms since we are on TL. Don't be an IdrA and complain its a fault with the game or the player. There is always a solution, an algorithm, to achieve victory. New strategies are still being found in brood war don't fucking tell me something is impossible in sc2.
Welcome to the 21st century. We care for the sick, look after the infirm, and tend for the weak. This started happening about the time when the Homo genus came down from trees and started walking upright. Perhaps you should catch the fuck up.
On June 05 2011 15:16 Bambipwnsu wrote: Well..just took a look on 4chan and the picture/faces of the girls just surfaced. Probably might get worse than whatever charges they would have faced...lol
Oh dear. While what they did was decidedly disturbing and WAY over the line, I don't trust random script kiddies from 4chan to not do something absolutely stupid.
I have to agree with the mothers choice to not press charges and ask for parential discipline. I don't know about you guys, but I bet the kid just wants to fight his own battles. No one likes to always be looked after, not to mention the taunting would only increase from something like that as apposed to make it go away.
"LOLOLOL go hide behind your mom you wuss. Watch out for any girls while you run for her aid... lulz!"
On June 05 2011 15:22 DamageControL wrote: I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I think that the girls should be punished and disciplined. On the other hand I'm not sure I agree that the criminal system is the best place for it. The more research I do, the less I think that our criminal justice system is...fair and just.
grats, you are a relatively normal human being with a somewhat nuanced opinion on difficult subjects
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Mate, this isn't a case a 3 nubile young ladies sensually caressing a young man, and erotically removing his clothing.
This is a case of 3 young ladies (all 3 of which are bigger than him by a good foot, I might add) bringing a young boy down to the ground, pinning him to the ground with a knee to the throat, and removing his clothing in the most humiliating manner possible, and subsequently broadcasting his humiliation for the world to see...
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Wow you are a fucking retard.
ONE 11 year old vs THREE 14 year old girls.
Dont trivialize this shit just because the genders were reversed.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You don't have to lecture me on evolution. But humans are a particular case in that we have no need to thin out the physically weak from our genome. We really need to be preserving the most mentally capable, because physical strength means next to nothing.
We don't fight wars with our bare hands. We don't chase our food on foot. We don't even have to carry heavy boxes if we don't need to. We have tools. And those tools are designed by those with the mental capacity to do so.
You obviously don't understand or else you wouldn't say what you just said. You don't get to decide what is best for the race, nature does. Emotions are strategy to guide your decision making. You still like large breasted woman with wide hips. Why is that? It is because it increases the chance of surviving labor. By hey look! we are C-sections now! Lets not date the pretty girls anymore lets all date the smart girls. If I could control my emotions I would be rolling around in bliss right now. But nope... I am here typing to you *sigh*. Disprove we don't follow evolution or emotions then I will reconsider your case.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Tie all three of the offenders to the spot where they assaulted the boy naked and leave them there for an hour or so while everyone walks by. That would be justice.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Wow you are a fucking retard.
ONE 11 year old vs THREE 14 year old girls.
Dont trivialize this shit just because the genders were reversed.
Well said... can't believe you would blame a 11 year old being bullied by girls. Since when has gender to do with anything... stereotypes :d
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Wow I can't believe you guys are whining about it not being 'fair' that girls can get away with it, but boys can't. Boys and girls aren't the same, welcome to reality kids. Boys can walk around shirtless, but girls can't. Are you starting to see a trend here.
Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
Wtf can't tell if you are serious? How is this anything similar as a guy walking around shirtless.. and its ok to strip someone as long as you aren't going to rape them? ROFL
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
I do agree with the case of if the sexes were reversed it would be a completely different story which is retarded. As for pressing charges i wouldn't either.He probably only get bullied more(it'd be more verbal abuse calling him a pussy and so on for pressing charges) besides if anything wouldn't he want to deal with this on his own...when i was buillied in elementary school i dealt with it myself and the bullying dissapeared in no time
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You don't have to lecture me on evolution. But humans are a particular case in that we have no need to thin out the physically weak from our genome. We really need to be preserving the most mentally capable, because physical strength means next to nothing.
We don't fight wars with our bare hands. We don't chase our food on foot. We don't even have to carry heavy boxes if we don't need to. We have tools. And those tools are designed by those with the mental capacity to do so.
You obviously don't understand or else you wouldn't say what you just said. You don't get to decide what is best for the race, nature does. Emotions are strategy to guide your decision making. You still like large breasted woman with wide hips. Why is that? It is because it increases the chance of surviving labor. By hey look! we are C-sections now! Lets not date the pretty girls anymore lets all date the smart girls. If I could control my emotions I would be rolling around in bliss right now. But nope... I am here typing to you *sigh*. Disprove we don't follow evolution or emotions then I will reconsider your case.
The thing is, you mention rape earlier(in regards to role reversal) but by your standard that would be acceptable. If it's alright for stronger women to gang up and do whatever they please to weak man, then it's fine for a stronger man to simply do whatever the fuck he wants to subjugate a woman.
I'm trying to understand what your actual position here is.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Personally, I was interested in the opposite sex since I was 7. I only learned how to act on it around the age of 9. Looking back, I was perfectly okay being played around by girls, it only added to my fascination and interest. While the things that happened to me may have been more extreme for this kid, I still currently regard them as great memories and VERY educational experiences.
Relooking at the video, these guys did take it too far though. If it wasn't done in a public street and with a video camera, then it should be acceptable.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Wow you are a fucking retard.
ONE 11 year old vs THREE 14 year old girls.
Dont trivialize this shit just because the genders were reversed.
I reported him a few pages back and he keeps on spewing BS, ban please?
On June 05 2011 15:31 travis wrote: lol jaybee is so gonna get banned for being a troll/idiot. if not, im gonna be pissed
I'm pretty sure, back in the day, "being an idiot" was a bannable offense. Not quite sure now
Even if it's not a bannable offense, they should ban him anyway because he is intellectually inferior and deserves to be bullied so that he can adapt and become smarter.
I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
On June 05 2011 15:32 nakedsurfer wrote: I do agree with the case of if the sexes were reversed it would be a completely different story which is retarded. As for pressing charges i wouldn't either.He probably only get bullied more(it'd be more verbal abuse calling him a pussy and so on for pressing charges) besides if anything wouldn't he want to deal with this on his own...when i was buillied in elementary school i dealt with it myself and the bullying dissapeared in no time
The problem with "dealing with bullying" yourself, is that sometimes, the bullies disappear because they were shot in the face with a .22 by the angry victim.
Encouraging a cycle of violence within our schools, is not something we should be doing.
On June 05 2011 15:31 travis wrote: lol jaybee is so gonna get banned for being a troll/idiot. if not, im gonna be pissed
I'm pretty sure, back in the day, "being an idiot" was a bannable offense. Not quite sure now
Even if it's not a bannable offense, they should ban him anyway because he is intellectually inferior and deserves to be bullied so that he can adapt and become smarter.
LOL!
I had to. Nothing to contribute to the thread that hasn't already been contributed.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Wow I can't believe you guys are whining about it not being 'fair' that girls can get away with it, but boys can't. Boys and girls aren't the same, welcome to reality kids. Boys can walk around shirtless, but girls can't. Are you starting to see a trend here.
Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
Wtf can't tell if you are serious? How is this anything similar as a guy walking around shirtless.. and its ok to strip someone as long as you aren't going to rape them? ROFL
Not to mention, in many places girls are allowed to walk around shirtless. There happen to be places in the world that have what is known as free body culture, or Naturism, or Nudism where people just all walk around in whatever the hell they want.
On June 05 2011 15:36 travis wrote: I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
You get bullied and the video is posted on the internet. You are a guy, get over it ... ? Really? I have no idea how old you are, but imagine that is your kid that got assaulted. Would it still be cool? If so, never get kids, please.
TT I am met with such hostility. There are only 2 kinds of ideas. One's that match nature and ones that don't. As a scientist I look for those that match nature, all others that don't match reality are worthless. Information is used to make better decisions. Hiding behind ideals makes you weaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw
If that was my son, god forbid, I would have disciplined him. I would teach him not to blame others for things, but to blame himself. You cannot control other people so don't try to. There is always a way around a problem. And that solution is to be one that people wouldn't think to pick on. Do you think these girls would do this to a popular 5th grader. No. They chose the awkward whiny little one because he was easy. I would delude him with ideals I would save him by teaching him how never face an issue like this again. If you don't change the boy it will happen again. He will have to grow up someday.
Let me put this in starcraft terms since we are on TL. Don't be an IdrA and complain its a fault with the game or the player. There is always a solution, an algorithm, to achieve victory. New strategies are still being found in brood war don't fucking tell me something is impossible in sc2.
you're so dumb. 3 14 year old chicks violating a 11 year old boy isn't fucked up?
"son you got beat up by 3 14 year old chicks? i'm going to fuck you up until you learn how to deal with it, stop being such a bitch."
now you're saying the boy will have to grow up eventually, but they shouldn't grow up like this. it's like saying that you're going to have to swim someday and throw him into an ocean. it's insane, abusive and makes no sense.
and i agree with the guy saying 3 14 year old guys doing that do a chick would make them sex offenders for life. equality is nonsense lol. most feminists don't really touch on the issue with women having less consequences regarding this type of stuff.
do they really need the parents permission to press charges? what about stuff regarding CP? since CP doesn't really require permission to press charges i don't think.
On June 05 2011 15:31 travis wrote: lol jaybee is so gonna get banned for being a troll/idiot. if not, im gonna be pissed
I'm pretty sure, back in the day, "being an idiot" was a bannable offense. Not quite sure now
Even if it's not a bannable offense, they should ban him anyway because he is intellectually inferior and deserves to be bullied so that he can adapt and become smarter.
We are of one mind, good sir '-'
Reason it took so long is I was trying to figure out how long his ban should be - I settled for perm, and he can come back with some other ID once he adapts.
On June 05 2011 15:36 travis wrote: I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
I don't think they are that stupid, they're just lost in their fantasy since they're probably pedophile.
On June 05 2011 15:30 travis wrote: dear god some serious stupidity is showing through in this thread
And whining about it is going to get things done.
TBH I think people like you are a bigger problem than the actual trolls.
Don't sit on your high horse telling us that we're stupid, come down and roll in the mud with us.
Anyways, I think what the mom did was right. If you did bring this to court it'd either end up as 1. the girls get off because they're girls, and makes the boy get a bad impression of justice or 2. the girls get a criminal record just because of a silly prank they pulled before they even got into high school. Plus all the extra time directed towards the event would just bring more pain to the boy. Even though it was a bit naive for the mother to assume that all of the girl's parents would be just as responsible as her, it was probably the best choice.
On June 05 2011 15:31 travis wrote: lol jaybee is so gonna get banned for being a troll/idiot. if not, im gonna be pissed
I'm pretty sure, back in the day, "being an idiot" was a bannable offense. Not quite sure now
Even if it's not a bannable offense, they should ban him anyway because he is intellectually inferior and deserves to be bullied so that he can adapt and become smarter.
We are of one mind, good sir '-'
Reason it took so long is I was trying to figure out how long his ban should be - I settled for perm, and he can come back with some other ID once he adapts.
gg lol.
hopefully the boy doesn't get continued to be bullied. don't want another bitter highschool gunman/
On June 05 2011 15:36 travis wrote: I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
I dunno if stupid is the word i'd use. Some people have some weird fantasies/fetishes, for example you can't say someone who is into urolagnia is less intelligent than someone who isn't.
Not to say that it is normal, natural, or even that it isn't. Simply that it has absolutely no correlation with intelligence.
For all you know, many men would be into that kind of thing.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I don't understand your outlook. There is more to life than being strong. It isn't like we're hunter-gatherers anymore. Really working out to be anything more than healthy has been relegated to the status of a hobby.
Intelligence should be more highly regarded in our (meaning American, I suppose) society, because intelligence is where most of the potential is.
My outlook is an application of evolution. If you don't believe in science then you will never believe me. Evolution didn't go anywhere it encompasses all life, always and forever.
You don't have to lecture me on evolution. But humans are a particular case in that we have no need to thin out the physically weak from our genome. We really need to be preserving the most mentally capable, because physical strength means next to nothing.
We don't fight wars with our bare hands. We don't chase our food on foot. We don't even have to carry heavy boxes if we don't need to. We have tools. And those tools are designed by those with the mental capacity to do so.
You obviously don't understand or else you wouldn't say what you just said. You don't get to decide what is best for the race, nature does. Emotions are strategy to guide your decision making. You still like large breasted woman with wide hips. Why is that? It is because it increases the chance of surviving labor. By hey look! we are C-sections now! Lets not date the pretty girls anymore lets all date the smart girls. If I could control my emotions I would be rolling around in bliss right now. But nope... I am here typing to you *sigh*. Disprove we don't follow evolution or emotions then I will reconsider your case.
You should reconsider the option of getting a vasectomy so that you can never have children and torture them like this poor boy has been tortured. I'd like to see you get assaulted by three individuals much stronger than you, and then refuse to press charges, telling yourself that you deserve it for being a weak human being. Yeah, that's realistic.
Here's a thought for you, genius. In "the jungle" which you seem to believe is perfectly analogous to our civilized society, when a member of a pack goes rogue and mistreats another member or compromises the livelihood of the pack, guess what happens? Sweet vengeance. If this tale were truly as evolutionarily correlated as your pinhead seems to believe, the mother of that child would take a shotgun to the chest of each of those three girls for messing with her boy. Do you think that's right, too? Of course it isn't. We live in a society which has been established for the safety of all its members, and that too is a part of nature. Perhaps inbreeding did not afford you the evolutionary trait of common sense, but most people see things differently.
Edit: Damn Jinro, I spent a lot of time typing that up.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues
what the FUUUUUUUCK does that mean
2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
I respectfully disagree. 13-14 year olds know pretty damn well that stripping a child down is FUCKED UP. They made need therapy too, but it's damn well clear that they're sex offenders.
On June 05 2011 15:30 travis wrote: dear god some serious stupidity is showing through in this thread
And whining about it is going to get things done.
TBH I think people like you are a bigger problem than the actual trolls.
Don't sit on your high horse telling us that we're stupid, come down and roll in the mud with us.
Anyways, I think what the mom did was right. If you did bring this to court it'd either end up as 1. the girls get off because they're girls, and makes the boy get a bad impression of justice or 2. the girls get a criminal record just because of a silly prank they pulled before they even got into high school. Plus all the extra time directed towards the event would just bring more pain to the boy. Even though it was a bit naive for the mother to assume that all of the girl's parents would be just as responsible as her, it was probably the best choice.
i don't think the girls would get off scotch free. society isn't that fucked up. if i were the boy i'd be glad that the girls are punished. if the girls weren't the boy would seriously be fucked up for life. 3 teenagers strip down a 11 year old boy and chicks aren't punished. he could seriously hate women for the rest of his life.
furthermore i'd like to reiterate the point that 3 guys stripping 1 chick down is charged differently. why is that? if it's just because that's the way it is then should women have lower wages/less rights as well? i'm all for equality, and i think if we want equality this shit should be punished.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Personally, I was interested in the opposite sex since I was 7. I only learned how to act on it around the age of 9. Looking back, I was perfectly okay being played around by girls, it only added to my fascination and interest. While the things that happened to me may have been more extreme for this kid, I still currently regard them as great memories and VERY educational experiences.
Relooking at the video, these guys did take it too far though. If it wasn't done in a public street and with a video camera, then it should be acceptable.
....
You have got to learn to differentiate between what is acceptable to YOU and to other people. To some people this would be traumatizing, to some people it would not.
Theres a reason bondage / s&m exists, but its done with permission from both parties involved, not with the S part of the equation randomly finding victims on the street - thats called rape.
While as pissed off as that made me, I liked the moms response. Parents, when they're doing their jobs right, will make the courts look like Shangri La wrapped in happy fun candy for shit like this.
Sadly, this is probably me just wishfully thinking about the mean level of parenting in the world T_T
God people, don't feed the trolls. It was pretty obvious when he started claiming himself a scientist LOL.
As for the news itself,well I think the mom did the right thing(no need to potentially ruin the lives of young people for stupid and horrible decisions), but yeah if the situation was reversed those guys would have been so screwed(and even then I don't think criminal charges would have been the best option)
*sigh* This is not an easy case and I don't think that asking for the parents to punish the girls will do much.I guess welcome to the 21st century? People now do random attacks and cruel things to show off on the internet?
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
If a person tried to argue that "real historical gender issues" meant that a woman should face court in a situation but a man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm. Quite frankly, I don't think looking to history is very useful here. Broad historical trends aren't so useful in examining individual cases because these isolated incidents are so narrow in focus
On June 05 2011 15:36 travis wrote: I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
Travis, we love you but this thread is now entirely composed of trolls. I'm going to step out while I can.
On June 05 2011 15:36 travis wrote: I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
I dunno if stupid is the word i'd use. Some people have some weird fantasies/fetishes, for example you can't say someone who is into urolagnia is less intelligent than someone who isn't.
Not to say that it is normal, natural, or even that it isn't. Simply that it has absolutely no correlation with intelligence.
For all you know, many men would be into that kind of thing.
/shrug
Mostly, its because people don't think the situation quite through.
Men think, "3 women stripping me? A foursome? FUCK YEAH!"
But they don't realise this: the situation is meant to be humiliating. And you can quite easily think of ways to make 3 women stripping a man be very, very humiliating.
On June 05 2011 15:48 Kimaker wrote: While as pissed off as that made me, I liked the moms response. Parents, when they're doing their jobs right, will make the courts look like Shangri La wrapped in happy fun candy for shit like this.
Sadly, this is probably me just wishfully thinking about the mean level of parenting in the world T_T
Parents that raised kids that fucked up arent likely to do much right, unfortunately -_-
Yes, its not always the parents fault but theres a decent chance that it is!
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues
2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
I respectfully disagree. 13-14 year olds know pretty damn well that stripping a child down is FUCKED UP. They made need therapy too, but it's damn well clear that they're sex offenders.
I dunno, the label shouldn't be attached to anyone at that young an age. Yeah they know it's probably bad but they, realistically, don't really understand HOW bad or why.
Yes, I would argue the same for males. They should be forced to get therapy. they really, really, really, shouldn't have to enter into a system that could label them for the rest of their lives....
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues
what the FUUUUUUUCK does that mean
2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
I respectfully disagree. 13-14 year olds know pretty damn well that stripping a child down is FUCKED UP. They made need therapy too, but it's damn well clear that they're sex offenders.
I dunno, the label shouldn't be attached to anyone at that young an age. Yeah they know it's probably bad but they, realistically, don't really understand HOW bad or why.
Yes, I would argue the same for males. They should be forced to get therapy. they really, really, really, shouldn't have to enter into a system that could label them for the rest of their lives....
While I agree that it's rough and it sucks that things work like that, the system isn't there so much as punishment, but rather as protection for everyone else (im not so sure how well that works though).
If I had a child, and my neighbors teenage kid had forcibly stripped another child, I would damn well want to know about it.
Is it bad that while this kid is screaming his lungs out, Id be fucking cheering. Well change the age of the girls abit like 6 years but still.
Idk its a weird thing. Because now pretty sure this kids gonna be gay when he grows up, or a pedophile for 14 year olds. Why cant boys understand that girls are awesome. I had a gf at 11....
On June 05 2011 15:48 Kimaker wrote: While as pissed off as that made me, I liked the moms response. Parents, when they're doing their jobs right, will make the courts look like Shangri La wrapped in happy fun candy for shit like this.
Sadly, this is probably me just wishfully thinking about the mean level of parenting in the world T_T
Parents that raised kids that fucked up arent likely to do much right, unfortunately -_-
Yes, its not always the parents fault but theres a decent chance that it is!
I agree. If you did your job as a parent, you would hope that your kid wouldn't be fucked up enough to strip down some kid three years younger on the side of the road and video tape it.
I would guesstimate at least one of the girls won't get more than a slap on the wrist from her parents.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Personally, I was interested in the opposite sex since I was 7. I only learned how to act on it around the age of 9. Looking back, I was perfectly okay being played around by girls, it only added to my fascination and interest. While the things that happened to me may have been more extreme for this kid, I still currently regard them as great memories and VERY educational experiences.
Relooking at the video, these guys did take it too far though. If it wasn't done in a public street and with a video camera, then it should be acceptable.
....
You have got to learn to differentiate between what is acceptable to YOU and to other people. To some people this would be traumatizing, to some people it would not.
Theres a reason bondage / s&m exists, but its done with permission from both parties involved, not with the S part of the equation randomly finding victims on the street - thats called rape.
No no no, I'm not taking about fetishes or whatever. I mean a 10 year old on average is mentally developed to understand there are going to be advances from the opposite sex, which are suppose to be the experiences that help kids develop their sexuality. There is also a reason kids aren't developed to have sex at that age, as a safeguard when things DO go wrong, like this.
Rape would be too strong of a charge, at the most a warning and punishment from parents, and their records wiped as long as they don't repeat any incidents of this nature.
On June 05 2011 15:52 RodrigoX wrote: Is it bad that while this kid is screaming his lungs out, Id be fucking cheering. Well change the age of the girls abit like 6 years but still.
Idk its a weird thing. Because now pretty sure this kids gonna be gay when he grows up, or a pedophile for 14 year olds. Why cant boys understand that girls are awesome. I had a gf at 11....
Wait what? I liked girls at a young age too (early elementary school), but what happened wasn't at some college frat party.
On June 05 2011 15:50 lololol wrote: The mother is the real criminal.
I honeslty don't believe that would help the situation. Pressing charges would bring the situation back to the fore front when there eventually would be the trial, and for a kid who just got finished being humiliated like that he probably gets it enough as it is.
A trial would just bring more heat to him, make people remind him more often. Hell, I bet he'd have kids talking about how he needed the court to fight his battles and how he got beat by a girl.
At that age the mob mentality is very strong, and critical thinking skills are still very early in development. Many kids are blunt, honest, and have nothing close to empathy. Plus, the amount of hell the parents could cause is imo worse than what the court would do. If anything, I bet they'd be fined and maybe given community service. Basically, mommy and daddy get to pay for nothing. I can guarantee you those girl are going to be doing a lot of chores, and lacking free time for awhile.
Home is where the heart is, but it is also where you are the most vulnerable... especially at that age.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues
what the FUUUUUUUCK does that mean
2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
I respectfully disagree. 13-14 year olds know pretty damn well that stripping a child down is FUCKED UP. They made need therapy too, but it's damn well clear that they're sex offenders.
I dunno, the label shouldn't be attached to anyone at that young an age. Yeah they know it's probably bad but they, realistically, don't really understand HOW bad or why.
Yes, I would argue the same for males. They should be forced to get therapy. they really, really, really, shouldn't have to enter into a system that could label them for the rest of their lives....
While I agree that it's rough and it sucks that things work like that, the system isn't there so much as punishment, but rather as protection for everyone else (im not so sure how well that works though).
If I had a child, and my neighbors teenage kid had forcibly stripped another child, I would damn well want to know about it.
I dunno how much protection it would give the kids. Yeah...sigh. I dunno. Maybe I'm too soft, but I feel like I've done a lot of stupid things too and I hope and am glad that I haven't been judged for them by the harshest means.
I think there are better ways to protect the boy, and the people around the girls basically, without harming them for permanent. (which is probably only the case if they have money actually...another tragedy I strongly object to.)
On June 05 2011 15:36 travis wrote: I love how people even dare to make this a sexual thing/age related. Do you guys actually think it would be fun to be forcibly stripped by 3 girls/women while filmed and then have it uploaded to youtube? Are you guys HONESTLY that stupid?
And to make it worse, I can guarandamntee that all of his classmates have seen the video, and I bet he gets shit for it every day.
The girls should be expelled at the very least. If this was 3 boys on 1 girl there would be so much outcry the boys would probably spend time in juvy along with many many charges. Equal crime requires equal punishment, regardless of who is committing it. There should be no use of double standards since every person has equal rights.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues
2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
I respectfully disagree. 13-14 year olds know pretty damn well that stripping a child down is FUCKED UP. They made need therapy too, but it's damn well clear that they're sex offenders.
1. well to put it bluntly, male-on-female violence (especially of a sexual nature) is much more prevalent historically than vice-versa; and in particular, we've only begun to socially confront the lopsided violence dynamic between the genders very recently in the developed world and are far from achieving any egalitarian equilibrium. "reversing the gender roles" and counterfactually making this an act of male-on-female violence triggers more concerns precisely because we are aware of that history and the historical forces that might precipitate such an act
2. what ethically justifiable role (e.g. from a human welfare perspective) does punitive justice serve in this scenario other than to make the internet feel better?
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Personally, I was interested in the opposite sex since I was 7. I only learned how to act on it around the age of 9. Looking back, I was perfectly okay being played around by girls, it only added to my fascination and interest. While the things that happened to me may have been more extreme for this kid, I still currently regard them as great memories and VERY educational experiences.
Relooking at the video, these guys did take it too far though. If it wasn't done in a public street and with a video camera, then it should be acceptable.
....
You have got to learn to differentiate between what is acceptable to YOU and to other people. To some people this would be traumatizing, to some people it would not.
Theres a reason bondage / s&m exists, but its done with permission from both parties involved, not with the S part of the equation randomly finding victims on the street - thats called rape.
No no no, I'm not taking about fetishes or whatever. I mean a 10 year old on average is mentally developed to understand there are going to be advances from the opposite sex, which are suppose to be the experiences that help kids develop their sexuality. There is also a reason kids aren't developed to have sex at that age, as a safeguard when things DO go wrong, like this.
Rape would be too strong of a charge, at the most a warning and punishment from parents, and their records wiped as long as they don't repeat any incidents of this nature.
Article says that the police says they can be charged with misdemeanor--a pretty minor charge.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
If a person tried to argue that "real historical gender issues" meant that a woman should face court in a situation but a man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm. Quite frankly, I don't think looking to history is very useful here. Broad historical trends aren't so useful in examining individual cases because these isolated incidents are so narrow in focus
to be quite frank literally 99% of what justice systems do is look at history
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Personally, I was interested in the opposite sex since I was 7. I only learned how to act on it around the age of 9. Looking back, I was perfectly okay being played around by girls, it only added to my fascination and interest. While the things that happened to me may have been more extreme for this kid, I still currently regard them as great memories and VERY educational experiences.
Relooking at the video, these guys did take it too far though. If it wasn't done in a public street and with a video camera, then it should be acceptable.
....
You have got to learn to differentiate between what is acceptable to YOU and to other people. To some people this would be traumatizing, to some people it would not.
Theres a reason bondage / s&m exists, but its done with permission from both parties involved, not with the S part of the equation randomly finding victims on the street - thats called rape.
No no no, I'm not taking about fetishes or whatever. I mean a 10 year old on average is mentally developed to understand there are going to be advances from the opposite sex, which are suppose to be the experiences that help kids develop their sexuality. There is also a reason kids aren't developed to have sex at that age, as a safeguard when things DO go wrong, like this.
Rape would be too strong of a charge, at the most a warning and punishment from parents, and their records wiped as long as they don't repeat any incidents of this nature.
You're not looking at this clearly if you think this was some kind of "advance" from the girls. They aren't attracted to this kid.. They saw a younger and weaker kid and decided to torment him.. there was nothing playful about it..
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
On June 05 2011 15:59 MethodSC wrote: The girls should be expelled at the very least. If this was 3 boys on 1 girl there would be so much outcry the boys would probably spend time in juvy along with many many charges. Equal crime requires equal punishment, regardless of who is committing it. There should be no use of double standards since every person has equal rights.
If they lived in Edmonton they would have been. According to the OP video, the school says they "can't charge them because it was off school property" but every fight ever found out about by the Edmonton Public Schoolboard has everyone fighting and anyone witnessing getting either an expulsion or heavy suspesions.
On the way to, on the way from, or in the midst of any potential school activity is under school jurisdiction as far as any bullying is concerned. I even know someone who got suspended for flaming someone else on facebook when I was in highschool.
On June 05 2011 15:05 ZiegFeld wrote: The only thing wrong with this was because it was done in public.
When I was 10, the same thing happened to me at the corner of an art classroom. 2 girls were pulling off my shorts, and while I did resist, it was only to make the whole situation a lot more playful and not allow it to escalate (as it was quite impossible anyways).
All he needed to do was go with it as well, girls are only truly violent when you give them reason to do so. In other words, this kid is the happiest brat on the block right now, even if he did put up the wrong resistance and get molested a little.
How is posting the video on youtube and clearly harassing this kid playful and not malicious?
Would any guy here at the age of 10, cared if a video of girls stripping you was put on Youtube? Other than it being a great childhood memory?
This isn't being molested by an uncle or sexually harassed 25 year old female teacher, these are kids of the same age coming to realize their sexuality.
Clearly you do not know what 10 year olds think about because while there might be an interest in the opposite sex, 10 years old is definitely not the age at which you start having sexual attractions like that.
I mean, for whatever age you are now, would you be okay with a video of you being forcibly stripped by girls being posted online? Imagine that they drugged you so you were physically incapable of resisting but were still completely conscious.
Personally, I was interested in the opposite sex since I was 7. I only learned how to act on it around the age of 9. Looking back, I was perfectly okay being played around by girls, it only added to my fascination and interest. While the things that happened to me may have been more extreme for this kid, I still currently regard them as great memories and VERY educational experiences.
Relooking at the video, these guys did take it too far though. If it wasn't done in a public street and with a video camera, then it should be acceptable.
....
You have got to learn to differentiate between what is acceptable to YOU and to other people. To some people this would be traumatizing, to some people it would not.
Theres a reason bondage / s&m exists, but its done with permission from both parties involved, not with the S part of the equation randomly finding victims on the street - thats called rape.
No no no, I'm not taking about fetishes or whatever.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues
what the FUUUUUUUCK does that mean
2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
I respectfully disagree. 13-14 year olds know pretty damn well that stripping a child down is FUCKED UP. They made need therapy too, but it's damn well clear that they're sex offenders.
I dunno, the label shouldn't be attached to anyone at that young an age. Yeah they know it's probably bad but they, realistically, don't really understand HOW bad or why.
Yes, I would argue the same for males. They should be forced to get therapy. they really, really, really, shouldn't have to enter into a system that could label them for the rest of their lives....
While I agree that it's rough and it sucks that things work like that, the system isn't there so much as punishment, but rather as protection for everyone else (im not so sure how well that works though).
If I had a child, and my neighbors teenage kid had forcibly stripped another child, I would damn well want to know about it.
i don't really want to start a discussion on sex crimes perpetrated by minors but the short version is that it's highly nonobvious that we handle them in a productive way in America. i can't fault any group of parents for wanting to avoid our justice system in the management of their children's health
On June 05 2011 15:59 MethodSC wrote: The girls should be expelled at the very least. If this was 3 boys on 1 girl there would be so much outcry the boys would probably spend time in juvy along with many many charges. Equal crime requires equal punishment, regardless of who is committing it. There should be no use of double standards since every person has equal rights.
If they lived in Edmonton they would have been. According to the OP video, the school says they "can't charge them because it was off school property" but every fight ever found out about by the Edmonton Public Schoolboard has everyone fighting and anyone witnessing getting either an expulsion or heavy suspesions.
On the way to, on the way from, or in the midst of any potential school activity is under school jurisdiction as far as any bullying is concerned. I even know someone who got suspended for flaming someone else on facebook.
It's like this in Winnipeg too, my friend was in a fight in grade 8 and about 40 people went to watch it (it was not on school property) and the people involved got suspended for a month and everybody who was found out to have watched (pretty easy because we were almost all people who paid for the lunch service shit at my school and didn't show up) had to do 2 hours community service.
Edit: considering how many people seem to think letting the "parents handle it" is a good idea i'm not going to start an argument. IMO a suspension at least should have been given to discourage future behavior.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
I'm having a hard time viewing this as anything but a minor crime and I'm glad the mom isn't pressing charges. A general negative community reaction let them know immediately that it was not alright. They won't be doing this again. That being said the greater damage is caused by the proliferation of the story on the internet. It reinforces the idea of "doing outrageous thing and posting it online makes you famous" and also damages the reputation of the 11 year old boy possibly forever. That is the real damage here. If he and his mother let's the whole thing slide it makes them look less vindictive. I'm not even convinced the boy really fought against the girls as hard as he could. He probably had a rush of mixed feeling being stripped naked by the girls and didn't think about the video footage(why would he?). It's really not that big of an event, no was was really hurt except this poor kids reputation. I'm surprised so many of you are irate about this. It's really kinda stupid imo.
The vast difference between girls pulling off the clothes of a boy and the opposite situation ( that some have been citing as sexism in the occurrence ) is this: Girls when they turn into women have a much lower rate of violent rape of men than visa versa. The pulling off of clothes is symbolic of rape and that's where the disconnection of perception lies imo.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
If a person tried to argue that "real historical gender issues" meant that a woman should face court in a situation but a man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm. Quite frankly, I don't think looking to history is very useful here. Broad historical trends aren't so useful in examining individual cases because these isolated incidents are so narrow in focus
to be quite frank literally 99% of what justice systems do is look at history
Looking at history and using broad historical trends and justification for harsher punishments for certain group are two very different things. Examining history is essential for understanding and interpreting the spirit of the law to be sure. However, in the context of individual cases applying broad trends is not acceptable or just precisely because these cases are of such a small scope.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
Why not? The kid is 10. I doubt you can garner anything sexual from it, and it basically boils down to 3 stronger people ripping off your clothes and ruining your life. It's not like 'oh, this is lulz, women are ripping my clothes off, awesome', it's a serious issue, the kid was being traumatized by these girls, and it's really no different then if the gender roles were reversed (if the situation was exactly the same, no sexual thing happening).
I sincerely hope you don't think that men don't have enough emotions to be more scared than girls, or that men can bottle up their emotions and eliminate them better than women, because that's just not true.
On June 05 2011 16:07 SolidZeal wrote:He probably had a rush of mixed feeling being stripped naked by the girls and didn't think about the video footage(why would he?).
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
Oh man that blew up in face real quick. I was typing a story of me being bullied and what I learned but when I finished I was banned. I understand your disgust of me, people have been conditioned against different ideas. The stupid troll accusation is the go to response of those without arguments. It is very McCarthyesque as its hard to prove your true intentions.
When Darwin proposed his origin of species he was confronted the same way. ' You are an idiot to believe we come from apes. Just look its obvious we aren't apes etc etc. ' Please learn from these events and realize that we all may be wrong, even if we are sure that we are right. The one difference between truth and lies is that truth likes to be tested. I think we owe it as an intellectual species to always question what we believe, so that we may better ourselves. I wasn't trying to put my ideas in your face i responded like every else did once then answered some questions.
Here is my reasoning please call me idiot, but also tell me what you disagree with. Bullying happens for a reason. The reason is evolutionary. (all social animals do it) Because it happens for a reason there is a way to avoid it. Instead of attacking the bullies it would be more practical to learn not how to bullied.
I never said it was right that they did that. I just said with him being that way is it of no surprise. You can ip ban me shortly after so i never ' troll' again. But I want my ideas to be tested too. If I am wrong I would like to know. Thank you.
On June 05 2011 15:59 MethodSC wrote: The girls should be expelled at the very least. If this was 3 boys on 1 girl there would be so much outcry the boys would probably spend time in juvy along with many many charges. Equal crime requires equal punishment, regardless of who is committing it. There should be no use of double standards since every person has equal rights.
If they lived in Edmonton they would have been. According to the OP video, the school says they "can't charge them because it was off school property" but every fight ever found out about by the Edmonton Public Schoolboard has everyone fighting and anyone witnessing getting either an expulsion or heavy suspesions.
On the way to, on the way from, or in the midst of any potential school activity is under school jurisdiction as far as any bullying is concerned. I even know someone who got suspended for flaming someone else on facebook.
It's like this in Winnipeg too, my friend was in a fight in grade 8 and about 40 people went to watch it (it was not on school property) and the people involved got suspended for a month and everybody who was found out to have watched (pretty easy because we were almost all people who paid for the lunch service shit at my school and didn't show up) had to do 2 hours community service.
I think Edmonton almost takes it too far. But I think the statistics are fairly good in that the amount of fighting in schools during the last five or so years has decreased dramatically. Lucky for me, I was in grade 9/10 when the school board started getting really heavy handed with these things. I actually fought a ton in my junior high years (7-9) which in my opinion really helped me grow as a person just through learning who I was.
I was actually suspended for a week in my grade 12 year for being in my schools cafeteria while a fight broke out. Apparently I was obligated to stop studying during my spare to intervene? I dunno...
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
People keep saying this, yet theres absolutely no evidence being presented for why it would be different...
On June 05 2011 16:04 Godstorm wrote: Expel the living shit out of them, make sure it stays on their permanent record so they can't ever get in a decent school. Also the mom should press charges, considering how the girls are acting like a bunch of under-developed monkeys i highly doubt their parents are competent at their job.
Yeah, I like the term monkeys. What's more mysterious to me is how these kids got to upload it at youtube (or how many time it took them) with that type of profile. Considering I've seen much more normal people wondering how to upload eg. a screenshot.
On June 05 2011 16:10 jaybee2 wrote: Oh man that blew up in face real quick. I was typing a story of me being bullied and what I learned but when I finished I was banned. I understand your disgust of me, people have been conditioned against different ideas. The stupid troll accusation is the go to response of those without arguments. It is very McCarthyesque as its hard to prove your true intentions.
When Darwin proposed his origin of species he was confronted the same way. ' You are an idiot to believe we come from apes. Just look its obvious we aren't apes etc etc. ' Please learn from these events and realize that we all may be wrong, even if we are sure that we are right. The one difference between truth and lies is that truth likes to be tested. I think we owe it as an intellectual species to always question what we believe, so that we may better ourselves. I wasn't trying to put my ideas in your face i responded like every else did once then answered some questions.
Here is my reasoning please call me idiot, but also tell me what you disagree with. Bullying happens for a reason. The reason is evolutionary. (all social animals do it) Because it happens for a reason there is a way to avoid it. Instead of attacking the bullies it would be more practical to learn not how to bullied.
I never said it was right that they did that. I just said with him being that way is it of no surprise. You can ip ban me shortly after so i never ' troll' again. But I want my ideas to be tested too. If I am wrong I would like to know. Thank you.
So there is a way to avoid being held down by 2 people larger than you? (completely ignoring the fact that they're girls, THEY ARE LARGER THAN HIM AS WELL AS STRONGER)
It's clearly that you have not yet evolved, hopefully you get banned(bullied) again and can continue to evolve.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
o.O
So, assuming you're not blowing smoke out your ass, do you have any source for this?
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
I'm assuming you went to one of those unaccredited universities in Wyoming where they teach you that the Earth is flat and bloodletting is a viable medical treatment?
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
If a person tried to argue that "real historical gender issues" meant that a woman should face court in a situation but a man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm. Quite frankly, I don't think looking to history is very useful here. Broad historical trends aren't so useful in examining individual cases because these isolated incidents are so narrow in focus
to be quite frank literally 99% of what justice systems do is look at history
Looking at history and using broad historical trends and justification for harsher punishments for certain group are two very different things. Examining history is essential for understanding and interpreting the spirit of the law to be sure. However, in the context of individual cases applying broad trends is not acceptable or just precisely because these cases are of such a small scope.
well there's two lines of thought that you're convoluting here and in previous posts
1. "if a person tried to argue that real historical gender issues meant that woman should face court in a situation but man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm." that's correct, it's fortunate then that I'm not that person, nor said anything that was obviously equivalent to this; if you feel otherwise you should point it out explicitly instead of implying it
2. "broad historical trends aren't so useful for examining individual cases..." maybe, but regardless of this it would be hard to argue that in cases of male-on-female sexual violence a court is not operating in the context of thousands of years of history of male-on-female sexual violence, which (not incorrectly) colours its perceptions. at any rate, my invocation of gender history was limited to how it would affect popular perception, and not specifically the judgement of a court body
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Once again, you're not really confronting the dirtier parts of your beliefs. If you answer in the positive to those, then sure your beliefs are consistent but certainly fucked up, otherwise you're just inconsistent and full of shit.
Refer to my earlier posts to see what I'm talking about.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
If a person tried to argue that "real historical gender issues" meant that a woman should face court in a situation but a man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm. Quite frankly, I don't think looking to history is very useful here. Broad historical trends aren't so useful in examining individual cases because these isolated incidents are so narrow in focus
to be quite frank literally 99% of what justice systems do is look at history
Looking at history and using broad historical trends and justification for harsher punishments for certain group are two very different things. Examining history is essential for understanding and interpreting the spirit of the law to be sure. However, in the context of individual cases applying broad trends is not acceptable or just precisely because these cases are of such a small scope.
well there's two lines of thought that you're convoluting here and in previous posts
1. "if a person tried to argue that real historical gender issues meant that woman should face court in a situation but man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm." that's correct, it's fortunate then that I'm not that person, nor said anything that was obviously equivalent to this; if you feel otherwise you should point it out explicitly instead of implying it
2. "broad historical trends aren't so useful for examining individual cases..." maybe, but regardless of this it would be hard to argue that in cases of male-on-female sexual violence a court is not operating in the context of thousands of years of history of male-on-female sexual violence, which (not incorrectly) colours its perceptions. at any rate, my invocation of gender history was limited to how it would affect popular perception, and not specifically the judgement of a court body
1)Wasn't trying to imply anything of the sort 2)I see, I understand a little better where you are coming from then. My understanding was that you were discussing what is just, not public perception
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
On June 05 2011 16:19 Dusty1337 wrote: This is why I hate Florida..
What is that supposed to mean at all?
I mean, hating Florida because 3 stupid 8th grade girls live there really does not make sense. I feel like you are just trying to flame Florida for no reason. this is kinda supposed to be a discussion about the "rape" of that boy.
This thread seems to be divided between writing this off as a stupid prank gone too far and pressing charges in pursuit of a ridiculously severe punishment: juvi, sex offendor registry, expulsion, etc. I believe that neither side is correct. If you write it off as a prank then the girls don't learn a lesson because you're essentially making an excuse for them with the old "kids will be kids.." However, there is also no need to try to ruin their lives for what they probably thought was just some playground antics..
Imo the best solution/punishment is to make these girls realize what they did and force them to feel shame/regret for it. They should be forced to meet with school officials and have a long sit down with their parents present, forced to attend some counselling, etc. It's extremely embarrassing to have to put on your best clothes and go into a room full of adults including your parents and explain why you stripped an 11 year old boy, with the room dead silent and everyone looking at you like you're a rapist. I heard about this story from another site before this one so it has seemingly gone viral and that's pretty good justice in itself. When these girls go out in public and start getting glares and here people whispering about them they will probably feel the same humiliation that that boy felt and hopefully that will allow them to empathize with the kid and teach them that what they did was wrong.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
Yea dude im fucking pissed off so badly right now. Might as well have raped the poor kid, but i guess its ok because theyre girls. Fucking mysandristic society makes me so mad. Its the reason im moving away from america as soon as i finish school. I cant stand the double standards
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
How about you actually clear up what your view as a whole is so we can determine if you're inconsistent or idiotic...
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Your own idea is flawed. I was a bully in elementary school, I didn't bully people because they were weak I bullied them because of where they were from, if they were different, or even just because they got a better lunch than me one day.
On June 05 2011 16:10 jaybee2 wrote: Oh man that blew up in face real quick. I was typing a story of me being bullied and what I learned but when I finished I was banned. I understand your disgust of me, people have been conditioned against different ideas. The stupid troll accusation is the go to response of those without arguments. It is very McCarthyesque as its hard to prove your true intentions.
When Darwin proposed his origin of species he was confronted the same way. ' You are an idiot to believe we come from apes. Just look its obvious we aren't apes etc etc. ' Please learn from these events and realize that we all may be wrong, even if we are sure that we are right. The one difference between truth and lies is that truth likes to be tested. I think we owe it as an intellectual species to always question what we believe, so that we may better ourselves. I wasn't trying to put my ideas in your face i responded like every else did once then answered some questions.
Here is my reasoning please call me idiot, but also tell me what you disagree with. Bullying happens for a reason. The reason is evolutionary. (all social animals do it) Because it happens for a reason there is a way to avoid it. Instead of attacking the bullies it would be more practical to learn not how to bullied.
I never said it was right that they did that. I just said with him being that way is it of no surprise. You can ip ban me shortly after so i never ' troll' again. But I want my ideas to be tested too. If I am wrong I would like to know. Thank you.
At no point during your previous posts did you make it obvious that you thought what happened was wrong, nor did you frame your posts in what would be considered an acceptable way - rather you called the kid 'pathetic'.
Also, your post about how it would never have happened to a popular 5th grader... I dont know how the US school system works, but as a 14 year old I had 0 contact with any 10 year olds, because we didnt go to the same school, so how the hell would they know whether hes popular or not? This is completely disregarding the fact that it should have no bearing on whether or not this should happen, I am simply pointing out that what you seem to think would be a good defense against this type of stuff, would be completely moot if they did not know their victim.
Yes, you are getting banned again.
On June 05 2011 16:22 BlackJack wrote: This thread seems to be divided between writing this off as a stupid prank gone too far and pressing charges in pursuit of a ridiculously severe punishment: juvi, sex offendor registry, expulsion, etc. I believe that neither side is correct. If you write it off as a prank then the girls don't learn a lesson because you're essentially making an excuse for them with the old "kids will be kids.." However, there is also no need to try to ruin their lives for what they probably thought was just some playground antics..
Imo the best solution/punishment is to make these girls realize what they did and force them to feel shame/regret for it. They should be forced to meet with school officials and have a long sit down with their parents present, forced to attend some counselling, etc. It's extremely embarrassing to have to put on your best clothes and go into a room full of adults including your parents and explain why you stripped an 11 year old boy, with the room dead silent and everyone looking at you like you're a rapist. I heard about this story from another site before this one so it has seemingly gone viral and that's pretty good justice in itself. When these girls go out in public and start getting glares and here people whispering about them they will probably feel the same humiliation that that boy felt and hopefully that will allow them to empathize with the kid and teach them that what they did was wrong.
I agree with this (although if it happened to me personally I would have 100% sought personal revenge).
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
T ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Please help us rid this world of people like you and stop breeding. You're going of the notion that every man wants every woman.. i would be very traumatized if a fat chick tried to even hint the notion of my clothing removal.
The girls should have had rape charges, and the mom should have taken action. It's like saying slavery wouldn't have been wrong if the blacks controlled the whites. or vice versa. (i'm white) both sides are wrong, just like both SEXES are capable of rape and this to EITHER SEX should be punished.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Totally agree with you Phyre. If 3 boys did this to a girl, there would be chaos on the 24 hour news networks. This dumb mother is fueling the gender constructions we have placed on males and females and she should be ashamed as a mother for not pressing charges and possibly have her boy taken away from her. You do not allow your child to be violated like that and then maintain yourself as his guardian.
On June 05 2011 16:10 jaybee2 wrote: Oh man that blew up in face real quick. I was typing a story of me being bullied and what I learned but when I finished I was banned. I understand your disgust of me, people have been conditioned against different ideas. The stupid troll accusation is the go to response of those without arguments. It is very McCarthyesque as its hard to prove your true intentions.
When Darwin proposed his origin of species he was confronted the same way. ' You are an idiot to believe we come from apes. Just look its obvious we aren't apes etc etc. ' Please learn from these events and realize that we all may be wrong, even if we are sure that we are right. The one difference between truth and lies is that truth likes to be tested. I think we owe it as an intellectual species to always question what we believe, so that we may better ourselves. I wasn't trying to put my ideas in your face i responded like every else did once then answered some questions.
Here is my reasoning please call me idiot, but also tell me what you disagree with. Bullying happens for a reason. The reason is evolutionary. (all social animals do it) Because it happens for a reason there is a way to avoid it. Instead of attacking the bullies it would be more practical to learn not how to bullied.
I never said it was right that they did that. I just said with him being that way is it of no surprise. You can ip ban me shortly after so i never ' troll' again. But I want my ideas to be tested too. If I am wrong I would like to know. Thank you.
At no point during your previous posts did you make it obvious that you thought what happened was wrong, nor did you frame your posts in what would be considered an acceptable way - rather you called the kid 'pathetic'.
Also, your post about how it would never have happened to a popular 5th grader... I dont know how the US school system works, but as a 14 year old I had 0 contact with any 10 year olds, because we didnt go to the same school, so how the hell would they know whether hes popular or not? This is completely disregarding the fact that it should have no bearing on whether or not this should happen, I am simply pointing out that what you seem to think would be a good defense against this type of stuff, would be completely moot if they did not know their victim.
On June 05 2011 16:22 BlackJack wrote: This thread seems to be divided between writing this off as a stupid prank gone too far and pressing charges in pursuit of a ridiculously severe punishment: juvi, sex offendor registry, expulsion, etc. I believe that neither side is correct. If you write it off as a prank then the girls don't learn a lesson because you're essentially making an excuse for them with the old "kids will be kids.." However, there is also no need to try to ruin their lives for what they probably thought was just some playground antics..
Imo the best solution/punishment is to make these girls realize what they did and force them to feel shame/regret for it. They should be forced to meet with school officials and have a long sit down with their parents present, forced to attend some counselling, etc. It's extremely embarrassing to have to put on your best clothes and go into a room full of adults including your parents and explain why you stripped an 11 year old boy, with the room dead silent and everyone looking at you like you're a rapist. I heard about this story from another site before this one so it has seemingly gone viral and that's pretty good justice in itself. When these girls go out in public and start getting glares and here people whispering about them they will probably feel the same humiliation that that boy felt and hopefully that will allow them to empathize with the kid and teach them that what they did was wrong.
I agree with this (although if it happened to me personally I would have 100% sought personal revenge).
Give him a few minutes first though, I want to see his response to my experiences as a bully.
I am going to be frank - if that happened to my son, I'd would sue the hell out of those girls and their family.
Battery charges. Molestation charges. Producing and distributing child pornography. Send these girls to rot and maybe cases like this stop happening. Seems to me like someone (an adult) really needs to make an aggressive stand towards this type of "molestive" bullying.
Gender shouldn't matter - though as post above point out, it clearly does. And that is a shame. Defenders of equal gender rights (a stance I support) should jump on this. If woman on man rape (I realize that the case in question here didn't exactly escalate that far) isn't treat with the same authority and prosecution that "man on woman" rape is... Well, it makes it hard for me to want to continue to support equal rights at all.
PS Was it just me (and this may have been pointed out), or did the mother seemed stoned as sin?
Also ... that SCHOOL is just as stupid ... Who cares if it is off school property. Schools get involved all the time in things that happen off of the property. I don't see why they wouldn't in this instance.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
So this case is not an example of evolution selecting the boy out as inferior, as you make it out to be. But instead this case is an example of evolution selecting those 3 girls as inferior. Natural selection will take care of them more than anything the mother or the police can do about it.
On June 05 2011 15:25 Daimiru wrote: also, fyi: the 4chan /b/ "if the genders were reversed..." logic is actually pretty misogynist, or at the least fairly ignorant of gender history; there are lots of relevant reasons one might express greater concern if this were 4 older boys and a young girl. having said that, one lesson to take from that is that we apply sex offender status to freely to minors in America.
We apply criminal punishment too freely in general in the USA and if you try and change it the masses go: SOFT ON CRIMEEEEE!!!!! EVIIIIIIIILNESSS
yeah exactly, given how many people we put in prison vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world how messed up is that the internet would latch on to some news cycle interest piece and be like WHY AREN'T THESE MINORS IN PRISON?!
If it was 13-14 year old boys stripping down an 11 year old girl every single person here(except the most obvious of trolls) would be screaming it should be taken to court.
1. yes, because that would actually be different in the context of real historical gender issues 2. but i wouldn't if I thought the court system was going to deliver the boys sex offender status instead of therapy, which is what would be actually needed in such a case
If a person tried to argue that "real historical gender issues" meant that a woman should face court in a situation but a man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm. Quite frankly, I don't think looking to history is very useful here. Broad historical trends aren't so useful in examining individual cases because these isolated incidents are so narrow in focus
to be quite frank literally 99% of what justice systems do is look at history
Looking at history and using broad historical trends and justification for harsher punishments for certain group are two very different things. Examining history is essential for understanding and interpreting the spirit of the law to be sure. However, in the context of individual cases applying broad trends is not acceptable or just precisely because these cases are of such a small scope.
well there's two lines of thought that you're convoluting here and in previous posts
1. "if a person tried to argue that real historical gender issues meant that woman should face court in a situation but man shouldn't, that person would be buried in a media shitstorm." that's correct, it's fortunate then that I'm not that person, nor said anything that was obviously equivalent to this; if you feel otherwise you should point it out explicitly instead of implying it
2. "broad historical trends aren't so useful for examining individual cases..." maybe, but regardless of this it would be hard to argue that in cases of male-on-female sexual violence a court is not operating in the context of thousands of years of history of male-on-female sexual violence, which (not incorrectly) colours its perceptions. at any rate, my invocation of gender history was limited to how it would affect popular perception, and not specifically the judgement of a court body
1)Wasn't trying to imply anything of the sort 2)I see, I understand a little better where you are coming from then. My understanding was that you were discussing what is just, not public perception
it's my bad really for being confusing, we're cool
gender reversal is an interesting counterfactual exercise but it must be understood that a lot of its "gut impact" comes from invoking and manipulating historical gender dynamics (such as male sexual violence) that actually did and do exist and that we are only barely beginning to escape from
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Please help us rid this world of people like you and stop breeding. You're going of the notion that every man wants every woman.. i would be very traumatized if a fat chick tried to even hint the notion of my clothing removal.
Dude it doesnt even matter if its less tramautic the crimes are the same its just america is the land where women run everything so somehow this is sexual assault is okay
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
Best comment ever :D I agree from an ethical perspective. But tbh I would have had a problem with this if it were 3 boys that did that to a girl, but 3 girls doing it to a boy just doesn't strike me as something that terrible.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Please help us rid this world of people like you and stop breeding. You're going of the notion that every man wants every woman.. i would be very traumatized if a fat chick tried to even hint the notion of my clothing removal.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
This is a part of the reason WHY he will be traumatized, I don't know about you but when I was in elementary school the girls were considered weak, and a guy losing ANYTHING to one of them was going to get them bullied. If a guy had been beat up by a girl, or something like this had happened, he would be the laughing stock of the school.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
T ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Please help us rid this world of people like you and stop breeding. You're going of the notion that every man wants every woman.. i would be very traumatized if a fat chick tried to even hint the notion of my clothing removal.
The girls should have had rape charges, and the mom should have taken action. It's like saying slavery wouldn't have been wrong if the blacks controlled the whites. or vice versa. (i'm white) both sides are wrong, just like both SEXES are capable of rape and this to EITHER SEX should be punished.
i'm not going by the notion that every man wants every woman, i'm going by the notion that society views men as strong and women as weak. like it or not, those gender values are at least partly ingrained in everyone who's a part of this society
Wow, I'm really surprised by the animosity towards the boy's parent. I think she responded appropriately, and it wasn't simply because it was her son rather than her daughter (as many TLers are implying). From her statement, you can clearly tell that she thought it was wrong. The implication I got was that she didn't want to use the legal system to teach responsibility and right/wrong, but rather, she thought it should be something taught by parents. I think the response of a lot of TLers wanting to sue, calling for jailtime, etc is way overblown. This over reliance on a legalist society takes the responsibility of right/wrong from the individuals and instead puts the responsibility on the legal system. And in my opinion, this is absolutely the wrong path to go down, as a society.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
This is a part of the reason WHY he will be traumatized, I don't know about you but when I was in elementary school the girls were considered weak, and a guy losing ANYTHING to one of them was going to get them bullied. If a guy had been beat up by a girl, or something like this had happened, he would be the laughing stock of the school.
Exactly. Ten bucks says he has some stupid cheesy nickname.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
No, intelligence is not a superior evolutionary trait. Intelligent people have less children. Hence, intelligence is selected AGAINST. Bullies, on the other hand, ...
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
I think your logic is flawed and you're not really sourcing any information to help me understand why you think this is the case.
If a man is stripped against his or raped will in a "patriarchal society that views women as weak" then wouldn't that be more humiliating and traumatic? It would be incredibly emasculating on top of everything else. This can go both ways and I don't think you're very convincing as to why it would be less traumatic for a man.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
This is a part of the reason WHY he will be traumatized, I don't know about you but when I was in elementary school the girls were considered weak, and a guy losing ANYTHING to one of them was going to get them bullied. If a guy had been beat up by a girl, or something like this had happened, he would be the laughing stock of the school.
How is that different from any of the crueller bullying that other kids go through? I'm not saying it's right, but it's not comparable to 3 guys stripping a girl because there is way more sexual dominance behind that, and that is way more traumatizing.
I feel really bad for the kid. The article I read was off their local fox news I think and when I read it, the lawyer (female) and the police said it was a prank and that there *might be* enough to press charges. Now apparently the word got out and now the mom doesn't even want to.
No one wants to stick up for the kid or punish the girls for doing something horribly wrong. It's all fucking disgusting and at the risk of sounding like an ass the whole thing screams sexism. If no one's gonna do anything I hope the kid holds onto the grudge and pops them in the face after he's hit puberty. Yes, I just said I support this kid beating these chicks up. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if your mother won't help you, the police and school won't help you...might as well do it yourself.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
So this case is not an example of evolution selecting the boy out as inferior, as you make it out to be. But instead this case is an example of evolution selecting those 3 girls as inferior. Natural selection will take care of them more than anything the mother or the police can do about it.
Ah an argument worth responding. It is no use however i keep getting banned. I keep on getting bullied around here. Ironic, isnt it?
The argument that we don't follow evolution is a common, but false one. Our emotions are reflections of that. These strategies have been in use since before humans even existed. Just because you believe humans would be better a certain way doesn't make it true. Even a genius who never procreated would be deemed a failure by nature.
I ask you the question then. Why is it we go for women with large breasts and wide hips? It is because they have a better chance of surviving labor. Even though we have c-section technology this is still the case. We should be going for rich, smart woman right? Well it doesn't work that way. Things take time to change and they also take death. If it is the case than smart = sexy but it has been but a second in the grand scheme of things.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
This is a part of the reason WHY he will be traumatized, I don't know about you but when I was in elementary school the girls were considered weak, and a guy losing ANYTHING to one of them was going to get them bullied. If a guy had been beat up by a girl, or something like this had happened, he would be the laughing stock of the school.
How is that different from any of the crueller bullying that other kids go through? I'm not saying it's right, but it's not comparable to 3 guys stripping a girl because there is way more sexual dominance behind that, and that is way more traumatizing.
You're hopeless, you won't listen to reason and you're blinded by the feminism that is displayed all the time. I don't even know what to say to you anymore because you deflect it all back to the same argument with no proof and no reasoning, just stating that women would be more traumatized. I have a friend who was raped by a girl at a party when we were 17, the girl was not his type I'm sure you know what I mean.
He is now gay, not because he was gay at first (he had multiple girlfriends before and after), but whenever his relationship with a girl gets to the point where it's going to get sexual he can't go into it because his thoughts always drift back to his rape. I'd say that's pretty traumatized.
First of all, this has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection works on an individual level, yes, but it also works on a societal (and genetic level) as well. By simply stating that he wasn't strong enough to fight off 3 post-pubescent girls while he himself was prepubescent (lol?) we must completely ignore why the human race was successful; because we look after others to a large extent.
I don't think the girls should be placed on the sex offenders registry, (due to the complete non-discrimination of severity of crimes) due to their age, but they definitely should be appropriately punished via expulsion or other means. I sort of agree with the mother's actions, but I also don't know whether it should be completely her choice. I, personally, would suggest a psychiatrist to look at the potential effects of issue, and force the state to press charges if there is a significant chance of the kid developing PTSD or any related syndromes.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
So this case is not an example of evolution selecting the boy out as inferior, as you make it out to be. But instead this case is an example of evolution selecting those 3 girls as inferior. Natural selection will take care of them more than anything the mother or the police can do about it.
Ah an argument worth responding. It is no use however i keep getting banned. I keep on getting bullied around here. Ironic, isnt it?
The argument that we don't follow evolution is a common, but false one. Our emotions are reflections of that. These strategies have been in use since before humans even existed. Just because you believe humans would be better a certain way doesn't make it true. Even a genius who never procreated would be deemed a failure by nature.
I ask you the question then. Why is it we go for women with large breasts and wide hips? It is because they have a better chance of surviving labor. Even though we have c-section technology this is still the case. We should be going for rich, smart woman right? Well it doesn't work that way. Things take time to change and they also take death. If it is the case than smart = sexy but it has been but a second in the grand scheme of things.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Your own idea is flawed. I was a bully in elementary school, I didn't bully people because they were weak I bullied them because of where they were from, if they were different, or even just because they got a better lunch than me one day.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
No, intelligence is not a superior evolutionary trait. Intelligent people have less children. Hence, intelligence is selected AGAINST. Bullies, on the other hand, ...
Can't say I like it, but its the truth.
You watched Idiocracy, didn't you mate? Yes, there is some evidence that less intelligent people have more children than more intelligent people, but are you saying stupid people are all bullies? That's obviously not true. And besides, it doesn't matter how much progeny you have, evolution doesn't work that way. It's based on how much progeny pass their genes on to the next generation. People with higher intelligence generally have higher living conditions, so so they may have less children, but those children have a higher chance to survive than the progeny of less intelligent people.
Also, you've assumed that less intelligent people will always have less intelligent kids. That is mostly true, due to socio-economic conditions, but there are plenty of exceptions.
EDIT: You've also assumed that all bullies are dumb. All bullies are cruel, but not all are retarded. There are some very smart bullies, which we on the internet call 'elitists'.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
So this case is not an example of evolution selecting the boy out as inferior, as you make it out to be. But instead this case is an example of evolution selecting those 3 girls as inferior. Natural selection will take care of them more than anything the mother or the police can do about it.
Ah an argument worth responding. It is no use however i keep getting banned. I keep on getting bullied around here. Ironic, isnt it?
The argument that we don't follow evolution is a common, but false one. Our emotions are reflections of that. These strategies have been in use since before humans even existed. Just because you believe humans would be better a certain way doesn't make it true. Even a genius who never procreated would be deemed a failure by nature.
I ask you the question then. Why is it we go for women with large breasts and wide hips? It is because they have a better chance of surviving labor. Even though we have c-section technology this is still the case. We should be going for rich, smart woman right? Well it doesn't work that way. Things take time to change and they also take death. If it is the case than smart = sexy but it has been but a second in the grand scheme of things.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
So this case is not an example of evolution selecting the boy out as inferior, as you make it out to be. But instead this case is an example of evolution selecting those 3 girls as inferior. Natural selection will take care of them more than anything the mother or the police can do about it.
Ah an argument worth responding. It is no use however i keep getting banned. I keep on getting bullied around here. Ironic, isnt it?
The argument that we don't follow evolution is a common, but false one. Our emotions are reflections of that. These strategies have been in use since before humans even existed. Just because you believe humans would be better a certain way doesn't make it true. Even a genius who never procreated would be deemed a failure by nature.
I ask you the question then. Why is it we go for women with large breasts and wide hips? It is because they have a better chance of surviving labor. Even though we have c-section technology this is still the case. We should be going for rich, smart woman right? Well it doesn't work that way. Things take time to change and they also take death. If it is the case than smart = sexy but it has been but a second in the grand scheme of things.
You don't even understand Natural Selection yet you're using Social Darwinism to justify the girl's actions. Taking your example of "going for rich, smart woman." No, we won't go for rich, smart woman as time goes on because not going for them would not endanger our species survival. Those that mate with dumb, poor women can continue the human race just as well as those that mate with rich, smart women.
Understand Natural Selection on the biological level being applying it to morality and society.
Sad story, agree with all the 'if genders were swapped, some serious outcry' And now there's a verbal fight that probably has nothing to do with anything ^
This is why in Canada, you have no choice in the matter when it comes to pressing charges or not. Once police are notified, it is up to them and the Crown alone to decide whether or not to press charges.
Whether people believe it is 'right' to press charges or not, the bottom line is they totally would have if it were boys... and to not do it here, is telling girls its ok to break the law because they are girls, and its telling boys that sexism is ok.
Women faught for many years last century to gain the right to vote, and any and all legal rights a man has... We need to stop viewing them as different, and charge those brats.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
This is a boy who has not yet reached puberty, he has no sexual desires towards these girls and certainly doesn't have some rape fantasy. I guarantee you this will mentally scar him, not just because of the fact that he was essentially raped, but also because everybody who was outside that day, as well as everybody who saw the video on the girl's phone, everybody who saw the video on youtube and everybody who heard about the story is going to be making fun of him until he gets out of highschool and that's a traumatic experience in itself.
yea, but that's no different than being bullied which occurs all the time.
what the boy experienced was no different than any other bullying experience, but what a girl experiences if she's forcibly stripped by 3 boys would be much more traumatizing than mere bullying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's these kind of statements that ruin this world. This is NOT bullying, this is RAPE regardless of how you look at it. Guess what guys can be raped too, regardless of what you think.
I don't know about you, but before puberty, I would've been extremely traumatized by girls even looking at my penis, let alone showing it to the whole school. The video the posted on youtube? It's child pornography, whether you agree or not. It is child pornography. Even disregarding that, the boy clearly was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in, he was squirming to get away, but the two larger girls held him down.
How is this any different than a girl being held down by 2 larger guys and having her clothes forcibly removed? And don't just say "well, she's a girl" or anything to that idea. THAT is sexism.
i think your type of viewpoint is common in this thread and its a simplified way of looking at things
It's not sexism to say that due to the gender constructs formed by this society, men and women react to things differently.
rape, actual rape(this news story was not rape) of an adult woman forcing herself on an adult man is MUCH less traumatizing to the victim than if the gender role is reversed.
Just because something is less common and men who are raped are less vocal does not mean that the effects are any lesser.
Before a man begins to get testosterone pumped in his body during puberty they are not much different from women before they get estrogen flowing throughout them.
We live in a patriarchal society that views women as weak and harmless and puts them on a sexual pedestal.
because of that, I just don't think this kid will be as affected by this situation then if the genders were reversed. Because he has learned, or will learn, the way this society views men and women and he simply won't feel bad about being stripped by girls. he might feel like anyone would feel after being bullied right now, but when he grows up, he's not going to lose any sleep over it.
This is a part of the reason WHY he will be traumatized, I don't know about you but when I was in elementary school the girls were considered weak, and a guy losing ANYTHING to one of them was going to get them bullied. If a guy had been beat up by a girl, or something like this had happened, he would be the laughing stock of the school.
How is that different from any of the crueller bullying that other kids go through? I'm not saying it's right, but it's not comparable to 3 guys stripping a girl because there is way more sexual dominance behind that, and that is way more traumatizing.
Refer to earlier post, I don't think this is the case and I don't think you've established why this would be the case.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
So this case is not an example of evolution selecting the boy out as inferior, as you make it out to be. But instead this case is an example of evolution selecting those 3 girls as inferior. Natural selection will take care of them more than anything the mother or the police can do about it.
The argument that we don't follow evolution is a common, but false one. Our emotions are reflections of that. These strategies have been in use since before humans even existed. Just because you believe humans would be better a certain way doesn't make it true. Even a genius who never procreated would be deemed a failure by nature.
You completely misunderstood everything I wrote. We do follow evolution. But the traits that get naturally selected changes from one species to another and one habitat to another. For dogs the stronger bullying the weak would get selected. For humans, the smarter get selected more often than the stronger. Just as the study I linked showed you. Sexy women as you mentioned, have higher chance than being selected as well. But beauty and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. The intelligent, both men and women, have higher chance than success than the dumb.
Dumb people gets rejected by society. And have less chance of passing their genes forward. Thats natural selection. As detailed by the research I posted.
In other words. You getting re-banned is just an example of natural selection in modern human society ;P
I'm sure the boy had some say in his mom's decision, he already looks bad enough he doesn't wanna be labeled as the kid who not only got owned by girls but retaliated against them through the law. And secondly, I'm pretty sure the DA will probably pick up the charges.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
No, intelligence is not a superior evolutionary trait. Intelligent people have less children. Hence, intelligence is selected AGAINST. Bullies, on the other hand, ...
Can't say I like it, but its the truth.
You watched Idiocracy, didn't you mate? Yes, there is some evidence that less intelligent people have more children than more intelligent people, but are you saying stupid people are all bullies? That's obviously not true. And besides, it doesn't matter how much progeny you have, evolution doesn't work that way. It's based on how much progeny pass their genes on to the next generation. People with higher intelligence generally have higher living conditions, so so they may have less children, but those children have a higher chance to survive than the progeny of less intelligent people.
Also, you've assumed that less intelligent people will always have less intelligent kids. That is mostly true, due to socio-economic conditions, but there are plenty of exceptions.
No, I have never watched Idiocracy, though I have heard of the movie. No, I'm not saying that stupid people are all bullies. I'm not an idiot. >.< I'm saying that bullies have traits that lead to an increased likelyhood of having more children than non-bullies. Well, it does matter how many children you have. In the western world, the difference in survival rates between rich and poor children to reproductive age (not including war) is essentially negligible. Hence, the raw birth rate in the demographic group is the most relevant factor.
Besides, it doesn't matter how good your children are at surviving, if you and they reproduce at below replacement levels. (aka, university educated couples having only one child, for the good of the environment, or childless women in general. And voluntary childlessness is almost exclusively the domain of college educated women.)
Of course there are exceptions. Keep in mind that intelligence is significantly genetic though (I'm pretty sure that this has been confirmed with identical twin studies, the gold standard in the nurture vs nature debates. (((Its both, of course))).)
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is so blatantly true. Damnit.
When will these double standards get thrown out? -.- Either don't punish either sex or punish both equally. I thought feminism was all about equality for both genders, but I keep seeing that if females get a better treatment than guys do in simular situations, you won't hear them preaching for equality.
On June 05 2011 17:01 KimJongChill wrote: Double standards....this would be so much worse if the genders were reversed, and for some reason, even I think it seems so much worse as well...
Not even genders reversed. Three 14 year old guys and the 11 yearold guy, they are all screwed. Three 14 yearold girls, and an 11 yearold girl, they are screwed.
do you guys think Child protective services and other organizations/groups would be able to get a handle on this even if the mother doesn't press charges?
this whole thing makes me so sick T_T I feel so bad for the boy. I really dont understand what the mother hopes to gain out of this.
Seeing the news clip is fucked up, they kept showing the girls pulling down his shorts over and over and over. So unnecessary, I felt like I was watching some fucked up child rape porn or something, even though it was all blurred out.
How is it a prank when the kid is crying and screaming and pleading? What the fuck?
I think the mother was correct in not pressing charges, why ruin 3 little girls lives? it was a mistake due to their lack of judgment. they probably could have even been brought down on child pornography charges for posting it on the internet if girls posting under aged pic of themselves can.
On June 05 2011 16:22 BlackJack wrote: This thread seems to be divided between writing this off as a stupid prank gone too far and pressing charges in pursuit of a ridiculously severe punishment: juvi, sex offendor registry, expulsion, etc. I believe that neither side is correct. If you write it off as a prank then the girls don't learn a lesson because you're essentially making an excuse for them with the old "kids will be kids.." However, there is also no need to try to ruin their lives for what they probably thought was just some playground antics..
Imo the best solution/punishment is to make these girls realize what they did and force them to feel shame/regret for it. They should be forced to meet with school officials and have a long sit down with their parents present, forced to attend some counselling, etc. It's extremely embarrassing to have to put on your best clothes and go into a room full of adults including your parents and explain why you stripped an 11 year old boy, with the room dead silent and everyone looking at you like you're a rapist. I heard about this story from another site before this one so it has seemingly gone viral and that's pretty good justice in itself. When these girls go out in public and start getting glares and here people whispering about them they will probably feel the same humiliation that that boy felt and hopefully that will allow them to empathize with the kid and teach them that what they did was wrong.
I agree with this (although if it happened to me personally I would have 100% sought personal revenge).
One reason I find it hard to believe it's only playground antics is that they went so far as putting it on youtube but ok lets go with that. The real sad thing here is that he will never forget this, news, school mates and youtube will make sure of this. There is a real good chance that if he is now scarred for life he will just end up growing up to be a rapist/murderer.
I know it's kinda far fetched but like Jinro said, if this would happen to me I would be so angry and wanting revenge but at the age of 11 I can't really get it so the kid will go through his school years thinking about. When he is old/strong enough we just might see him in news again, this time not in the victims seat.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
can we make a facebook page to get publicity and attention to this double standard and have this made as an example that any gender are not going to be an exception to the laws?
This is ridiculous... females are more equal than males huh? That parent is an idiot for not pressing charges, if this was a 11 year old girl getting attacked like this they would go to prison
On June 05 2011 17:21 Maliris wrote: This is ridiculous... females are more equal than males huh? That parent is an idiot for not pressing charges, if this was a 11 year old girl getting attacked like this they would go to prison
Or at least juvenile detention centers, but those are about 95% males (made up statistic, but from what I've heard from friends who have been it's true.)
On June 05 2011 17:21 Maliris wrote: This is ridiculous... females are more equal than males huh? That parent is an idiot for not pressing charges, if this was a 11 year old girl getting attacked like this they would go to prison
Or at least juvenile detention centers, but those are about 95% males (made up statistic, but from what I've heard from friends who have been it's true.)
Depends on where you are, but usually its somewhere around a 75/25 or an 80/20 split.
Also, girls in juvie are fucking batshit crazy, a lot of the guys tend to be in for understandable things (assault/vandalism/robbery) where the girls are just fucking nuts.
On June 05 2011 17:21 Maliris wrote: This is ridiculous... females are more equal than males huh? That parent is an idiot for not pressing charges, if this was a 11 year old girl getting attacked like this they would go to prison
Or at least juvenile detention centers, but those are about 95% males (made up statistic, but from what I've heard from friends who have been it's true.)
You could have done a simple google search to get a statistic, yours was actually not too far off interestingly enough, google turned up around 85%.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
No, intelligence is not a superior evolutionary trait. Intelligent people have less children. Hence, intelligence is selected AGAINST. Bullies, on the other hand, ...
Can't say I like it, but its the truth.
You watched Idiocracy, didn't you mate? Yes, there is some evidence that less intelligent people have more children than more intelligent people, but are you saying stupid people are all bullies? That's obviously not true. And besides, it doesn't matter how much progeny you have, evolution doesn't work that way. It's based on how much progeny pass their genes on to the next generation. People with higher intelligence generally have higher living conditions, so so they may have less children, but those children have a higher chance to survive than the progeny of less intelligent people.
Also, you've assumed that less intelligent people will always have less intelligent kids. That is mostly true, due to socio-economic conditions, but there are plenty of exceptions.
I'm not an idiot. >.< I'm saying that bullies have traits that lead to an increased likelyhood of having more children than non-bullies. Well, it does matter how many children you have. In the western world, the difference in survival rates between rich and poor children to reproductive age (not including war) is essentially negligible. Hence, the raw birth rate in the demographic group is the most relevant factor.
These have been long debated. Many geneticists today agree that actually natural selection has been choosing smarter people over dumber in modern day society. As evidenced by the rise in average intelligence over the years on industrialized nations. So it seems there are actually more dumb people's kids dying of drug OD then there are smart people's kids not being born ^^
Luckily this will become even more obvious in 100 years when everyone can choose whether their kids will be born genetically engineered to be smarter or not
On June 05 2011 17:08 Piski wrote: The real sad thing here is that he will never forget this, news, school mates and youtube will make sure of this. There is a real good chance that if he is now scarred for life he will just end up growing up to be a rapist/murderer.
Jesus Christ! Really?!? You are at least the second person who has suggested that and I find it so crazy. Rapist/Murder?!? The way I see it the video is going to be FotM. Do you really think kids care about stuff that happened 3 mounts ago? Even if it is still on the web nobody would care about it. And pressing charges is like your mother coming to school and yelling to the kids that had beaten you up, except it would drag out a lot longer. It would only make things worse. I guess I don't know how things work at your schools, but back when I was at school if somebody got his shorts pulled down the others laughed and the next day nobody fucking remembered about it.
I'm not saying that it's fine to do stuff like that. It's obviously fucked up, but saying stuff like:
There is a real good chance that if he is now scarred for life he will just end up growing up to be a rapist/murderer.
On June 05 2011 17:07 Anon06 wrote: I think the mother was correct in not pressing charges, why ruin 3 little girls lives? it was a mistake due to their lack of judgment. they probably could have even been brought down on child pornography charges for posting it on the internet if girls posting under aged pic of themselves can.
Imo the mother most definitely absolutely positively should have pressed charges on the girls... if its about not ruining 3 little girls lives then think about the boy who was even younger than them. Don't you think his life is ruined atleast in the school he is enrolled in? its pathetic that the girls will get away scot free. I'm pretty sure that any other 8th grader would have enough sense to tell whether or not this prank was out of hand. disgusting
On June 05 2011 17:21 Maliris wrote: This is ridiculous... females are more equal than males huh? That parent is an idiot for not pressing charges, if this was a 11 year old girl getting attacked like this they would go to prison
Or at least juvenile detention centers, but those are about 95% males (made up statistic, but from what I've heard from friends who have been it's true.)
Depends on where you are, but usually its somewhere around a 75/25 or an 80/20 split.
Also, girls in juvie are fucking batshit crazy, a lot of the guys tend to be in for understandable things (assault/vandalism/robbery) where the girls are just fucking nuts.
This is true, and the funny thing is I have a friend who is a girl who has been caught stealing multiple times but manages to sweet-talk her way out of it every time, whereas a male friend of mine gets caught once and gets banned from the store (I think he got a fine too)
On June 05 2011 17:21 Maliris wrote: This is ridiculous... females are more equal than males huh? That parent is an idiot for not pressing charges, if this was a 11 year old girl getting attacked like this they would go to prison
Or at least juvenile detention centers, but those are about 95% males (made up statistic, but from what I've heard from friends who have been it's true.)
You could have done a simple google search to get a statistic, yours was actually not too far off interestingly enough, google turned up around 85%.
I could've but google doesn't always have the most truthful results anyways.
On June 05 2011 17:08 Piski wrote: The real sad thing here is that he will never forget this, news, school mates and youtube will make sure of this. There is a real good chance that if he is now scarred for life he will just end up growing up to be a rapist/murderer.
Jesus Christ! Really?!? You are at least the second person who has suggested that and I find it so crazy. Rapist/Murder?!? The way I see it the video is going to be FotM. Do you really think kids care about stuff that happened 3 mounts ago? Even if it is still on the web nobody would care about it. And pressing charges is like your mother coming to school and yelling to the kids that had beaten you up, except it would drag out a lot longer. It would only make things worse. I guess I don't know how things work at your schools, but back when I was at school if somebody got his shorts pulled down the others laughed and the next day nobody fucking remembered about it.
I'm not saying that it's fine to do stuff like that. It's obviously fucked up, but saying stuff like:
dude I have personally bullied kids while I was in grade 6 for things that happened to kids while they were in grade 1/2 I'm not proud of it, but to imply that kids forget about something like this within months is ludicrous. My friends also bug me to this day for bullying people when we were young.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
Explain to me why he would be the laughing stock of the whole school.
Because children are cruel, and because mercy, compassion and lack of respect for strength are signs of maturity, which take life experiences that 99% of children, and vast majority of adults in the states, simply do not have.
On June 05 2011 17:08 Piski wrote: The real sad thing here is that he will never forget this, news, school mates and youtube will make sure of this. There is a real good chance that if he is now scarred for life he will just end up growing up to be a rapist/murderer.
Jesus Christ! Really?!? You are at least the second person who has suggested that and I find it so crazy. Rapist/Murder?!? The way I see it the video is going to be FotM. Do you really think kids care about stuff that happened 3 mounts ago? Even if it is still on the web nobody would care about it. And pressing charges is like your mother coming to school and yelling to the kids that had beaten you up, except it would drag out a lot longer. It would only make things worse. I guess I don't know how things work at your schools, but back when I was at school if somebody got his shorts pulled down the others laughed and the next day nobody fucking remembered about it.
I'm not saying that it's fine to do stuff like that. It's obviously fucked up, but saying stuff like:
There is a real good chance that if he is now scarred for life he will just end up growing up to be a rapist/murderer.
is a little overboard don't you think?
Are you serious? We won't care about it in 3 months but he will and everyone he knows will. Also it's not even close being the same as your mother would come to the school yelling and making it worse. Who are you to say how did this affect him? He got made fun of and stripped by three girls and got putted on youtube and know everyone is laughing at him and I don't know where did you grew up but kids remember stuff like this way longer than 3 months. I'm sure they have already made him a cool nickname he will carry for the rest of his school years.
To the bolded part. Was it three stronger girls holding the younger guy by the throat while stripping those shorts and did it end up in youtube? How do you even know if the guy ever forget that or that nobody remembered it.
I did say it's a little bit far fetched but lets be honest. This society has made murderers with way less.
On June 05 2011 16:14 Tenhou wrote: Guys, screw the 3 guys stripping 1 girl logic.
IF IT'S 3 OLDER BOY STRIPPING ONE BOY THEN I BET THE MOTHER IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES.
This is a good point as well, and also very true.
On June 05 2011 16:14 jaybee2 wrote: Have you ever noticed how there are some kids that never managed to get bullied? Why is that? I investigated theorized and it worked for me. Later on, when I took evolutionary biology classes at university my beliefs were validated.
Than copy/paste your research, clearly you must have some if you "investigated and theorized"
I am not going to paste everything. If really want the book i guess i can post the link. I gave my reasoning but nobody says what they disagree with. Only that I am stupid. I thought it would be easy to disprove a stupid idea but I guess I have stayed up late for nothing.
Jaybee, you're actually right that this is just a consequence of evolution. Except you completely inverted it. It's the other way around. In modern society intelligence is a superior evolutionary trait over strength. Bullies are not evolutionary superior, but inferior. Evolution takes care of them because they fail in life. You compare us to puppies bullying the weaker. Guess what, humans evolved past dogs. Up to a point where that dog bullying isn't as important as intelligence anymore.
No, intelligence is not a superior evolutionary trait. Intelligent people have less children. Hence, intelligence is selected AGAINST. Bullies, on the other hand, ...
Can't say I like it, but its the truth.
You watched Idiocracy, didn't you mate? Yes, there is some evidence that less intelligent people have more children than more intelligent people, but are you saying stupid people are all bullies? That's obviously not true. And besides, it doesn't matter how much progeny you have, evolution doesn't work that way. It's based on how much progeny pass their genes on to the next generation. People with higher intelligence generally have higher living conditions, so so they may have less children, but those children have a higher chance to survive than the progeny of less intelligent people.
Also, you've assumed that less intelligent people will always have less intelligent kids. That is mostly true, due to socio-economic conditions, but there are plenty of exceptions.
I'm not an idiot. >.< I'm saying that bullies have traits that lead to an increased likelyhood of having more children than non-bullies. Well, it does matter how many children you have. In the western world, the difference in survival rates between rich and poor children to reproductive age (not including war) is essentially negligible. Hence, the raw birth rate in the demographic group is the most relevant factor.
These have been long debated. Many geneticists today agree that actually natural selection has been choosing smarter people over dumber in modern day society. As evidenced by the rise in average intelligence over the years on industrialized nations.
Luckily this will become even more obvious in 100 years when everyone can choose whether their kids will be born genetically engineered to be smarter or not
Basically, the flynn effect is mostly a result of higher incomes and universal education.
In the wiki I link, the negative correlation between IQ and fertility is observed only when fertility rates are low (that is at or below replacement) amongst the general population. In addition, there is essentially no correlation between male fertility and intelligence.
At any rate he's gona have a rough time at school a while for geting humiliated by some girls, but that builds character as long as he gets passed it. As for kids forgeting about it, lol man that's the kind of stuff nobody ever forgets about.
I got robbed at knife point back in the 5th grade had to run back home in my shorts and nothing else, some of the school kids saw me runin back home and made fun of me over that for yeaaars and yeaaars, it's all about learning how to deal with it.
Bottom line as I see it, switch the genders around and the boys would be doing time, we all know this and is guaranteed, we are far more merciful when it comes to girls doing wrong.
Due to the age and depending where the kids are from of course, sometimes there's very little the law can, or would be willing to do. If you think back to the days of elementary school, fights broke out between kids, but it's never escalated into a matter where the cops showed up on the playground or had to intervene. Highschool naturally is a different story where organized gangs and weapons come into the picture.
In this case a clearly outnumbered and out-muscled kid was surrounded and humiliated, possibly for life. Personally I am disappointed with his mother and I definitely would have pressed charges. When you are faced with something on a record, it makes you swallow the consequences of your actions hard and clear. Being grounded to your room for gang-bullying a boy is hardly punishment and really, the girls can just text each other and giggle out their grounding time communally. If anything it'd even bring them closer together as buddy ol' pals. Seriously can you tell me, that that type of situation would be acceptable?
And what's stopping the girls from upping the ante? Nothing.
for those people thinking that this is just "a little prank", put yourself in his shoes. What if YOU were the one getting stripped by 3 girls (lets assume these 3 girls are ugly and their faces are covered with creep tumors and other diseases so you people dont get horny off of this), then imagine them posting the video of them stripping you just so everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE ( friends, mom, dog, brothers, relatives, idiots u hate) can see your little 2 inchers. I dont think anyone would be happy with that or call that "a little prank teehee". No, combatex spelling EZ in pylons is a little prank, this kid probably will never be able to trust another girl because everytime he sees one he probably picture this event. This will take years of therapy to cure and i believe these 3 girls should face jail time.
I'm not justifying the double standard or that girls should get away with bullying boys. I also think that what the girls did was really fucking messed up and I my self will be pissed off for years if that had happened to me.
However the difference between 3 older girls bullying a 11 yr old boy and 3 older boys bullying a 11 yr old girl is basically hormones. A year 11 yr old boy most likely hasn't begun puberty (if this is true for this case) while the 11 yr old girl has. When you're developing mentally any trauma is felt much more worse than when you can better rationalize as an adult. Which is why you shouldn't do things like the uberman sleeping schedule before adulthood as it can seriously fawk you up in the long run.
It's a subjective matter when it comes to whomever will be more traumatized the boy who hasn't begun churning out testosterone or the girl full of estrogen and other female related hormones. However we now that hormones spikes can make people act rather irrational. (which can explain why the girls did something so stupid)
We also know that 14 year old boys have just started puberty and testosterone usually makes them horny as hell. So if they decide to gang-up and strip a girl down, it is inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act. So being immature testosterone charged boys, their actions on the surface lean more to abuse and rape rather than just plainly being abusive. This is a reason why boys doing this abusive behavior seems on the surface more serious. (although imo a very thin line between the two)
It is much more dangerous for 14 year old boys growing up not being able to control their sexual urges due to the fact of that males for the most part have more testosterone; which encourages growth of bone and muscle, and helps maintain muscle strength. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Testerone) This means biologically most men are built stronger than average women. Thus making it more statistically likely that men can successfully rape women more than women successfully raping men (still happens, probably just as bad). From an economical standpoint the marginal benefit of deterring men from being rapists is greater than deterring women from being a rapist because it serves a bigger pie.
Also since the role of the male is to protect females, and females tend to have more empathy or because people acknowledge the hormones involved, this probably explains why people do go bat shit crazy when 3 boys attack a girl and less when 3 girls attack a boy.
I do believe that it is a double standard when girls can get off doing wrong more lightly than boys. It really pisses me off actually. However to simply compare this certain case with "well if boys did it instead..." and completely disregard age, gender and hormones you should be committing the fallacy of Oversimplification.
But blazing, if 3 guys had done exactly the same thing to a girl, nothing more, nothing less with the girl being a late bloomer who has not experienced puberty yet, they would be facing serious charges. You can assume the guys would do more and that's all fine and dandy, however given the exact same situation the guys would be facing much steeper punishment.
On June 05 2011 18:50 d(O.o)a wrote: But blazing, if 3 guys had done exactly the same thing to a girl, nothing more, nothing less with the girl being a late bloomer who has not experienced puberty yet, they would be facing serious charges. You can assume the guys would do more and that's all fine and dandy, however given the exact same situation the guys would be facing much steeper punishment.
I'm fine with this. I dont mind girls/guys being treated differently at that age, when it's that sort of crime. I can see how it would be more serious if boys did this sort of thing, because they would most likely do it for a whole other reason, i think most people can see that. While you cant make a law for only one gender i do feel that it was the right choice for the mother not to press charges.
I only have a problem when women rights or whatever speak for equality but then dont want equality on everything. If everyone should be treated exactly equally then dont make exceptions.
this is actually stupid, this again shows the stupidity of some americans -.-i dont say that all americans are dumb, but like 50% are :D (jkin) but the childs mother didnt press charges, but if 3 boys would do this to a girl, they woiuld probablly be put in jail -.- yup world is getting crazy! what if those girls would take a twig and put it up his ass? that would be just a prank right? but what if a boy would put a twig in girls vagina it would be raping! thats how lame this world is getting!
Here's how I see it 3 people publicly, forcibly and humiliatingly remove the clothing of someone significantly their junior and post it on the internet for the world to see. Notice how gender wasn't mentioned? That's because it's not fucking relevant. The different physical characteristics should of course be taken into consideration but just as different physical characteristics themselves (but at that age there isn't much difference between the genders). The legal differences should be one person happens to be able to carry children and the other doesn't not she's a woman and he's a man, differences in decisions should be based on physical characteristics not gender.
Wow. Nice job mom, way to go crushing any trust between you and your kid.
Let's assume we let what they did slide as a "prank", posting a video online alone should be grounds for legal action. I would've taken them to the farthest extent of the law and then some. Man, ridiculous just ridiculous.
On June 05 2011 18:46 blazingblue16 wrote: I'm not justifying the double standard or that girls should get away with bullying boys. I also think that what the girls did was really fucking messed up and I my self will be pissed off for years if that had happened to me.
However the difference between 3 older girls bullying a 11 yr old boy and 3 older boys bullying a 11 yr old girl is basically hormones. A year 11 yr old boy most likely hasn't begun puberty (if this is true for this case) while the 11 yr old girl has. When you're developing mentally any trauma is felt much more worse than when you can better rationalize as an adult. Which is why you shouldn't do things like the uberman sleeping schedule before adulthood as it can seriously fawk you up in the long run.
It's a subjective matter when it comes to whomever will be more traumatized the boy who hasn't begun churning out testosterone or the girl full of estrogen and other female related hormones. However we now that hormones spikes can make people act rather irrational. (which can explain why the girls did something so stupid)
We also know that 14 year old boys have just started puberty and testosterone usually makes them horny as hell. So if they decide to gang-up and strip a girl down, it is inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act. So being immature testosterone charged boys, their actions on the surface lean more to abuse and rape rather than just plainly being abusive. This is a reason why boys doing this abusive behavior seems on the surface more serious. (although imo a very thin line between the two)
It is much more dangerous for 14 year old boys growing up not being able to control their sexual urges due to the fact of that males for the most part have more testosterone; which encourages growth of bone and muscle, and helps maintain muscle strength. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Testerone) This means biologically most men are built stronger than average women. Thus making it more statistically likely that men can successfully rape women more than women successfully raping men (still happens, probably just as bad). From an economical standpoint the marginal benefit of deterring men from being rapists is greater than deterring women from being a rapist because it serves a bigger pie.
Also since the role of the male is to protect females, and females tend to have more empathy or because people acknowledge the hormones involved, this probably explains why people do go bat shit crazy when 3 boys attack a girl and less when 3 girls attack a boy.
I do believe that it is a double standard when girls can get off doing wrong more lightly than boys. It really pisses me off actually. However to simply compare this certain case with "well if boys did it instead..." and completely disregard age, gender and hormones you should be committing the fallacy of Oversimplification.
First: Puberty typically begins,regardless of sex, between 10-13, so saying that the kid "most likely hasn't begun puberty" is completely wrong, and without evidence of him either not going through puberty, or going through it is irrelevant to your point. Second: Saying that "if three boys strip down a girl, it's inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act"...once again irrelevant, unless of course you're suggesting that Women don't get sexually aroused either, during puberty women can get just as "horny" as men, saying that three older boys doing this to a younger girl would be more damaging to her is also complete nonsense because, as I said above, boys are going through Puberty at about the same time as girls, give or take a year depending on your genes.... So they're both Equally likely to be traumatized from the event. As for your last point....I feel like you're just saying that 14 year old kids are just a bunch of horny potential rapists because they produce more testosterone and "don't know how to control their sexual urges"....
As for the whole "if this were 3 guys doing this to a girl" thing, of course they'd face a harsher punishment then these girls. Sad but true, it's unfortunate as well that this only happens because female rapists hardly ever get reported, I mean how many of YOU would report being raped by a girl?? it happens a lot more then people would think...I'd write a reference link down or something but too tired and lazy
I've always found it amusing that people say that, "A man can't get raped, he can't get hard if he doesn't want sex."
Did you know, that one of the major reasons why many women are too ashamed to report a rape, is because not only did they self-lubricate copiously (aka, became very, very wet), but also quite possibly had the most intense orgasm of their entire life during rape?
(mind you, its highly unlikely because she subconsciously wanted to be raped. It's most likely a mechanism to avoid damage.)
Incidently, I remember in a russia, a woman was arrested after drugging and raping men. She would put elastic bands on the mens penis to restrict blood flow.
On June 05 2011 18:46 blazingblue16 wrote: I'm not justifying the double standard or that girls should get away with bullying boys. I also think that what the girls did was really fucking messed up and I my self will be pissed off for years if that had happened to me.
However the difference between 3 older girls bullying a 11 yr old boy and 3 older boys bullying a 11 yr old girl is basically hormones. A year 11 yr old boy most likely hasn't begun puberty (if this is true for this case) while the 11 yr old girl has. When you're developing mentally any trauma is felt much more worse than when you can better rationalize as an adult. Which is why you shouldn't do things like the uberman sleeping schedule before adulthood as it can seriously fawk you up in the long run.
It's a subjective matter when it comes to whomever will be more traumatized the boy who hasn't begun churning out testosterone or the girl full of estrogen and other female related hormones. However we now that hormones spikes can make people act rather irrational. (which can explain why the girls did something so stupid)
We also know that 14 year old boys have just started puberty and testosterone usually makes them horny as hell. So if they decide to gang-up and strip a girl down, it is inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act. So being immature testosterone charged boys, their actions on the surface lean more to abuse and rape rather than just plainly being abusive. This is a reason why boys doing this abusive behavior seems on the surface more serious. (although imo a very thin line between the two)
It is much more dangerous for 14 year old boys growing up not being able to control their sexual urges due to the fact of that males for the most part have more testosterone; which encourages growth of bone and muscle, and helps maintain muscle strength. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Testerone) This means biologically most men are built stronger than average women. Thus making it more statistically likely that men can successfully rape women more than women successfully raping men (still happens, probably just as bad). From an economical standpoint the marginal benefit of deterring men from being rapists is greater than deterring women from being a rapist because it serves a bigger pie.
Also since the role of the male is to protect females, and females tend to have more empathy or because people acknowledge the hormones involved, this probably explains why people do go bat shit crazy when 3 boys attack a girl and less when 3 girls attack a boy.
I do believe that it is a double standard when girls can get off doing wrong more lightly than boys. It really pisses me off actually. However to simply compare this certain case with "well if boys did it instead..." and completely disregard age, gender and hormones you should be committing the fallacy of Oversimplification.
First: Puberty typically begins,regardless of sex, between 10-13, so saying that the kid "most likely hasn't begun puberty" is completely wrong, and without evidence of him either not going through puberty, or going through it is irrelevant to your point. Second: Saying that "if three boys strip down a girl, it's inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act"...once again irrelevant, unless of course you're suggesting that Women don't get sexually aroused either, during puberty women can get just as "horny" as men, saying that three older boys doing this to a younger girl would be more damaging to her is also complete nonsense because, as I said above, boys are going through Puberty at about the same time as girls, give or take a year depending on your genes.... So they're both Equally likely to be traumatized from the event. As for your last point....I feel like you're just saying that 14 year old kids are just a bunch of horny potential rapists because they produce more testosterone and "don't know how to control their sexual urges"....
As for the whole "if this were 3 guys doing this to a girl" thing, of course they'd face a harsher punishment then these girls. Sad but true, it's unfortunate as well that this only happens because female rapists hardly ever get reported, I mean how many of YOU would report being raped by a girl?? it happens a lot more then people would think...I'd write a reference link down or something but too tired and lazy
Yup. I don't know about some of you, but I hit puberty in grade 4. The fact the girl's got off easy can only mean worse shit down the road.
it is pretty sad when they can get off with like, what was it, misdemeanor assault? like minor charges really.... even if the mom had pressed charges I mean...Video taping of Child nudity=Child Pornography last time i checked? So, so sad.
Why would anyone need to press charges? If it's a crime and there is obvious proof (video etc) why the need for charges by the mom? Can't just the police enforce the law regardless?
thats weird, but yet again this could be another crime that everyone will look at as "more okay then if the genders were switched" if it was boys who did that to a chick, inb4 jail sentence...
it is stupid though, i wouldnt even call it a prank to be honest... cruel
i guess i dont think they stole his shorts right? letting him walk home butt nekkid...optimism ftw =S
intelligent mother to not press charges against that young girls. It would probably destroy their lives and make them much worse. It was just a prank - albeit it went too far.
You cannot compare male nudity and female nudity in our society. Female nudity is a much more sensitive matter.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
True, I would like to see how a feminist would react to this :D
Yea, me too.
Like most people in this thread probably.
Theoretically they should wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiment of it because feminism is all about women being equal to men, in practice though I suspect they'd object
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
True, I would like to see how a feminist would react to this :D
Yea, me too.
this is a little absurd. there's a reason that 3 14-year-old guys stripping a girl would be treated differently... it would be TOTALLY different. not to say this isn't horrible and absurd that they'd do it, but don't say it should be treated the same, that's the kind of thing that gets people punished way out of proportion to their crimes.
On June 05 2011 20:10 Elroi wrote: intelligent mother to not press charges against that young girls. It would probably destroy their lives and make them much worse. It was just a prank - albeit it went too far.
You cannot compare male nudity and female nudity in our society. Female nudity is a much more sensitive matter.
HAHAHHA
You really think that?
Let me explain to you about the juvenile justice system in this country.... It doesn't exist. The only way a juvenile gets any sort of actual punishment when it comes to things like this is if they commit a horrible felony like sexual assault or murder.
Otherwise they get a tap on the wrist at most and maybe a probationary period that really isn't probation. The fine has to be paid by the parent if there is one so the children aren't really going to feel the punishment in that regard either.
The mother is intelligent because she probably realizes the only way those girls will face any sort of punishment is if their parents do something about it.
On June 05 2011 20:10 Elroi wrote: intelligent mother to not press charges against that young girls. It would probably destroy their lives and make them much worse. It was just a prank - albeit it went too far.
You cannot compare male nudity and female nudity in our society. Female nudity is a much more sensitive matter.
So it's ok to humiliate 11 year old boys and put those videos on the web? If the mother would press charges it would be as a misdemeanor which hardly would ruin their lives. Also we are not talking about a full grown man who is fine with his sexuality. It's a 11 year old boy who actually has a lot more school years ahead of him, which now he will probably spent constantly being reminded how he got "raped" by three girls.
The mother should have persued some form of punishment, but jail is not the right punishment for these girls.
I don't know how the American legal system works, but I think doing some community service like helping out in an elderly home for a year would be a great way to make clear that the girls really did cross the line. Being grounded / being withheld allowance for a month is not going to show that. Not to the girls, not to the public.
About the gender reverse issue: I would propose the exact same punishment in that case. You CANNOT infer that the boys were trying to rape the girl. Hormones / etc have nothing to do with it. You are just theorycrafting. The fact is the boys are pulling a prank and go too far, and should be punished accordingly.
On June 05 2011 15:03 freddievercetti wrote: I looked up the /b/ threads before they 404ed. They don't have the names of the girls but they do have their addresses/phone #s and parent names already. Those /b/ guys are real creepy.
Don't diss /b/... it could turn out badly for you.
On June 05 2011 14:43 HazMat wrote: TL truly is the 2 day late version of Reddit.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Keitzer wrote: just saw this on 4chan.... pretty em-effing scary
keep bragging about reddit
btw just not to get warned for being off-topic, i think they should send the girls a year long to some reformatory so that they really learn the lesson; when you're 11 years old you just don't take anything seriously unless you recieve a really harsh lesson. if they've shown such an horrible demeanour being just 11 you can only fear what they will do when hey turn 18. i take for granted that the parents of the girls could have done a better job raising and educating them, but still... i, and any sane kid, would have never done such a terrible thing. now blame me for being harsh...
there's an interesting copypasta floating around...there + Show Spoiler +
oh who am I kidding, 4chan is mainstream as fuck now
that involves a female saying how provoking her husband to hit her allowed her to keep pretty much everything when they divorced, nearly got him in jail, etc etc
i really wish that there would be some sort of equal rights protest from men, just because we are the dominant gender and have throughout history been in power, the compensation for that in modern society goes too far, and females should not be more equal
imagine the feminists on stupid daytime talk shows though :O
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
True, I would like to see how a feminist would react to this :D
Yea, me too.
Like most people in this thread probably.
Probably the same way they reacted when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis: "You go, girl!" Feminists aren't exactly known for taking the side of men or boys.
This reminds me of that facebook pic of some girls chatting about how they get out of speeding tickets by crying/acting slutty and some dude pointing out that thats the reason why men earn more then women, they have to pay their tickets.
Probably the same way they reacted when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis: "You go, girl!" Feminists aren't exactly known for taking the side of men or boys.
They are also known for not being reasonable at all.
On June 05 2011 20:10 Elroi wrote: intelligent mother to not press charges against that young girls. It would probably destroy their lives and make them much worse. It was just a prank - albeit it went too far.
You cannot compare male nudity and female nudity in our society. Female nudity is a much more sensitive matter.
You Sir, made my brain bleed, I hope you're proud of that.So, you're telling me that juvenile detention, which someone commented above as being not harsh at all in the States, is worse then being publicly humiliated in front of potentially your ENTIRE SCHOOL,FRIENDS,AND PROBABLY THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE VIA YOUTUBE. As for it being "Just a Prank" literally, what The Fuck. How can people see this as a prank? Do you know what a prank is? Putting a bucket of water above a doorway and having someone open it and get covered in water, or like jell-o That's a fucking prank. drawing on people's faces, with markers or toothpaste, the ol' hand in a bowl of water, shit like that is a fucking prank. Hell flooding your buddies dorm room, that's a fucking prank too. You know why those are all pranks? some of them are humiliating, most of them just make a big mess for you to clean up..
If you think it's a prank because, like most pranks do, they humiliated him well that's great, and you're right they did humiliate him and hundreds of other people humiliate others and post it on youtube as well.....oh but wait, aren't pranks supposed to be funny? not to the victim but to others and the people who "pulled it off"? I don't find assault or stripping down an 11 year old kid who couldn't even fight back very funny....Do you? Do You really think it's funny? I thought not, don't fucking call something like this a prank, childish bullshit is vastly different from the maliciousness in this "Prank"
AHA I failed to address something in your post!, "You cannot compare female nudity to male nudity" Actually yes i fucking can, Males have a penis and (technically breasts although they're pretty much flat" and Females have a Vagina, and what else? Breasts...what makes female nudity more unacceptable then male nudity? women's breasts are just bigger so what? as for the vagina.....*sigh* Goddamnit. From an upright position, you can only really see MAYBE the clitoral hood and parts of the labia. as for a male...you see THE WHOOOOLE THING so technically male nudity is WORSE then female nudity..
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
True, I would like to see how a feminist would react to this :D
Yea, me too.
Like most people in this thread probably.
Probably the same way they reacted when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis: "You go, girl!" Feminists aren't exactly known for taking the side of men or boys.
Feminists are also not a hive mind and the action of a few doesn't not represent all of them. Just like atheists or other groups where a wide range of people fall under.
On June 05 2011 20:10 Elroi wrote: intelligent mother to not press charges against that young girls. It would probably destroy their lives and make them much worse. It was just a prank - albeit it went too far.
You cannot compare male nudity and female nudity in our society. Female nudity is a much more sensitive matter.
Relevant to this case: A group of older people forcibly stripped a child as they screamed for mercy. Irrelevant to this case: The genders of any involved.
Child nudity is more sensitive than female nudity.
Edit: I am a feminist, and that is why I utterly condemn all gender double standards. Especially where they lead to acts like this going unpunished.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
True, I would like to see how a feminist would react to this :D
Yea, me too.
this is a little absurd. there's a reason that 3 14-year-old guys stripping a girl would be treated differently... it would be TOTALLY different. not to say this isn't horrible and absurd that they'd do it, but don't say it should be treated the same, that's the kind of thing that gets people punished way out of proportion to their crimes.
Oh, so females should not be punished for doing the exact same thing which will get a male a punishment.
On June 05 2011 15:03 jaybee wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. A boy being stripped isn't as bad a girl because it is more offensive and damaging. Also the girls weren't intending to rape him or anything as is usually the case when its the other way around. They were just bullying him, its something we all do so get off your high horse.
You get bullied and the video is posted on the internet. You are a guy, get over it ... ? Really? I have no idea how old you are, but imagine that is your kid that got assaulted. Would it still be cool? If so, never get kids, please.
TT I am met with such hostility. There are only 2 kinds of ideas. One's that match nature and ones that don't. As a scientist I look for those that match nature, all others that don't match reality are worthless. Information is used to make better decisions. Hiding behind ideals makes you weaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw
If that was my son, god forbid, I would have disciplined him. I would teach him not to blame others for things, but to blame himself. You cannot control other people so don't try to. There is always a way around a problem. And that solution is to be one that people wouldn't think to pick on. Do you think these girls would do this to a popular 5th grader. No. They chose the awkward whiny little one because he was easy. I would delude him with ideals I would save him by teaching him how never face an issue like this again. If you don't change the boy it will happen again. He will have to grow up someday.
Let me put this in starcraft terms since we are on TL. Don't be an IdrA and complain its a fault with the game or the player. There is always a solution, an algorithm, to achieve victory. New strategies are still being found in brood war don't fucking tell me something is impossible in sc2.
Welcome to the 21st century. We care for the sick, look after the infirm, and tend for the weak. This started happening about the time when the Homo genus came down from trees and started walking upright. Perhaps you should catch the fuck up.
Thank you for this post. I was shaking with anger about jaybee's post, yet you made see that not all hope is lost. Thank you for showing me that there are still good people in this world.
This really seems ridiculous though and the girls seem to merely be getting off with a slap on the wrist. I agree with people here when they say that if the gender roles had been reversed it would seem to make headlines everywhere. I find it disgusting that students could do such a stupid thing, while I am a student myself it seems that younger people are getting more and more out of control and causing havoc upon society.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is exactly what's wrong with the world -_-
True, I would like to see how a feminist would react to this :D
Yea, me too.
I don't know if I'd call myself a feminist simply because too many people who call themselves that are actually more about female superiority rather than equality. I am female though and I totally agree. If three 14 year old boys had done this to an 11 year old girl nobody would be going "oh kids will be kids". I doubt there would be any question of whether to press charges.
I can appreciate the mother wanting the girls' parents to handle the punishment but I just wouldn't trust them. These are the people who raised a bunch of girls who thought this kind of thing would be funny. Let them see what happens to people who prey on those weaker than themselves.
Even more messed up is the fact that, the way it happened is closer to adults molesting a child than if you reversed things. Girls start puberty younger than boys generally so while an 11 year old boy is still prepubescent with another 7-8 years of growing left to do, a 14 year old girl is well into puberty if not finished and has nearly reached her full adult size.
How old are the girls? I can understnad pressing charges against them if they are 16 or older. Otherwise they probably didn't understand the gravity of what they did. And I think a court process would make much more damage than good. Not because of the punichment, because of the process. It also depends on the nature of the crime: if it was just one incident or if it was part of a systematic abuse.
I remember when I was 11-12, me and a girl locked ourself in on the toilet and striped naked. We didn't do anything, just looked at each other. Then two other kidds joined us. We just didn't understand how in the world of adults that was not accepted. And I don't think I'm a nymphomaniac or something, lol. This case is of course not the same thing - but my point is that kids don't see those things as adults do. I think it depends a lot on the age of the girls: I thought they were 13-14, if they are like 16, I understand much better the outrage this has created.
In any case the girls shoud of course be corrected, I just strongly believe that a court case for a 13 year-old usually is a bad thing.
On June 05 2011 16:10 jaybee2 wrote: Here is my reasoning please call me idiot, but also tell me what you disagree with. Bullying happens for a reason. The reason is evolutionary. (all social animals do it) Because it happens for a reason there is a way to avoid it. Instead of attacking the bullies it would be more practical to learn not how to bullied.
On the contrary. It is impossible (and impractical) to teach every potential victim in advance how to not get bullied (However I find nothing wrong with teaching people how to defend themselves).
Yet your point of view is misleading to me. You are confusing the victims and the offenders guilt. Many humans consider it wrong when the strong bully the weak. We feel, that it is the offenders fault and he should be punished. You seem to believe that it is the victims fault for not being prepared.
Even if there were some truths to your opinion, your priorities are fucked up and your presentation lacks an explanation on how to sort your view into the big picture.
On June 05 2011 18:24 phodacbiet wrote: for those people thinking that this is just "a little prank", put yourself in his shoes. What if YOU were the one getting stripped by 3 girls (lets assume these 3 girls are ugly and their faces are covered with creep tumors and other diseases so you people dont get horny off of this), then imagine them posting the video of them stripping you just so everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE ( friends, mom, dog, brothers, relatives, idiots u hate) can see your little 2 inchers. I dont think anyone would be happy with that or call that "a little prank teehee". No, combatex spelling EZ in pylons is a little prank, this kid probably will never be able to trust another girl because everytime he sees one he probably picture this event. This will take years of therapy to cure and i believe these 3 girls should face jail time.
lol creep tumors. I love how this is still a starcraft forum~~
I think what is most appropriate in this situation is for the girls to undergo some sort of disciplinary behavior, like a program or something, because the kind of person that does something like this is not a properly functioning member of society, and perhaps has some serious issues lurking underneath. I'd like to see this issue get taken further, but without any considerations to gender.
On June 05 2011 20:10 Elroi wrote: intelligent mother to not press charges against that young girls. It would probably destroy their lives and make them much worse. It was just a prank - albeit it went too far.
You cannot compare male nudity and female nudity in our society. Female nudity is a much more sensitive matter.
Did you even watch the news video? That was not a prank, that was assault. If you were a parent and saw your kid in a video like that, how would you react? I sure as hell would not just let it go like that kids mother did and let their parents discipline them. The perpetrators were 14 years old, which in my opinion is old enough to be held responsible for criminal activities. They knew what they were doing and thus should face the consequences for it.
And what the fuck is up with that nudity argument? I was under the impression that we are living in an equal society, so why would female nudity be any different to male nudity? Being physically assaulted, forcibly stripped naked and video taped, and then having the video posted online for EVERYONE to see is equally humiliating regardless of the victims gender.
A court of law shouldn't be considered grounds for punishing children. It's a domestic and private matter and regardless of any gender issues at play here more legal attention would simply draw more media attention.
This is a prank (as cruel as it may be) with plenty of shock value.
On June 05 2011 18:46 blazingblue16 wrote: I'm not justifying the double standard or that girls should get away with bullying boys. I also think that what the girls did was really fucking messed up and I my self will be pissed off for years if that had happened to me.
However the difference between 3 older girls bullying a 11 yr old boy and 3 older boys bullying a 11 yr old girl is basically hormones. A year 11 yr old boy most likely hasn't begun puberty (if this is true for this case) while the 11 yr old girl has. When you're developing mentally any trauma is felt much more worse than when you can better rationalize as an adult. Which is why you shouldn't do things like the uberman sleeping schedule before adulthood as it can seriously fawk you up in the long run.
It's a subjective matter when it comes to whomever will be more traumatized the boy who hasn't begun churning out testosterone or the girl full of estrogen and other female related hormones. However we now that hormones spikes can make people act rather irrational. (which can explain why the girls did something so stupid)
We also know that 14 year old boys have just started puberty and testosterone usually makes them horny as hell. So if they decide to gang-up and strip a girl down, it is inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act. So being immature testosterone charged boys, their actions on the surface lean more to abuse and rape rather than just plainly being abusive. This is a reason why boys doing this abusive behavior seems on the surface more serious. (although imo a very thin line between the two)
It is much more dangerous for 14 year old boys growing up not being able to control their sexual urges due to the fact of that males for the most part have more testosterone; which encourages growth of bone and muscle, and helps maintain muscle strength. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Testerone) This means biologically most men are built stronger than average women. Thus making it more statistically likely that men can successfully rape women more than women successfully raping men (still happens, probably just as bad). From an economical standpoint the marginal benefit of deterring men from being rapists is greater than deterring women from being a rapist because it serves a bigger pie.
Also since the role of the male is to protect females, and females tend to have more empathy or because people acknowledge the hormones involved, this probably explains why people do go bat shit crazy when 3 boys attack a girl and less when 3 girls attack a boy.
I do believe that it is a double standard when girls can get off doing wrong more lightly than boys. It really pisses me off actually. However to simply compare this certain case with "well if boys did it instead..." and completely disregard age, gender and hormones you should be committing the fallacy of Oversimplification.
First: Puberty typically begins,regardless of sex, between 10-13, so saying that the kid "most likely hasn't begun puberty" is completely wrong, and without evidence of him either not going through puberty, or going through it is irrelevant to your point. Second: Saying that "if three boys strip down a girl, it's inductive reasoning that they may be horny as hell during the act"...once again irrelevant, unless of course you're suggesting that Women don't get sexually aroused either, during puberty women can get just as "horny" as men, saying that three older boys doing this to a younger girl would be more damaging to her is also complete nonsense because, as I said above, boys are going through Puberty at about the same time as girls, give or take a year depending on your genes.... So they're both Equally likely to be traumatized from the event. As for your last point....I feel like you're just saying that 14 year old kids are just a bunch of horny potential rapists because they produce more testosterone and "don't know how to control their sexual urges"....
As for the whole "if this were 3 guys doing this to a girl" thing, of course they'd face a harsher punishment then these girls. Sad but true, it's unfortunate as well that this only happens because female rapists hardly ever get reported, I mean how many of YOU would report being raped by a girl?? it happens a lot more then people would think...I'd write a reference link down or something but too tired and lazy
On June 05 2011 21:08 Elroi wrote: How old are the girls? I can understnad pressing charges against them if they are 16 or older. Otherwise they probably didn't understand the gravity of what they did. And I think a court process would make much more damage than good. Not because of the punichment, because of the process. It also depends on the nature of the crime: if it was just one incident or if it was part of a systematic abuse.
I remember when I was 11-12, me and a girl locked ourself in on the toilet and striped naked. We didn't do anything, just looked at each other. Then two other kidds joined us. We just didn't understand how in the world of adults that was not accepted. And I don't think I'm a nymphomaniac or something, lol. This case is of course not the same thing - but my point is that kids don't see those things as adults do. I think it depends a lot on the age of the girls: I thought they were 13-14, if they are like 16, I understand much better the outrage this has created.
In any case the girls shoud of course be corrected, I just strongly believe that a court case for a 13 year-old usually is a bad thing.
The boy was 11 and the girls 14. I agree that they shouldn't be charged for rape or anything to that extent but just letting this go as a prank sends a powerful message to the girls and the boy to what is allowed and stripping a 11 old child in public, video taping it and putting it on youtube really shouldn't fall into "allowed" category.
What a great lesson for the girls. You can abuse and humiliate weaker defenseless human being, put a video of it on YT...and nothing happens to you! What a wonderful people they are boung to grown in.
And what a great lesson for the boy. You can be publicly abused and humiliated by stronger people...and nothing happens to them! I'm sure he will become a self-confident man with no trust issues whatsoever.
I wonder how the older brother feels about it. I know I would have a lot of troubles letting the girls go without punishment after what happened. Not saying I would do anything to them...but not saying I wouldn't.
On June 05 2011 21:08 Elroi wrote: How old are the girls? I can understnad pressing charges against them if they are 16 or older. Otherwise they probably didn't understand the gravity of what they did. And I think a court process would make much more damage than good. Not because of the punichment, because of the process. It also depends on the nature of the crime: if it was just one incident or if it was part of a systematic abuse.
I remember when I was 11-12, me and a girl locked ourself in on the toilet and striped naked. We didn't do anything, just looked at each other. Then two other kidds joined us. We just didn't understand how in the world of adults that was not accepted. And I don't think I'm a nymphomaniac or something, lol. This case is of course not the same thing - but my point is that kids don't see those things as adults do. I think it depends a lot on the age of the girls: I thought they were 13-14, if they are like 16, I understand much better the outrage this has created.
In any case the girls shoud of course be corrected, I just strongly believe that a court case for a 13 year-old usually is a bad thing.
yeah, but they didnt film it and put it on youtube did they?
First: Puberty typically begins,regardless of sex, between 10-13, so saying that the kid "most likely hasn't begun puberty" is completely wrong, and without evidence of him either not going through puberty, or going through it is irrelevant to your point.
im pretty sure that the general case is that girls start puberty at 11, boys start at 12. and their affects are only apparent when girls are 12 and boys are 13.
I don't know why people are pointing out that if you switch the genders, it's a much more serious crime. Isn't that completely obvious? Do you think it's the same thing when girls strip guys as when guys strip girls? Not in the slightest.
The mother should have pressed charges in my opinion, but the only reason the girls are getting away clean is because she's allowing them to. Had the mother pressed charges I'm sure people would be saying that the girls earned their punishment.
First: Puberty typically begins,regardless of sex, between 10-13, so saying that the kid "most likely hasn't begun puberty" is completely wrong, and without evidence of him either not going through puberty, or going through it is irrelevant to your point.
im pretty sure that the general case is that girls start puberty at 11, boys start at 12. and their affects are only apparent when girls are 12 and boys are 13.
From the wiki. You can't really say if they started puberty or not.
On June 05 2011 21:32 Zdrastochye wrote: I don't know why people are pointing out that if you switch the genders, it's a much more serious crime. Isn't that completely obvious? Do you think it's the same thing when girls strip guys as when guys strip girls? Not in the slightest.
The mother should have pressed charges in my opinion, but the only reason the girls are getting away clean is because she's allowing them to. Had the mother pressed charges I'm sure people would be saying that the girls earned their punishment.
Except that the police said they only could charge it as misdemeanor which really isn't a serious thing. So even if the mother would press the issue it woulnd't be taken as seriously as if the roles were reversed.
Even thought you're probably going to get banned or warned because of just posting a silly youtube video, it's not even the same thing. The boy didn't have sex with an older girl, he got stripped naked against his will and the video got posted on youtube. Hardly worthy of "nice" even in South Park world.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
lol if you are 11 years old and never had a real punch-up you arent able to defend yourself even a 14 or 15 year old would have had problems defending himself against 3 agressive girls like that
People are focusing too much on the "3 girls stripped an 11yr old boy down *teehee*" aspect of this story and keep leaving out that he was BEAT UP in the process. It's plain violence plain and simple, 3 big kids picking on 1 smaller kid. Worse, it was all filmed and posted on YouTube to boot so all his friends, and his kids, and grandkids may find it one day and laugh at his face for years to come. (like anyone is going to permanently delete such a video from existence? Ha.)
This is a very delicate matter, as gender roles are still very specific. I myself have been bullied quite a bit in primary school (mostly because I was smart, I wanted to know everything, and wanted to let everyone else know what I knew, IE being a bit of a smartass, although I wasn't aware of it.). When the popular dudes started, the popular gals took it on too. They called me 'krentenbol (raisin bun)' because I had a few birthmarks on my face. The teachers usually didn't do jack shit (I don't blame them for it, gl trying to tell parents nowadays that their kids aren't perfect), other than to have the boys apologize. The girls could carry on as they liked. It had an impact on my life, as far as that in high school I was depressed for the first 2/3. I don't know if that was puberty or the bullying, but whatever.
The thing is, when I got out of being depressed and started to appreciate myself, things turned out great. I'm currently on my way to a BA in mech engineering, and when I visit the hometown where my parents live, I hear that some of the bullies didn't even finish high school.
TL;DR: That which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. I was bullied for ~5 years, got depressed, came out of it feeling better than ever about myself.
Now to the actual thread:
If women really want to be equal to men, they deserve the same punishment for the same shit. If they want to keep it this way, fine, but don't bitch about there being too many men working as CEO's or anything like that.
Some people here make it sound like those girls could have faced some severe punishment, had the mother raised charges. I'm quite unfamiliar with US laws, but where I live, at 14, 'a slap on the wrist' is the most you could get for something like this. In the end, this was nothing remarkably sever. Bullying happens - you can find more extreme videos online (kids setting others kids to fire, girls throwing bricks at someone, etc.). There is really no good solution to this either. Separating such children form others (say special schools), tends to have exactly the opposite effect. Fine the parents? Death penalty? Meh. In the end, most people do grow out of this.
The saddest thing here is, that this incident made it to news. I wonder who's brilliant idea was that. With just the youtuble clip, few people at school might have laughed over him. Now this kid is guaranteed to be bullied till high school at best.
On June 05 2011 14:46 Sephy69 wrote: Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
I would do it the other way around. I would definately not want to go to some court and to make all the fuzz about this if I was that boy to be labeled as the naked guy for the rest of my local school life.
Hey guys, time for a newsflash. Hormonal children who know no better do stupid things. While this is kind of the extreme side of that, It's not the first time a kids been bullied hard and at least here in the American South it's commonplace for bullying like that to take place when little kids run around by themselves.
Not that it's good when it happens but bullying has always happened and always will. Thats how kids with mean-streaks who think things like this are ok, learn whats acceptable in civilized society. By doing stupid childish things like tearing of little Tommys clothes because in their mind it was ok, getting caught, and getting their asses tore up by their parents.
For all we know, that little boy was hurling juvenile insults at those girls and they just acted out for payback when they realized they were strong enough to hold him down. While this obviously isn't acceptable behavior, It's also the kind of thing that when it happens, and is brought to the attention of the parents, punishment is most effectively handed out by those same parents. Whether it be ass whoopings or however else you and the other parent deem fit to discipline your children.
Honestly, has no one on this forum been through the American Public School System? Any kid who played outside before they found Starcraft probably has a similar story.
Little pieces of shit need to be punished as far as it can go, that's ridiculous behavior and the mother should be far more pissed off than what her statement showed. I was assaulted by far older people a little younger than this kid and it had a lasting impression on me that took a long time to shake and shit like this should never be taken lightly. That is one pathetic mother that's all I have to say, my mother would have kicked ass if she had known I was being bullied hardcore but this woman seems to not even really care even with video footage to back it up.
The difference between 3 guys doing this to a girl and the other way around is the more often than not the guys intention's were of a sexual nature...... you can't say the same thing about girls.
Good on his mum for not pressing charges, this should be dealt with by the girls parents and not in a court of law. I'll bet most of the people who are saying the mother is stupid aren't parents themselves, going thru a court proceeding would only do further damage to her child and really isn't needed anyhow
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Okay, this guy wins the Biggest Fucking Douche Award.
Its pretty easy. Older brother get some friends and do what they did too the kid. Might not be friendly, But talking or anything else isnt enough. Look @ casey. It stopped coz he acted and is a public hero.
Im not saying its the right move to do, But the only way to stop all of this shit is make them realize how bad it is to do this to kids.
If either of those girls were mine child abuse laws or not that girl would have the reddest bottom in the world along with a lack of any electronic device for about 6 months.
That is completely unacceptable and I agree with parents dealing with it provided they are responsible parents, which I am betting they are not.
First: Puberty typically begins,regardless of sex, between 10-13, so saying that the kid "most likely hasn't begun puberty" is completely wrong, and without evidence of him either not going through puberty, or going through it is irrelevant to your point.
im pretty sure that the general case is that girls start puberty at 11, boys start at 12. and their affects are only apparent when girls are 12 and boys are 13.
"Although there is a wide range of normal ages, girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 12 or 13."
On June 05 2011 22:31 emythrel wrote: The difference between 3 guys doing this to a girl and the other way around is the more often than not the guys intention's were of a sexual nature...... you can't say the same thing about girls.
Good on his mum for not pressing charges, this should be dealt with by the girls parents and not in a court of law. I'll bet most of the people who are saying the mother is stupid aren't parents themselves, going thru a court proceeding would only do further damage to her child and really isn't needed anyhow
What does it matter if their intentions were sexual or not. I agree that boys tend to do more of sex related stuff but that just means the girls should be charged for something else. Maybe distrubuting child pornography would be a good enough lesson? Abuse? Why does it has to be rape charges or nothing. The fact that they weren't getting aroused by it (and you can't be sure they didn't) doesn't mean it's ok and should just let the parents handle it.
Rofl if that happened here whether on school property or not they'd get a massive suspension if not outright expulsion (at least in the vast majority of schools).
I'm not sure about the mother's response of not pressing charges, at first I liked it but after watching the news thing it looked pretty fucken traumatic so idk...
i really don't get why all of you guys WANT to make it harder for the girls to put this behind them and grow up like healthy citizens (children in the legal system causes these children to commit more crimes) and i don't get why you want to make a bigger fuss about this for the boy. his mom is acting responsibly regarding her son, the girls and society as a whole instead of the retarded justice=vengeance shit you guys got going.
i was fucked up bad once when i was eleven and my dad did what you would have done - raised hell about it. so i lost my friends because i "was a geek who whined about a beating"(even though I didn't, i really never cared about violence. payback will always be a bitch), teachers ignored me since my dad was a pain in the ass, police did nothing cause it was a schoolyard beating amongst kids - there is nothing they can do. this actually forced me to become the most violent and abusive son of a bitch my school had ever seen and that is of course a problem for me - anger and violence aren't the most constructive things once you're no longer a teenager. my alternative would have been sitting in the corner, silent, for the rest of primary school.
letting stuff go and moving on is always best if it's possible.
On June 05 2011 23:21 ULTRAmarine wrote: i really don't get why all of you guys WANT to make it harder for the girls to put this behind them and grow up like healthy citizens (children in the legal system causes these children to commit more crimes) and i don't get why you want to make a bigger fuss about this for the boy. his mom is acting responsibly regarding her son, the girls and society as a whole instead of the retarded justice=vengeance shit you guys got going.
i was fucked up bad once when i was eleven and my dad did what you would have done - raised hell about it. so i lost my friends because i "was a geek who whined about a beating"(even though I didn't, i really never cared about violence. payback will always be a bitch), teachers ignored me since my dad was a pain in the ass, police did nothing cause it was a schoolyard beating amongst kids - there is nothing they can do. this actually forced me to become the most violent and abusive son of a bitch my school had ever seen and that is of course a problem for me - anger and violence aren't the most constructive things once you're no longer a teenager. my alternative would have been sitting in the corner, silent, for the rest of primary school.
letting stuff go and moving on is always best if it's possible.
EVERYONE would've been better off if you sat in the corner silent. What you are doing is just breeding more people like you. People don't just suddenly stop being mean, especially not if they don't get punished for it.
These girls needs to be used to set an example. Make them pay the boy 10 grand or some shit, make it, NOT WORTH DOING.
I know if I was in the kid's position, when the girl was on top of me, Id feel her up, lick around the knee, etc. This would turn me on and creep them out; so if they didnt stop, at least he would have gotten SOMEthing out of it
On June 05 2011 23:36 MK_Shao wrote: I know if I was in the kid's position, when the girl was on top of me, Id feel her up, lick around the knee, etc. This would turn me off and creep them out; so if they didnt stop, at least he would have gotten SOMEthing out of it
He's 11. That probably would be just as traumatic.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
Yes, brilliant idea.
Instead of protecting our young from those who are stronger by virtue of age alone, we should leave them to their suffering.
Jesus.
Oh no! The poor boy was ambushed and viciously attacked! Did you see the same video as me. He was crying like a baby. This didn't happen out of random chance the boy is pathetic. Its okay admitting your faults is the first step to recovering from them. You cannot change human nature, I am sure you have mocking somebody for being stupid before and that is no difference in bullying. In the game of life, survival and evolution are the goals. It happens everyday, the bigger pups will bully the run to death. Why should the other puppies give up food to a weakling? You have lived a comfortable life so i wouldn't expect you to understand. In any case, all animals, including humans, are bound to their emotions. Those girls felt the urge to pick on him and delight in carrying out the act. Do these girls deserve hellfire like the other poster here suggested. Maybe if your a Christian, but lets not get into that.
User was banned for this post.
There's a thing we humans have called civilization. That is what separates us from the pigs, and the cats, and the birds, or what have you. Human beings should not be allowed to step down to the level of animals. These girls are all at least two years older than this one boy, and chose to descend out of accepted civilized behavior to bully this on child. I don't care what you say, but bullying people, especially three against one against a person younger than you is not civilized, and shouldn't be accepted.
Kinda dumb though, I just wasted my first post bashing an obvious, already banned troll.
the boy was just 11, the girls 14, so ye what can he do? nothing nobody is understanding why this is pposted?? it's just because it happened the other way around, and they wanna remove the differences from the gender same with those stupid stories which get published all the time about a woman cutting off her husband's penis...
"So we saw that video humiliatig a child on youtube, so we thought that was awesome to publicly humiliate someone on youtube, we had to participate and get involve in that laughter so we passed the video 3 times in the news !
Kid : 0 the girls + youtube + the news : 1"
What would you think would have happened if instead of the 3 girls it was boys and the boy was a girl ?
I'm pretty sure, the sanction would have been jail for the 3s
I would just like to point out that just because they didn't face legal consequences doesn't mean they got away with it. Who knows what discussion took place between the parents of said kids. They are just 14 year old kids and it's not unreasonable to want to avoid involving the cops if it can be settled between the parents.
The dualality of 3 14 year old boys 11 year old girl vs 3 14 year old girls and an 11 year old boy puts an interesting light on our culture though.
On June 06 2011 01:08 Duban wrote: I would just like to point out that just because they didn't face legal consequences doesn't mean they got away with it. Who knows what discussion took place between the parents of said kids. They are just 14 year old kids and it's not unreasonable to want to avoid involving the cops if it can be settled between the parents.
The dualality of 3 14 year old boys 11 year old girl vs 3 14 year old girls and an 11 year old boy puts an interesting light on our culture though.
You call that punishment? When you were younger were you really scared of being grounded or given a talk?
Poor kid is probably traumatized for life and is will always be known as the kid in this video. The mother really should have pressed charges.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
And if me and two friends beat you up in public and piss on your face, will you also say that you should just "man up", to fight back against people way older and stronger than you? edit: just saw the other post and that he was banned....
On June 05 2011 23:21 ULTRAmarine wrote: i really don't get why all of you guys WANT to make it harder for the girls to put this behind them and grow up like healthy citizens (children in the legal system causes these children to commit more crimes) and i don't get why you want to make a bigger fuss about this for the boy. his mom is acting responsibly regarding her son, the girls and society as a whole instead of the retarded justice=vengeance shit you guys got going.
i was fucked up bad once when i was eleven and my dad did what you would have done - raised hell about it. so i lost my friends because i "was a geek who whined about a beating"(even though I didn't, i really never cared about violence. payback will always be a bitch), teachers ignored me since my dad was a pain in the ass, police did nothing cause it was a schoolyard beating amongst kids - there is nothing they can do. this actually forced me to become the most violent and abusive son of a bitch my school had ever seen and that is of course a problem for me - anger and violence aren't the most constructive things once you're no longer a teenager. my alternative would have been sitting in the corner, silent, for the rest of primary school.
letting stuff go and moving on is always best if it's possible.
This is an incredibly idealist and naive way to look at it. At the very least, all 3 girls should have to post a Youtube video apology, with their full name and information. That's the least they could do.
You can only play the "but they're just kids" card for so long.
I love that all the people laughing at the poor boy are almost certainly the geekier putting on a tough guy facade in hopes that we will think they're cool. We actually think you're pathetic hypocritic posers who would probably wet their pants if a girl even spoke to you. Drop the act.
There are 2 ways to identify the double standard here, and only one way to eliminate it. We've already played the game 'What if 3 guys had attacked 1 girl". But we don't even need to do that. Remove the genders altogether ; It should make no difference what gender the victim/aggressors were.
3 8th grade youths publicly undressed, battered and humiliated a younger child, filmed it and posted the footage on the internet for all to see. There is assault and battery, then sexual harassment, and finally there is cyber intimidation. This is very serious stuff.
On June 06 2011 01:18 lectR wrote: I'd uppercut those girls Mortal Kombat style.
Complete with X-ray moves.
Seriously. Society right now is such a freakin gender biased situation. Women have such an easier time with so many things even though they complain a lot more. If the 8th graders were guys and the kid was a girl, those guys would be going to jail, or at least paying a ton of money. Absolutely stupid.
On June 06 2011 01:25 AraMoOse wrote: I love that all the people laughing at the poor boy are almost certainly the geekier putting on a tough guy facade in hopes that we will think they're cool. We actually think you're pathetic hypocritic posers who would probably wet their pants if a girl even spoke to you. Drop the act.
There are 2 ways to identify the double standard here, and only one way to eliminate it. We've already played the game 'What if 3 guys had attacked 1 girl". But we don't even need to do that. Remove the genders altogether ; It should make no difference what gender the victim/aggressors were.
3 8th grade youths publicly undressed, battered and humiliated a younger child, filmed it and posted the footage on the internet for all to see. There is assault and battery, then sexual harassment, and finally there is cyber intimidation. This is very serious stuff.
The thing that really gets me is that it would seems as if the boy doesn't want to "fight" back because theyre women.
I am thoroughly disturbed by this. Also, those shorts which the girls took off the boy looked a LOT like mine.
The mother is doing terrible parenting by not pressing charges. Does she really think the parents of the girls will take action against their own daughters?
On June 06 2011 01:25 AraMoOse wrote: I love that all the people laughing at the poor boy are almost certainly the geekier putting on a tough guy facade in hopes that we will think they're cool. We actually think you're pathetic hypocritic posers who would probably wet their pants if a girl even spoke to you. Drop the act.
There are 2 ways to identify the double standard here, and only one way to eliminate it. We've already played the game 'What if 3 guys had attacked 1 girl". But we don't even need to do that. Remove the genders altogether ; It should make no difference what gender the victim/aggressors were.
3 8th grade youths publicly undressed, battered and humiliated a younger child, filmed it and posted the footage on the internet for all to see. There is assault and battery, then sexual harassment, and finally there is cyber intimidation. This is very serious stuff.
On June 06 2011 01:35 pedduck wrote: Must be hard for 11 year old kid to get that. I would take a beat from 3 older guy that to get that from 3 girl.
Yeah. How dare that boy not appreciate being stripped down while being attacked.
Horrible parenting, and I think those girls should all be tracked down, shoved into a dark alley, and shown how much THEY would like it if they were stripped down while someone's buddy filmed. I would be a completely different situation... Wouldn't it -_-
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
Can't even image the outrage if the first case had happened. They'd go straight onto the USofA's, oh so wonderful, sexual offender list thing, which basically means they are done with their normal life.
On June 05 2011 23:11 Mafs wrote: I think the boy will take a stick and break their legs next time he sees them. At least, thats what I would do.
If this happened to me, I would definitely react violently towards the girls (regardless of right or wrong). It's instinct to defend oneself.
In what twisted world is assaulting 3 girls with a stick after the fact considered defending oneself.
It's not, unless one considers vengeance/vigilante -justice a form of emotional defense (making the world "right" again from one's perspective). I was thinking more of during the initial confrontation (though there's not much one can do in a 3 vs 1 match up). Also, this world is "twisted", so to answer your question: this world.
omg if the sexes were switched wed have 3 14 year old boys´ lifes ruined, but since it was girls sexually assaulting the young boy and thats what they call a "prank that went wrong". REDICOLOUS
On June 05 2011 14:46 Sephy69 wrote: Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
I agree and disagree. Say if this would have happened 15 years ago, letting the parents deal with a situation like this would have been way better than the law getting involved. Now, no one punishes their kids like they used to only way to handle situations like these is to turn to the law.
On June 05 2011 16:33 gchan wrote: Wow, I'm really surprised by the animosity towards the boy's parent. I think she responded appropriately, and it wasn't simply because it was her son rather than her daughter (as many TLers are implying). From her statement, you can clearly tell that she thought it was wrong. The implication I got was that she didn't want to use the legal system to teach responsibility and right/wrong, but rather, she thought it should be something taught by parents. I think the response of a lot of TLers wanting to sue, calling for jailtime, etc is way overblown. This over reliance on a legalist society takes the responsibility of right/wrong from the individuals and instead puts the responsibility on the legal system. And in my opinion, this is absolutely the wrong path to go down, as a society.
If your kids are already doing stuff like this, I don't the parents are the ideal source of discipline and values
I have a lot of friends on Facebook with girls around the age 13-16 and they are so emo. They constantly type statuses about hating males and how "they hurt them" because a 14 year old boy said they will love them forever.
These girls will take their rage out on males forever and get away with it because they are female, and they are weaker than males.
On June 05 2011 14:46 Sephy69 wrote: Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
I agree and disagree. Say if this would have happened 15 years ago, letting the parents deal with a situation like this would have been way better than the law getting involved. Now, no one punishes their kids like they used to only way to handle situations like these is to turn to the law.
Um, isn't that entirely specific to the particular family? Some parents might let their kids get away with something like this without any significant punishment, but I think that the vast majority would not.
EDIT: Actually I have no idea about the area this occurred in, I spose if it was a shit hole place I guess it'd be different.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Would you consider yourself "fine" if you were abused like that and your humiliation was put on YouTube, for the whole wide world to see? All your enemies and friends alike would have something else to tease you about, which has varying extremities, depending on his current social status.
You said if it happened to you that you would work to make the lives of the girls a living hell. It would be hypocritical to call bullying immoral and torturing moral by your standards. If I was bullied by girls I would admit that I am a pathetic man. I would also be wise enough to know that there is a way out it. Bullying happens for a reason, and all social animals do it. It is because you are weak and instead of getting 'revenge' try and become stronger so it never happens again.
I know you're banned and you won't be able to post anything in response but I meant that I would use every shred of legal I had and every ounce of sympathy to make sure the girls suffer legal charges. I didn't mean that I would physically or socially bully them. I think I would speak with the principal or a judge and make sure the girls were punished, and harshly.
Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it", jesus fucking christ how is that even a coherent statement, in my eyes she is just as bad parent as the ones from the girls.
But i guess im just being naive wanting people to be reasonable and generally smart.
This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
On June 06 2011 02:09 King[Neikos] wrote: Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it", jesus fucking christ how is that even a coherent statement, in my eyes she is just as bad parent as the ones from the girls.
But i guess im just being naive wanting people to be reasonable and generally smart.
Do you understand that different people have different perspectives on things? Why can you not respect her decision, just because it's not what you would do does not make it inherently wrong. Neither response would be ~smart~, they're just different paths to go down.
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
So what you're saying is that whatever a male does, its for sex. If I depants a girl, its because I want to have sex with her right there on the spot?
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
Strap-ons exist, tho obviously it seems rather on the unlikely side that they would use one, just pointing out that its not at all impossible. Plus, wasnt there some fucked up russian girl who force fed a would-be-robber viagra after tying him up at gunpoint, and proceeded to rape him a bunch of times? Something like that is what I remember, there was a thread on TL. At least that guy had it SORT OF coming, with trying to rob her in the first place.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
Your situation would not have been a sex-crime regardless of genders of people involved tho, its bad but a lot more harmless than what the girls in this case did (i have no idea if it should be classified as assault or sexual assault since I know jackshit about what qualifies as what under the law).
On June 06 2011 02:09 King[Neikos] wrote: Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it", jesus fucking christ how is that even a coherent statement, in my eyes she is just as bad parent as the ones from the girls.
But i guess im just being naive wanting people to be reasonable and generally smart.
Do you understand that different people have different perspectives on things? Why can you not respect her decision, just because it's not what you would do does not make it inherently wrong. Neither response would be ~smart~, they're just different paths to go down.
Ye some dumb kids do something stupid, let's ruin their entire lives over it.... Pretty obvious the mom did the right thing there. The boy will be fine, plenty of stupid embarassing shit like that happens to kids all over the world, only thing that was so special here is that it hit the interwebs.
Fact that they were trying to steal his clothes doesn't instantly imply sex crime either. It's only a sex crime if there's sex involved !
Just to clarify I don't really advocate either the mother's choice or the press charges solution over the other, I can see pros and cons for each, it would be a hard decision to make.
On June 06 2011 01:35 pedduck wrote: Must be hard for 11 year old kid to get that. I would take a beat from 3 older guy that to get that from 3 girl.
Yeah. How dare that boy not appreciate being stripped down while being attacked.
Horrible parenting, and I think those girls should all be tracked down, shoved into a dark alley, and shown how much THEY would like it if they were stripped down while someone's buddy filmed. I would be a completely different situation... Wouldn't it -_-
On June 06 2011 01:22 BushidoSnipr wrote: thats fucking sick. If that were me id fucking find those chicks and beat the shit out of them.
Theres so much repressed teen angst in this thread its sick. I feel like we should all just forget about the news clip entirely and talk each other through our mommy issues.
Seriously, I want everyone here who's so angry over this story they feel 3 middle school girls should be dragged in a dark alley stripped and/or beaten, to remember they are not 12 years old and remember there's a whole industry of health care professionals licensed by the state to help you process your rage before you misplace it on some little girl walking home from day care
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
You are exemplifying the double standard we're complaining about. What grounds do you have to say that "if males were doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it"? You're presuming on the intentions of hypothetical people, based strictly on your prejudiced opinion. You're also exculpating the girls based on the same prejudice.
Forget that the aggressors are girls and the victim is a boy, it is completely irrelevant. 3 older kids attacked and publicly humiliated a younger kid, then put videos of it on the internet to further humiliate the kid.
I honestly cannot fathom why someone would do this to another person? By 14 years old, you should be smart enough to realize that you don't do this to another person, no matter who or where they are!
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
So what you're saying is that whatever a male does, its for sex. If I depants a girl, its because I want to have sex with her right there on the spot?
The reason sex-crimes even on a "low" level are punished hard is the the psychological trauma on the victims side for even beeing in this situation where forced sex is possible. Its about the victims side. In this case a sexual intention is unlikely even from the boys point of view. (Jinro I dont think the boy thought of strap-ons in this situations ^^ ) In german law terms what the girls did (if I was the judge and had to go after this case) could be charged with "Nötigung" (to force something of someone) but not "Sexuelle Nötigung" (a complete new level). I am not saying that it wasnt bad what the girls did there and they actually could be charged by law. I am just saying that this specific situation cant be compared to a rape situation a 11 year old girl could be in or could feel to be in when hold down and undressed by 2 14 year old boys.
@AraMoOse: No the speficic situation is actually important. You cant view this the same way you see a mathematical problem. Again what they did could be charged as a crime (even though i am not a fan of charging 14 years old with jailtime). But it just didnt have the sexual element a situation with reversed roles would most likely have.
On June 05 2011 14:38 Phyre wrote: I find it pretty ridiculous that the mother of the boy isn't pressing charges and seems to be disregarding this simply as a prank that went a bit too far.
Pressing charges could really hurt the girls' lives.
Society at large is fine with boys being beat up and shit on because we're supposed to lose our sensitivity anyways. If the genders were reversed, the boys doing it would probably get rape charges.
Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it
What!? You sicken me! You think the boys mother is bad because she's not exacting enough revenge?!
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
So what you're saying is that whatever a male does, its for sex. If I depants a girl, its because I want to have sex with her right there on the spot?
The reason sex-crimes even on a "low" level are punished hard is the the psychological trauma on the victims side for even beeing in this situation where forced sex is possible. Its about the victims side. In this case a sexual intention is unlikely even from the boys point of view. (Jinro I dont think the boy thought of strap-ons in this situations ^^ ) In german law terms what the girls did (if I was the judge and had to go after this case) could be charged with "Nötigung" (to force something of someone) but not "Sexuelle Nötigung" (a complete new level). I am not saying that it wasnt bad what the girls did there and they actually could be charged by law. I am just saying that this specific situation cant be compared to a rape situation a 11 year old girl could be in or could feel to be in when hold down and undressed by 2 14 year old boys.
There is a huge difference between rape and sexual herrasment. Clearly completely undressing someone against their will is considered a sexual crime.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
Yeah, people are like, "I'd get so mad at my mom if she refused to press charges!" and that's a joke. In any town across all of America, if you were known as the kid who got his clothes taken off by upperclassmen and his mom sued the kids and possibly single handedly ruined their future, you'd become the largest social outcast imaginable. The mom's decision seems smarter than anything my parents would do.
That kid will remember this 20years from now on. And could take severely psychological damage from this. But yea in the end its the mothers fault obviously. She doesn't want to press charges and probably wont help her kid out much with psychologically either. Its pretty sad. But there is happening worse stuff in the states every day so its not surprising me much.
On June 05 2011 14:38 Phyre wrote: I find it pretty ridiculous that the mother of the boy isn't pressing charges and seems to be disregarding this simply as a prank that went a bit too far.
Pressing charges could really hurt the girls' lives.
Society at large is fine with boys being beat up and shit on because we're supposed to lose our sensitivity anyways. If the genders were reversed, the boys doing it would probably get rape charges.
Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it
What!? You sicken me! You think the boys mother is bad because she's not exacting enough revenge?!
So... why do people always read what they want to read and never read what is written?
Were in my post do i mention revenge?, i say the boys mother is bad because she wants the girls parents to do something about a situation that she is doing NOTHING about.
I'm glad most of the TL community is just as disturbed and sickened by this as I am, aside from the few people commenting who think this is even remotely funny at all. I applaud the mother for her decision. I have to say, if I was his parent, they would not have gotten off so easily.
Ya wtf this is so dumb, I'm sorry but those girls should go to jail or some shit. If the situation was reversed and 3 guys ripped the clothes off a girl in the middle of a street, its a serious fucking crime but girls do it to a guy and their mothers slap them on the wrist?
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
Its a "rape" by law standards, so the girls should be punished in consequence. I am however surprised by the fact that the Sociological change is felt so hard. This is normally something "boys" would do, and if they did, even hell wouldent be safe for them.
On June 06 2011 03:07 King[Neikos] wrote: [ So... why do people always read what they want to read and never read what is written?
Were in my post do i mention revenge?, i say the boys mother is bad because she wants the girls parents to do something about a situation that she is doing NOTHING about.
Well, to be frank, I don't think we can say that the mother is doing NOTHING. We don't know that. What we do know is that she's not pressing charges, which is only one of the multitudes of things she could do. Your post never uses the word revenge, but that's the only reason why you, as the mother, would want to press charges. You're not doing this for prevention purposes, the harm has already been done. Maybe she feels that pressing charges would distract her for caring for her son in a time of psychological distress.
Now I would have pressed charges, no question about it. But I don't think it's fair to judge the woman because she didn't. She has a much better understanding of the circumstances than we do and she knows her son far better than we do.
On June 05 2011 14:38 Phyre wrote: I find it pretty ridiculous that the mother of the boy isn't pressing charges and seems to be disregarding this simply as a prank that went a bit too far.
Pressing charges could really hurt the girls' lives.
And you don't think that 11 year-old got traumatized by being held to the ground and stripped naked? Instead you're worried about that three bullies may have to take responsibility for what they did. The girls's parent's aren't going to do shit, because if they had decent parents they wouldn't be doing that kind of stuff in the first place.
On June 05 2011 14:46 Sephy69 wrote: Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
You would've hated your mother for that? Wow.. Thank god I'm not in your family, lmao.
Personally I wouldn't wanna go to court. I don't understand the vengeance so many seem to feel necessary. I don't think it'll help the boy to sit in court accusing a couple of crying girls for assault. The mother seems pretty sensible though.
On June 06 2011 03:07 King[Neikos] wrote: [ So... why do people always read what they want to read and never read what is written?
Were in my post do i mention revenge?, i say the boys mother is bad because she wants the girls parents to do something about a situation that she is doing NOTHING about.
Well, to be frank, I don't think we can say that the mother is doing NOTHING. We don't know that. What we do know is that she's not pressing charges, which is only one of the multitudes of things she could do. Your post never uses the word revenge, but that's the only reason why you, as the mother, would want to press charges. You're not doing this for prevention purposes, the harm has already been done. Maybe she feels that pressing charges would distract her for caring for her son in a time of psychological distress.
Now I would have pressed charges, no question about it. But I don't think it's fair to judge the woman because she didn't. She has a much better understanding of the circumstances than we do and she knows her son far better than we do.
So, the girls are committing a crime against your son, and the only reason to present charges against the perpetrators is for revenge? You have a pretty twisted sense of justice right there.
And i beg to differ about her knowing her son so much better than us, remember she only realized about the whole stuff AFTER her other son told her, and the sibling only came to know about it after a friend of his told him, a lot of union in the family.
On June 06 2011 03:07 King[Neikos] wrote: [ So... why do people always read what they want to read and never read what is written?
Were in my post do i mention revenge?, i say the boys mother is bad because she wants the girls parents to do something about a situation that she is doing NOTHING about.
Well, to be frank, I don't think we can say that the mother is doing NOTHING. We don't know that. What we do know is that she's not pressing charges, which is only one of the multitudes of things she could do. Your post never uses the word revenge, but that's the only reason why you, as the mother, would want to press charges. You're not doing this for prevention purposes, the harm has already been done. Maybe she feels that pressing charges would distract her for caring for her son in a time of psychological distress.
Now I would have pressed charges, no question about it. But I don't think it's fair to judge the woman because she didn't. She has a much better understanding of the circumstances than we do and she knows her son far better than we do.
So, the girls are committing a crime against your son, and the only reason to present charges against the perpetrators is for revenge? You have a pretty twisted sense of justice right there.
And i beg to differ about her knowing her son so much better than us, remember she only realized about the whole stuff AFTER her other son told her, and the sibling only came to know about it after a friend of his told him, a lot of union in the family.
To be fair, I highly doubt many people would tell their parents if this happened to them. Based purely on what I know about people and nothing substantive but I feel strongly that this would be the case.
On June 06 2011 03:07 King[Neikos] wrote: [ So... why do people always read what they want to read and never read what is written?
Were in my post do i mention revenge?, i say the boys mother is bad because she wants the girls parents to do something about a situation that she is doing NOTHING about.
Well, to be frank, I don't think we can say that the mother is doing NOTHING. We don't know that. What we do know is that she's not pressing charges, which is only one of the multitudes of things she could do. Your post never uses the word revenge, but that's the only reason why you, as the mother, would want to press charges. You're not doing this for prevention purposes, the harm has already been done. Maybe she feels that pressing charges would distract her for caring for her son in a time of psychological distress.
Now I would have pressed charges, no question about it. But I don't think it's fair to judge the woman because she didn't. She has a much better understanding of the circumstances than we do and she knows her son far better than we do.
So, the girls are committing a crime against your son, and the only reason to present charges against the perpetrators is for revenge? You have a pretty twisted sense of justice right there.
And i beg to differ about her knowing her son so much better than us, remember she only realized about the whole stuff AFTER her other son told her, and the sibling only came to know about it after a friend of his told him, a lot of union in the family.
America's justice system is based around 'eye for an eye' and revenge. Ofcourse that would be the reason. What else? It doesn't help the boy and it doesn't help the girls.
On June 06 2011 03:13 AraMoOse wrote: Well, to be frank, I don't think we can say that the mother is doing NOTHING. We don't know that. What we do know is that she's not pressing charges, which is only one of the multitudes of things she could do.
Actually we do know she is doing nothing. Besides pressing charges there isn't much else she can do. She can try and punish the girls via school, but in the item it is already said that the school will not punish the girls involved. Then since neither of the girls is one of her kids she has done and will do NOTHING.
On June 06 2011 03:13 AraMoOse wrote: Your post never uses the word revenge, but that's the only reason why you, as the mother, would want to press charges. You're not doing this for prevention purposes, the harm has already been done. Maybe she feels that pressing charges would distract her for caring for her son in a time of psychological distress.
Actually revenge is a component in punishment. Appart from that it is >obviously< not the case that punishment is only for prevention purposes in the narrow case of a particular event. But rather as a preventive measure from this happening again anywhere anytime.
After all with your reasoning people should be able to get away with murder. The victim is already dead so who cares right?
On June 06 2011 03:13 AraMoOse wrote: Now I would have pressed charges, no question about it. But I don't think it's fair to judge the woman because she didn't. She has a much better understanding of the circumstances than we do and she knows her son far better than we do.
I guess we will have to disagree on that. Me personaly, I would take it as a huge betrayel if my mom decided not to press charges or do anything else for that matter, even downplaying it as a joke that got a little out of hand. I would even go to court to have child custody removed so I could press charges myself.
On June 06 2011 02:23 Haemonculus wrote: A woman is raped every minute in this country, and you guys flip your shit over this story.
Wow.
I hate when people just throw irrational statements for the sake of sensationalism. Forget the facts, let's just make our own to push the agenda.
Using your own numbers, over 500,000 women would have been raped last year. However, if you just google fbi, and crime statistics, you can seen that rape has been decreasing for the past 20 years. In 2009, they were are their lowest since 1999 at 88,000.
You're not alone though. Even Joe Biden and going around blabbing this non sense. He actually states that in 1 in 4 college women have been raped...which puts the total of women raped in college at around 415,000 ...which surpasses the FBI numbers. Hell, they even contradict NOW(National Organization of Women) which estimates it at around at 218,000.
But forget the facts, let's just throw numbers at people and hope they don't check them!
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
Whao... edit your post cause your language clearly deserves a ban. I try not to overreact to your language against me and just state my case. Please do not view this in black and white only and please see the specific situation. (Sure a woman raping a man is possible in generell) I am a law student myself and I know the defenitions of rape. Thank you. The only thing I said was you cant simply compare this to a situation where the roles would be reverse. And thats for a reason. The psychological trauma is a diffrent one. If you look at this specific situations the possibilitys are diffrent, the whole setup in a front yard, all these things) If I were a judge deciding if this crime had a sexual component just the way a major sex crime has, I would come to a diffrent conclusion. If the roles would be reversed I wouldnt be sure. Cause even if the guys dont have a rape-intention (like these girls clearly didnt, cause they've seen it as a prank), at least from the victims point of view it more likely (again not everytime, not 100% just more likely) has another dimension.
Btw. I never said what these girls did wasnt a malicious assault (dont know the correct english law terms). Please read more carefully next time.
On June 06 2011 02:23 Haemonculus wrote: A woman is raped every minute in this country, and you guys flip your shit over this story.
Wow.
I hate when people just throw irrational statements for the sake of sensationalism. Forget the facts, let's just make our own to push the agenda.
Using your own numbers, over 500,000 women would have been raped last year. However, if you just google fbi, and crime statistics, you can seen that rape has been decreasing for the past 20 years. In 2009, they were are their lowest since 1999 at 88,000.
You're not alone though. Even Joe Biden and going around blabbing this non sense. He actually states that in 1 in 4 college women have been raped...which puts the total of women raped in college at around 415,000 ...which surpasses the FBI numbers. Hell, they even contradict NOW(National Organization of Women) which estimates it at around at 218,000.
But forget the facts, let's just throw numbers at people and hope they don't check them!
Thanks for providing actual numbers. It's amazing the amount of people who are white-knighting the girls in this story. It's hilarious.
As for the other posts in the last couple pages, I'm not taking the bait from the America bashers. You'd think on an international forum like TL, that Europeans would try not to paint Americans with a broad brush, but the stereotyping I'm seeing is very disappointing.
*And I can't believe I'm posting instead of watching MLG. Lol.
On June 05 2011 14:46 Sephy69 wrote: Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
You would've hated your mother for that? Wow.. Thank god I'm not in your family, lmao.
Personally I wouldn't wanna go to court. I don't understand the vengeance so many seem to feel necessary. I don't think it'll help the boy to sit in court accusing a couple of crying girls for assault. The mother seems pretty sensible though.
If I wanted to press charges, and my mother refused me, I would hate her for life.
However, I wouldnt press charges because I would never ever have wanted the revenge to be done by anyone but myself -_-
@ Haem, I would hope that if the roles in this video were reversed, we d have a twenty page thread calling for the victims heads to roll (infact, Im sure we would have a very one-sided thread in that regard lol).
Yeah, far worse things happen than this video every second of every day (its a big world), and but a scant few of them make the news, I still dont think that makes the reactions here wrong... Also feel free to report posts you feel are overly misogynistic, its a big thread and hard to keep up with.
On June 05 2011 14:38 Phyre wrote: I find it pretty ridiculous that the mother of the boy isn't pressing charges and seems to be disregarding this simply as a prank that went a bit too far.
Pressing charges could really hurt the girls' lives.
Society at large is fine with boys being beat up and shit on because we're supposed to lose our sensitivity anyways. If the genders were reversed, the boys doing it would probably get rape charges.
Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it
What!? You sicken me! You think the boys mother is bad because she's not exacting enough revenge?!
Yeah no kidding.
I find the amount of moaning about the mom kind of ridiculous. I think she made the right call. Not everything is about obtaining revenge. She is showing the ideals to her kids and the three girls that sometimes it isn't best to continue cycles of violence.
Not to mention, I guarantee her parents are going to actually punish them. ESPECIALLY since the mom isn't pressing charges. TL, I ask you, how would you punish your daughter if they were invovled in this?
I'd be shocked if the answer wasn't something rather serious. Personally I think the parents can be more intimidating than the courts, and has less potential to end someones lives for something they did when they were 14. I dunno about you, but I did all kinds of stupid shit when I was fourteen that if I did now I would probably be unable to find employment, but that isn't unusual. Children do stupid things.
On June 06 2011 03:25 Phenny wrote: To be fair, I highly doubt many people would tell their parents if this happened to them. Based purely on what I know about people and nothing substantive but I feel strongly that this would be the case.
Thats my point, you cant say you know you son/daughter better than anyone else when they dont even trust you for delicate or sensitive matters. And that is the case as you just said with most people, parents are the ones that often know less about their own children.
On June 06 2011 03:26 Euronyme wrote: America's justice system is based around 'eye for an eye' and revenge. Ofcourse that would be the reason. What else? It doesn't help the boy and it doesn't help the girls.
How it doesnt help the boy? help me here i fail to see the logic in that, offenders are walking away without consequences after committing a crime, which tells them and any other person in the country that they are free to do that as many times as they want without having to worry about anything. To me it helps the boy showing him that the system and society in which he lives in punishes this kind of acts being done to other people, and it helps the girls shown them that they cant just do whatever the hell they want with other people.
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
Whao... edit your post cause your language clearly deserves a ban. I try not to overreact to your language against me and just state my case. Please do not view this in black and white only and please see the specific situation. (Sure a woman raping a man is possible in generell) I am a law student myself and I know the defenitions of rape. Thank you. The only thing I said was you cant simply compare this to a situation where the roles would be reverse. And thats for a reason. The psychological trauma is a diffrent one. If you look at this specific situations the possibilitys are diffrent, the whole setup in a front yard, all these things) If I were a judge deciding if this crime had a sexual component just the way a major sex crime has, I would come to a diffrent conclusion. If the roles would be reversed I wouldnt be sure. Cause even if the guys dont have a rape-intention (like these girls clearly didnt, cause they've seen it as a prank), at least from the victims point of view it more likely (again not everytime, not 100% just more likely) has another dimension.
Can you cite some sources that suggest that if boys do this, it's clearly sexually motivated and if girls do it, it's likely not? Can you cite some sources on how the trauma would be different?
From where I'm sitting, an 11 year old getting physically assaulted and stripped by 14 year olds is the same regardless of gender, and I see no reason why the trauma would be different because of gender.
So, if I'm a guy and I think I'm less likely to think I'm going to get raped in this situation and that makes it worse because a girl is more likely to think she's going to get raped? I'm at a complete loss here... I don't understand this reasoning at all.
Pressing charges could really hurt the girls' lives.
As opposed to what the girls did, which DID hurt the boys' life?
The girls don't need to go to jail, but clearly just "discipline" by their parents is not enough. A misdemeanor, while perhaps too light (as some mentioned) would serve as a vivid reminder to the girls throughout their lives, as well as a message to bullies of this (and any) type around the nation.
i really don't get why all of you guys WANT to make it harder for the girls to put this behind them and grow up like healthy citizens
These girls are clearly NOT healthy citizens. Would you advocate that rapists or murderers or robbers put their crimes behind them, and get off scot-free?
Why would those girls WANT to make it harder for the boy to put this behind him and to grow up like a healthy citizen?
And at the people who say the reverse possibility (men de-clothing a girl in public) is not analogous to the current situation, on the grounds that men would ONLY do it of a sexual nature.
You are WRONG. It is discriminatory (for lack of a better word, sexism is too strong) to say that ALL MEN would ONLY do this of a SEXUAL nature. There is no reason to believe that even if there were no indications of what would be a sexual assault (erections, close contact, wording, positioning, emotion) that the men did it of a clear sexual nature. That is sexism (not Reverse-sexism, as some foolish people call it).
Additionally, while there is no proof of it (from what we can tell from the story and video) there IS NO REASON that the girls could have NOT done it because of a SEXUAL NATURE. While it is true that signs of women being "horny" is less obvious and harder to detect (partly because of societal views) than is men, it IS POSSIBLE that the women WERE DE-CLOTHING that boy BECAUSE OF A SEXUAL NATURE. To say that they definitively did NOT do so because of sexual nature is ALSO DISCRIMINATORY.
This sort of news makes me sick, and convinces me that sexism is alive and well in modern day society in the forms of both chivalry and this exact case.
On June 05 2011 14:38 Phyre wrote: I find it pretty ridiculous that the mother of the boy isn't pressing charges and seems to be disregarding this simply as a prank that went a bit too far.
Pressing charges could really hurt the girls' lives.
Society at large is fine with boys being beat up and shit on because we're supposed to lose our sensitivity anyways. If the genders were reversed, the boys doing it would probably get rape charges.
Some of the people in this thread sicken me even more than the girls in the video. Custody for the child should be removed from the boys mother, i cant believe she just says "i want these girls parents to do something about it
What!? You sicken me! You think the boys mother is bad because she's not exacting enough revenge?!
Yeah no kidding.
I find the amount of moaning about the mom kind of ridiculous. I think she made the right call. Not everything is about obtaining revenge. She is showing the ideals to her kids and the three girls that sometimes it isn't best to continue cycles of violence.
Not to mention, I guarantee her parents are going to actually punish them. ESPECIALLY since the mom isn't pressing charges. TL, I ask you, how would you punish your daughter if they were invovled in this?
I'd be shocked if the answer wasn't something rather serious. Personally I think the parents can be more intimidating than the courts, and has less potential to end someones lives for something they did when they were 14. I dunno about you, but I did all kinds of stupid shit when I was fourteen that if I did now I would probably be unable to find employment, but that isn't unusual. Children do stupid things.
Yeh but like someone else said, to have kids that would do this kind of things means there is a strong probability (at best) that the parents are fucked up too, so they would let them off easy probably.
On June 06 2011 03:37 iCanada wrote: Not to mention, I guarantee her parents are going to actually punish them. ESPECIALLY since the mom isn't pressing charges. TL, I ask you, how would you punish your daughter if they were invovled in this?
If it was my daughter I'd turn her in to the police. By the time she is 14 she should know enough to understand that an action such as this is not ok. Hence she should take responsibility.
On June 06 2011 03:25 Phenny wrote: To be fair, I highly doubt many people would tell their parents if this happened to them. Based purely on what I know about people and nothing substantive but I feel strongly that this would be the case.
Thats my point, you cant say you know you son/daughter better than anyone else when they dont even trust you for delicate or sensitive matters. And that is the case as you just said with most people, parents are the ones that often know less about their own children.
On June 06 2011 03:26 Euronyme wrote: America's justice system is based around 'eye for an eye' and revenge. Ofcourse that would be the reason. What else? It doesn't help the boy and it doesn't help the girls.
How it doesnt help the boy? help me here i fail to see the logic in that, offenders are walking away without consequences after committing a crime, which tells them and any other person in the country that they are free to do that as many times as they want without having to worry about anything. To me it helps the boy showing him that the system and society in which he lives in punishes this kind of acts being done to other people, and it helps the girls shown them that they cant just do whatever the hell they want with other people.
LOL. You're talking as if this was a murder by some hardcore batshit child abuser. It was a couple of young girls force undressing a young boy. You really want that to go through the justice system? "offenders walking away without consequences after commiting a crime".. Wow seriously? They're kids for christ sakes.
Justice to me is not about punishment, it's about helping people. I don't think this is a serious enough crime (honestly, is it even a crime?) to warrant being called a criminal. Might as well sue the toddler who finger painted on your walls for disturbing of peace, and destroying private property.
If it was two 15 year old boys stripping an 11 year old girl and posting it on youtube, reactions would be different. Throw the girls in jail for kiddie porn laws.
On June 06 2011 03:25 Phenny wrote: To be fair, I highly doubt many people would tell their parents if this happened to them. Based purely on what I know about people and nothing substantive but I feel strongly that this would be the case.
Thats my point, you cant say you know you son/daughter better than anyone else when they dont even trust you for delicate or sensitive matters. And that is the case as you just said with most people, parents are the ones that often know less about their own children.
On June 06 2011 03:26 Euronyme wrote: America's justice system is based around 'eye for an eye' and revenge. Ofcourse that would be the reason. What else? It doesn't help the boy and it doesn't help the girls.
How it doesnt help the boy? help me here i fail to see the logic in that, offenders are walking away without consequences after committing a crime, which tells them and any other person in the country that they are free to do that as many times as they want without having to worry about anything. To me it helps the boy showing him that the system and society in which he lives in punishes this kind of acts being done to other people, and it helps the girls shown them that they cant just do whatever the hell they want with other people.
LOL. You're talking as if this was a murder by some hardcore batshit child abuser. It was a couple of young girls force undressing a young boy. You really want that to go through the justice system? "offenders walking away without consequences after commiting a crime".. Wow seriously? They're kids for christ sakes.
Justice to me is not about punishment, it's about helping people. I don't think this is a serious enough crime (honestly, is it even a crime?) to warrant being called a criminal. Might as well sue the toddler who finger painted on your walls for disturbing of peace, and destroying private property.
If a law exist against it you could do it, crime is a crime, and it warrants punishment from the law that is there to prevent that from happening and to punish (sorry for being redundant) the individuals that do it.
Their kids? thats all? so, what if they shot at someone? their kids so its okay? and dont come saying its a different matter, its a crime, law exist, law should be enforced and criminals judged. What if they were all grown ups, 20-30 years, wouldnt it be a crime? wouldnt the victim take it to the court? why is it different just because "they are kids".
Enlighten me on how justice helps people be letting them walk off like they hadnt do anything.
On June 06 2011 03:13 AraMoOse wrote: Well, to be frank, I don't think we can say that the mother is doing NOTHING. We don't know that. What we do know is that she's not pressing charges, which is only one of the multitudes of things she could do.
Actually we do know she is doing nothing. Besides pressing charges there isn't much else she can do. She can try and punish the girls via school, but in the item it is already said that the school will not punish the girls involved. Then since neither of the girls is one of her kids she has done and will do NOTHING.
No, those are only ways to punish the girls. I agree she is doing nothing TO PUNISH THE GIRLS. That's not the point being argued. The point is that punishing the girls is not the only dimension to this situation. While I would have pressed charges, punishing the girls is not my primary concern here. My primary concern is the wellbeing of my son. If pressing charges is a distraction from caring for my son, then caring for my son takes precedence, even if it means the girls will never be punished,
On June 06 2011 03:13 AraMoOse wrote: Your post never uses the word revenge, but that's the only reason why you, as the mother, would want to press charges. You're not doing this for prevention purposes, the harm has already been done. Maybe she feels that pressing charges would distract her for caring for her son in a time of psychological distress.
Actually revenge is a component in punishment. Appart from that it is >obviously< not the case that punishment is only for prevention purposes in the narrow case of a particular event. But rather as a preventive measure from this happening again anywhere anytime.
After all with your reasoning people should be able to get away with murder. The victim is already dead so who cares right?
You are in fact agreeing with me here, and then arguing against a position I didn't defend. My point is not that we shouldn't punish. It's that punishment is not the 'end game', especially for a mother. The end game is a psycologically healthy boy (and a safe environment for him and others to develop in).
Punishment is a decent counter-incentive (forgive my limited vocabulary, i'm a poor French Canadian), but it doesn't do anything for the kid's wellbeing. What I'm saying is that we should be concerned with his wellbeing before worrying about hanging the girl. People here seem to think that you throw the girls in a young delinquants' center and everything's fixed.
On June 06 2011 03:13 AraMoOse wrote: Now I would have pressed charges, no question about it. But I don't think it's fair to judge the woman because she didn't. She has a much better understanding of the circumstances than we do and she knows her son far better than we do.
I guess we will have to disagree on that. Me personaly, I would take it as a huge betrayel if my mom decided not to press charges or do anything else for that matter, even downplaying it as a joke that got a little out of hand. I would even go to court to have child custody removed so I could press charges myself.
Have you considered the possibility that the kid might have begged his mother not to press charges? I'm sure you would take it as a betrayal and that's your business, but why do you think the kid necessarily thinks like you? I'm not saying he doesn't, I'm saying you don't know and you're judging his mother based on your perspective.
On June 05 2011 14:46 Sephy69 wrote: Don't know what's wrong with the mother, but people these days are just too nice. I would have hated my mother and given her shit for a long time if she didn't press charges.
You would've hated your mother for that? Wow.. Thank god I'm not in your family, lmao.
Personally I wouldn't wanna go to court. I don't understand the vengeance so many seem to feel necessary. I don't think it'll help the boy to sit in court accusing a couple of crying girls for assault. The mother seems pretty sensible though.
Yeah, far worse things happen than this video every second of every day
Far worse things happen than just about everything that happens. The reason this story, and what's more, the reaction to it, is so newsworthy and important is because it shows an extremely systematic abuse of men in the legal system in the west. It also shows how extremely poorly men are treated by society as a whole. This thread is a terrific example: Many people argue that "they want to be in his place" (Ignoring that it's an 11 year old boy that is likely not sexually interested in women yet), "he should be able to defend himself" (ignoring that at that age, women are larger than men - especially with three of those vital years between them), "deal with it" (what?), etc.
This entire story isn't relevant because of how "horrible" the crime is. It's bullying, which happens and while we should fight to prevent that, it isn't the worst thing in the world. The reason why this story is so extremely important is to show an insane double standard; that women are basically "immune" to legal ramifications, whereas men could lose several years off their life for the same action. And the worst part isn't that this is the way things are, the worst thing is that people think this is okay. The exploitation of men is one thing; but little boys cannot possibly be held to these standards. Whatever gender they are, the fact that they're just children is far more relevant.
I totally agree with that if those were boys doing that to a girl then this whole situation would be different. There can never be equality between the genders if this kind of thing still goes on. The girls should be punished for doing this kind of thing and I have no idea why the boy wouldn't go through the trauma to have justice served.
Also three girls can force sex on one guy just like three guys can to one girl. The only difference is the first one is seen as a "harmless prank" while the other one is the guys become registered sex offenders.
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
Whao... edit your post cause your language clearly deserves a ban. I try not to overreact to your language against me and just state my case. Please do not view this in black and white only and please see the specific situation. (Sure a woman raping a man is possible in generell) I am a law student myself and I know the defenitions of rape. Thank you. The only thing I said was you cant simply compare this to a situation where the roles would be reverse. And thats for a reason. The psychological trauma is a diffrent one. If you look at this specific situations the possibilitys are diffrent, the whole setup in a front yard, all these things) If I were a judge deciding if this crime had a sexual component just the way a major sex crime has, I would come to a diffrent conclusion. If the roles would be reversed I wouldnt be sure. Cause even if the guys dont have a rape-intention (like these girls clearly didnt, cause they've seen it as a prank), at least from the victims point of view it more likely (again not everytime, not 100% just more likely) has another dimension.
Btw. I never said what these girls did wasnt a malicious assault (dont know the correct english law terms). Please read more carefully next time.
"Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank" So now you're saying that calling it a cruel prank is the same as a malicious assault is ridiculous, completely. There is no difference in the psychological trauma that a boy or girl would suffer from this event, you're an eleven year old, a bunch of older kids come up to you force you, violently, to the ground and strip you naked. See what I did there? Regardless of gender sounds Pretty Traumatic right? you're exemplifying the Gender-Double Standards that other people have shown in this forum already, furthermore you're saying that since the girls saw at as a prank we should as well? So, if i do the exact same thing, to an age proportionate person, I can say it was just a prank and get off with maybe a misdemeanor right?. Please, if you're indeed a law student, Please, just think about this for a moment. when you can see your own Gender-double standard logic respond, I am not the one seeing things in black and white here, could the girls have raped him? Yes, could guys have raped a girl in the exact same situation? yes, are both parties equally likely too? Yes, Are girls going to be more psychologically traumatized from this event (without being raped) then a boy is? No, if she was raped? and the boy was also raped? also No. Rape is Rape no matter who does it to who.
Happens in that age, but those girls really need to be tought a lot. Not pressing a charge right away is a normal response though, I don't see why people are surprised about that.
I mean, what's the essence of all of this? That there are some rude, uneducated, stupid girls out there that become agressive when beeing in a pack? That's common knowledge, this is just an example of it. Not much to discuss imo.
On June 06 2011 03:25 Phenny wrote: To be fair, I highly doubt many people would tell their parents if this happened to them. Based purely on what I know about people and nothing substantive but I feel strongly that this would be the case.
Thats my point, you cant say you know you son/daughter better than anyone else when they dont even trust you for delicate or sensitive matters. And that is the case as you just said with most people, parents are the ones that often know less about their own children.
On June 06 2011 03:26 Euronyme wrote: America's justice system is based around 'eye for an eye' and revenge. Ofcourse that would be the reason. What else? It doesn't help the boy and it doesn't help the girls.
How it doesnt help the boy? help me here i fail to see the logic in that, offenders are walking away without consequences after committing a crime, which tells them and any other person in the country that they are free to do that as many times as they want without having to worry about anything. To me it helps the boy showing him that the system and society in which he lives in punishes this kind of acts being done to other people, and it helps the girls shown them that they cant just do whatever the hell they want with other people.
LOL. You're talking as if this was a murder by some hardcore batshit child abuser. It was a couple of young girls force undressing a young boy. You really want that to go through the justice system? "offenders walking away without consequences after commiting a crime".. Wow seriously? They're kids for christ sakes.
Justice to me is not about punishment, it's about helping people. I don't think this is a serious enough crime (honestly, is it even a crime?) to warrant being called a criminal. Might as well sue the toddler who finger painted on your walls for disturbing of peace, and destroying private property.
If a law exist against it you could do it, crime is a crime, and it warrants punishment from the law that is there to prevent that from happening and to punish (sorry for being redundant) the individuals that do it.
Their kids? thats all? so, what if they shot at someone? their kids so its okay? and dont come saying its a different matter, its a crime, law exist, law should be enforced and criminals judged. What if they were all grown ups, 20-30 years, wouldnt it be a crime? wouldnt the victim take it to the court? why is it different just because "they are kids".
Enlighten me on how justice helps people be letting them walk off like they hadnt do anything.
Are you seriously saying that shooting someone and taking off someones clothes is the same thing, and should deserve the same punishment? Haha you can't get much action with the ladies I guess ^^
It is different because kids have worse judgement, and should be excused in a bigger extent. Are you serious? "Why is it different because they're kids [...] instead of being 20-30". This has gotta be the most fucking stupid question /statement in the entire thread. Alot of people do stupid shit when they're kids that they would never do when they get older.
On June 06 2011 03:52 Kazius wrote: If it was two 15 year old boys stripping an 11 year old girl and posting it on youtube, reactions would be different. Throw the girls in jail for kiddie porn laws.
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
Whao... edit your post cause your language clearly deserves a ban. I try not to overreact to your language against me and just state my case. Please do not view this in black and white only and please see the specific situation. (Sure a woman raping a man is possible in generell) I am a law student myself and I know the defenitions of rape. Thank you. The only thing I said was you cant simply compare this to a situation where the roles would be reverse. And thats for a reason. The psychological trauma is a diffrent one. If you look at this specific situations the possibilitys are diffrent, the whole setup in a front yard, all these things) If I were a judge deciding if this crime had a sexual component just the way a major sex crime has, I would come to a diffrent conclusion. If the roles would be reversed I wouldnt be sure. Cause even if the guys dont have a rape-intention (like these girls clearly didnt, cause they've seen it as a prank), at least from the victims point of view it more likely (again not everytime, not 100% just more likely) has another dimension.
Btw. I never said what these girls did wasnt a malicious assault (dont know the correct english law terms). Please read more carefully next time.
"Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank" So now you're saying that calling it a cruel prank is the same as a malicious assault is ridiculous, completely. There is no difference in the psychological trauma that a boy or girl would suffer from this event, you're an eleven year old, a bunch of older kids come up to you force you, violently, to the ground and strip you naked. See what I did there? Regardless of gender sounds Pretty Traumatic right? you're exemplifying the Gender-Double Standards that other people have shown in this forum already, furthermore you're saying that since the girls saw at as a prank we should as well? So, if i do the exact same thing, to an age proportionate person, I can say it was just a prank and get off with maybe a misdemeanor right?. Please, if you're indeed a law student, Please, just think about this for a moment. when you can see you're own Gender-double standard logic respond, I am not the one seeing things in black and white here, could the girls have raped him? Yes, could guys have raped a girl in the exact same situation? yes, are both parties equally likely too? Yes, Are girls going to be more psychologically traumatized from this event (without being raped) then a boy is? No, if she was raped? and the boy was also raped? also No. Rape is Rape no matter who does it to who.
I never said a cruel prank cant be a crime. What these girls did can be charged by law. Please read, I never denied that. And yes you are right. If the 100% exact same situation with the exact same intentions and defenselessness would have happened with reversed genders it would be gender-double standard logic to see it diffrently. But in fact you cant have exact 100% the same situation. My post was a reaction to post like "usually when boys do this they get charged for rape" or "so girls can rape and get away with it, unfair...". Cause usually when there are rape charges on similar cases with males beeing the aggressor you actually have an other level of aggression, force, sexual intention or trauma most of the times. (again not always, not 100%, I am just saying most of the times) Sure this boy maybe will have a trauma from the emberrasment, from the feeling of beeing helpless, defenseless. But an actually assault with where a sexual motivation is involved is not the same, it is on an other level.
On June 06 2011 04:47 Eknoid4 wrote: no 11 year olds should be put through the current legal system. Their parents should face charges if charges are pressed.
so if a 11 year old murders someone they shouldn't be put through or if the girls raped the boy? People shouldn't do stuff like this and not expect legal action to be taken.
On June 06 2011 03:52 Kazius wrote: If it was two 15 year old boys stripping an 11 year old girl and posting it on youtube, reactions would be different. Throw the girls in jail for kiddie porn laws.
On June 06 2011 03:59 AraMoOse wrote: Have you considered the possibility that the kid might have begged his mother not to press charges? I'm sure you would take it as a betrayal and that's your business, but why do you think the kid necessarily thinks like you? I'm not saying he doesn't, I'm saying you don't know and you're judging his mother based on your perspective.
We are in fact talking about the same as I am taking the boys wellbeing into account as well. I am simply assuming that prosecuting the girls for their crimes is an important part of the processing of such an event. You on the other hand assume that it will have an opposite effect and that the boy possibly has asked her mother not to press charges. Either of us could be right or wrong about this though.
On June 06 2011 03:52 Kazius wrote: If it was two 15 year old boys stripping an 11 year old girl and posting it on youtube, reactions would be different. Throw the girls in jail for kiddie porn laws.
Women want to be equal, right?
They want everything to be equal, everything! But when the check comes, where are they?! - George Costanza
(thought that would be funny here)
Yeah, it is kind of sad that nothing is being done about this. They couldn't possibly NOT know that what they were doing was wrong. Hard to say what the punishment should be, though.
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
Whao... edit your post cause your language clearly deserves a ban. I try not to overreact to your language against me and just state my case. Please do not view this in black and white only and please see the specific situation. (Sure a woman raping a man is possible in generell) I am a law student myself and I know the defenitions of rape. Thank you. The only thing I said was you cant simply compare this to a situation where the roles would be reverse. And thats for a reason. The psychological trauma is a diffrent one. If you look at this specific situations the possibilitys are diffrent, the whole setup in a front yard, all these things) If I were a judge deciding if this crime had a sexual component just the way a major sex crime has, I would come to a diffrent conclusion. If the roles would be reversed I wouldnt be sure. Cause even if the guys dont have a rape-intention (like these girls clearly didnt, cause they've seen it as a prank), at least from the victims point of view it more likely (again not everytime, not 100% just more likely) has another dimension.
Btw. I never said what these girls did wasnt a malicious assault (dont know the correct english law terms). Please read more carefully next time.
"Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank" So now you're saying that calling it a cruel prank is the same as a malicious assault is ridiculous, completely. There is no difference in the psychological trauma that a boy or girl would suffer from this event, you're an eleven year old, a bunch of older kids come up to you force you, violently, to the ground and strip you naked. See what I did there? Regardless of gender sounds Pretty Traumatic right? you're exemplifying the Gender-Double Standards that other people have shown in this forum already, furthermore you're saying that since the girls saw at as a prank we should as well? So, if i do the exact same thing, to an age proportionate person, I can say it was just a prank and get off with maybe a misdemeanor right?. Please, if you're indeed a law student, Please, just think about this for a moment. when you can see you're own Gender-double standard logic respond, I am not the one seeing things in black and white here, could the girls have raped him? Yes, could guys have raped a girl in the exact same situation? yes, are both parties equally likely too? Yes, Are girls going to be more psychologically traumatized from this event (without being raped) then a boy is? No, if she was raped? and the boy was also raped? also No. Rape is Rape no matter who does it to who.
I never said a cruel prank cant be a crime. What these girls did can be charged by law. Please read, I never denied that. And yes you are right. If the 100% exact same situation with the exact same intentions and defenselessness would have happened with reversed genders it would be gender-double standard logic to see it diffrently. But in fact you cant have exact 100% the same situation. My post was a reaction to post like "usually when boys do this they get charged for rape" or "so girls can rape and get away with it, unfair...". Cause usually when there are rape charges on similar cases with males beeing the aggressor you actually have an other level of aggression, force, sexual intention or trauma most of the times. (again not always, not 100%, I am just saying most of the times) Sure this boy maybe will have a trauma from the emberrasment, from the feeling of beeing helpless, defenseless. But an actually assault with where a sexual motivation is involved is not the same, it is on an other level.
No one is arguing that assault with sexual motivation is the same as simple assault, but you seem to imply that if boys were doing this to a girl there would be sexual motivation while this isn't the case for girls. I have no reason to believe this and this is a clear example of the double standard that people are discussing in this thread.
On June 06 2011 03:52 Kazius wrote: If it was two 15 year old boys stripping an 11 year old girl and posting it on youtube, reactions would be different. Throw the girls in jail for kiddie porn laws.
Women want to be equal, right?
I agree.
Completely agree. Disgusting double standards.... I call on the police to smack charges of child porn distribution against these girls. Time to treat everyone equally, plain and simple.
I echoe the sentiments of every person saying "If this was 2 boys stripping a 11 year old girl this would be completely different."
And thats completely 100% true.
Guarenteed the boys would be registered as sex offenders for life. I would bet ANYTHING on that.
This just shows what is completely wrong in our culture, the fact that something like this is even possible to happen... wtf... i have never been so disgusted in my entire life with human beings.. like seriously.
This kid is going to be in jail/therapy/psych ward for the rest of his life. Stuff like this completely ruins lives and the girls who potentially ruined the life of this kid deserve to have it reciprocated with sex offender titles for the rest of their lives.
I dont understand this thread at all and people who justify the girls actions or the fact that they arent being charged.
"well when ur 13 you dont understand consequences" So if these 13 yr old girls killed an 11 yr old boy, should they not be charged? They are 13 and dont understand the consequences.
WTF are the girls parents? Why arent they the ones being interviewed "so why is your child such a terrible person?" meh this is the most disgusting/disturbing thing i have seen on TL.net yet and the fact that the girls aren't being punished at all is AMAZING and mind-blowing.
Because if I read 3 teenage boys attacked and stripped 11 yr old girl they would already be in custody. Disgusting and amazing...
On June 06 2011 03:59 AraMoOse wrote: Have you considered the possibility that the kid might have begged his mother not to press charges? I'm sure you would take it as a betrayal and that's your business, but why do you think the kid necessarily thinks like you? I'm not saying he doesn't, I'm saying you don't know and you're judging his mother based on your perspective.
We are in fact talking about the same as I am taking the boys wellbeing into account as well. I am simply assuming that prosecuting the girls for their crimes is an important part of the processing of such an event. You on the other hand assume that it will have an opposite effect and that the boy possibly has asked her mother not to press charges. Either of us could be right or wrong about this though.
Agreed, let us rejoice and partake in the eating of cookies.
On June 06 2011 02:10 esperanto wrote: This is a cruel story but you absolutly cant compare that to if the gender were opposite. With males doing this there would be a sexual intention behind it, that gives the thing another dimension. Besides the feelings and the possible trauma is completely diffrent. A girl in that case is would be defenseless in case the boys would force sex. A total violation of body and soul. 14 year old girls doing this not even wont (in most cases) have the intention to do this, they actually wont physically not be able to force sex of this boy.
Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank. Please dont compare that.
I remember when i was younger at one of my first partys (about 13 years old) some girls pulled down the pants of a boy while he was dancing, he was so embarrassed he started crying and went home. Sure what the girls did here is more cruel but still closer to a prank than to a major sex-crime.
you're clearly an idiot, Women can FORCE men to have sex with them even if the guy doesn't "Get hard" Don't say something is fucking impossible when it's not. In this particular case could they rape him? yes very likely, "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That is the definition of Rape, because you clearly didn't know, they could've sat on his face and forced him basically to "go down" on them, I'll use slang so your moronic brain can comprehend what I'm saying. They're school kids right? they have writing utensils? pencils, pens?, markers? highlighters? Anal rape with one of those, rubber bands? can restrict blood flow to the penis and FORCE it to become hard..Don't be a fucking idiot please.
Also So it's more likely that if a guy at 14 does this to a girl he wants to rape her? What the fuck. Are you under the impression that girls can't get just as horny as guys? what girls won't commit a gang rape like this because why? "it's a prank" it's not a fucking prank, it's a fucking malicious assault committed by a bunch of girls. They COULD ave raped him just like three 14 year old boys COULD have raped an 11 year old girl, are we to believe that 14 year old boys are just fucking RAPISTS waiting for a place to strike? honestly, going by a mix of logic here we can just say "No they just wanted to humiliate and embarrass her" it was "Just a prank". It was not a prank, if the roles were reversed boys would be punished more harshly and unfairly, just because that's true doesn't mean it's ok to say that if it WERE 14 year old boys they're more likely to fucking rape the girl in that case.
Whao... edit your post cause your language clearly deserves a ban. I try not to overreact to your language against me and just state my case. Please do not view this in black and white only and please see the specific situation. (Sure a woman raping a man is possible in generell) I am a law student myself and I know the defenitions of rape. Thank you. The only thing I said was you cant simply compare this to a situation where the roles would be reverse. And thats for a reason. The psychological trauma is a diffrent one. If you look at this specific situations the possibilitys are diffrent, the whole setup in a front yard, all these things) If I were a judge deciding if this crime had a sexual component just the way a major sex crime has, I would come to a diffrent conclusion. If the roles would be reversed I wouldnt be sure. Cause even if the guys dont have a rape-intention (like these girls clearly didnt, cause they've seen it as a prank), at least from the victims point of view it more likely (again not everytime, not 100% just more likely) has another dimension.
Btw. I never said what these girls did wasnt a malicious assault (dont know the correct english law terms). Please read more carefully next time.
"Beeing in the situation where someone else with a sexual intention can force sex with you is completely diffrent than a cruel emberrasing prank" So now you're saying that calling it a cruel prank is the same as a malicious assault is ridiculous, completely. There is no difference in the psychological trauma that a boy or girl would suffer from this event, you're an eleven year old, a bunch of older kids come up to you force you, violently, to the ground and strip you naked. See what I did there? Regardless of gender sounds Pretty Traumatic right? you're exemplifying the Gender-Double Standards that other people have shown in this forum already, furthermore you're saying that since the girls saw at as a prank we should as well? So, if i do the exact same thing, to an age proportionate person, I can say it was just a prank and get off with maybe a misdemeanor right?. Please, if you're indeed a law student, Please, just think about this for a moment. when you can see you're own Gender-double standard logic respond, I am not the one seeing things in black and white here, could the girls have raped him? Yes, could guys have raped a girl in the exact same situation? yes, are both parties equally likely too? Yes, Are girls going to be more psychologically traumatized from this event (without being raped) then a boy is? No, if she was raped? and the boy was also raped? also No. Rape is Rape no matter who does it to who.
I never said a cruel prank cant be a crime. What these girls did can be charged by law. Please read, I never denied that. And yes you are right. If the 100% exact same situation with the exact same intentions and defenselessness would have happened with reversed genders it would be gender-double standard logic to see it diffrently. But in fact you cant have exact 100% the same situation. My post was a reaction to post like "usually when boys do this they get charged for rape" or "so girls can rape and get away with it, unfair...". Cause usually when there are rape charges on similar cases with males beeing the aggressor you actually have an other level of aggression, force, sexual intention or trauma most of the times. (again not always, not 100%, I am just saying most of the times) Sure this boy maybe will have a trauma from the emberrasment, from the feeling of beeing helpless, defenseless. But an actually assault with where a sexual motivation is involved is not the same, it is on an other level.
No one is arguing that assault with sexual motivation is the same as simple assault, but you seem to imply that if boys were doing this to a girl there would be sexual motivation while this isn't the case for girls. I have no reason to believe this and this is a clear example of the double standard that people are discussing in this thread.
This exactly, calling it a "cruel Prank" is Not thinking of it as a crime, a prank is something funny, sometimes humiliating, rarely ever is it a violent assault. you can't call murder a prank, don't call an assault a prank either please. assault with sexual motivation is indeed different, but guess what just because they're guys doesn't automatically make an assault sexually motivated, and you know what? Most rape charges require the victim to have Actually Been Raped, as in physical evidence, otherwise if a guy assaults a girl, or grabs onto her shirt and it rips off while she's trying to get away, they could charge them with rape as well as assault...like...seriously
This honestly opens up a can of worms in that the girls would've gotten off with very light charges as stated. If the roles ever do change it is 3 boys and a younger girl the boys lawyer can point back to this case and the charges that may have been lain. I 'm not sure the exact legalities if this case doesn't go to court but still I'd be pretty pissed if someone did this to me now I wouldn't give a shit but when i was 11 like fuck that shit would suck.
I emailed the mayor ( mayorhenderson@cityftmyers.com ) to let him know I am disgusted with the fact these girls are allowed to create and distribute child porn.
Unreal. I read about it, and didn't think much of it other than "well it's quite the double standard that girls can get away with that but boys would be sent to juvie and possibly added to the sex offenders registry." After seeing the video, I'm astonished the mother is too stupid to press charges. Her kid was being restrained, choked, and stripped, and she thinks that it's a bit of fun gone too far??
The worst part is the double standard. Gender equality is of course a touchy issue. I'll just say I think it's deeply wrong that girls and women have reached a point socially where they demand and receive equal rights, independence, and freedom, yet are still considered victims in cases like this. That's all I'll say.
On June 06 2011 05:31 gold_ wrote: I emailed the mayor ( mayorhenderson@cityftmyers.com ) to let him know I am disgusted with the fact these girls are allowed to create and distribute child porn.
On June 06 2011 05:31 gold_ wrote: I emailed the mayor ( mayorhenderson@cityftmyers.com ) to let him know I am disgusted with the fact these girls are allowed to create and distribute child porn.
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such.
On June 06 2011 03:52 Kazius wrote: If it was two 15 year old boys stripping an 11 year old girl and posting it on youtube, reactions would be different. Throw the girls in jail for kiddie porn laws.
Women want to be equal, right?
Exactly right, the boys would be branded as sex fiends for life and punished extremely severely if not jailed.
Bunch of girls doing it to a boy? Just a joke that got out of hand.
Mod edit: Info edited out. There's the contact info for the girls school. I suggest we all give them a call and ask the principal why he allows girls like that in his school.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I understand why the mother isn't pressing chargers -- something like that can ruin the girls' futures and may be more trouble than what it's worth for the boy. We don't know how traumatized the boy actually is from this. Yes, this is unacceptable, it was an awful decision from the girls, and they should be punished, but it's understandable for the parent not to want to press charges.
There's the contact info for the girls school. I suggest we all give them a call and ask the principal why he allows girls like that in his school.
This isn't 4 chan and I highly doubt spamming their phone line will accomplish very much. Why blame the school, they can't do anything if it happened off school grounds.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
This is ridiculous, like some of you said, imagine the opposite situation with boys stripping a young girl and what punishment they would get, now apply that same punishment to this girls if you want to talk about equality
On June 06 2011 06:32 `Forte wrote: I understand why the mother isn't pressing chargers -- something like that can ruin the girls' futures and may be more trouble than what it's worth for the boy. We don't know how traumatized the boy actually is from this. Yes, this is unacceptable, it was an awful decision from the girls, and they should be punished, but it's understandable for the parent not to want to press charges.
They should have their lives "destroyed" over this. Atleast they should face legal action. Their parents having to pay a huge fine or something of the sort. What they did is comparable to sexual assault. They should be punished for it. As should any boy that did this to a girl.
If you really think this is no big deal then tell yourself what you would think if this was 2 older boys doing this to a young girl. And PLEASE do not tell me that you would find that acceptable.
There's the contact info for the girls school. I suggest we all give them a call and ask the principal why he allows girls like that in his school.
This isn't 4 chan and I highly doubt spamming their phone line will accomplish very much. Why blame the school, they can't do anything if it happened off school grounds.
My thoughts exactly. I also agree with other peoples thoughts on the reversed gender roles. If three older boys did this to a girl they'd probably be thrown juvie and gone down on the sex offenders list. However, the mother didn't press charges, and her words were "harmless prank", not the opinion of the school board (regardless of whether they are involved) or the court, or otherwise disciplinary enacters.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
Some kids undoubtably enjoys having sex with their teachers or incest sex or whatever at a young age. Them liking it doesn't make pedophilia or incest ok. The whole point is that they are not mature enugh physically AND mentally to understand what kind of effect that stuff will have on them. As for this boy. He very clearly did not want this.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality is sexism. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
Some kids undoubtably enjoys having sex with their teachers or incest sex or whatever at a young age. Them liking it doesn't make pedophilia or incest ok. The whole point is that they are not mature enugh physically AND mentally to understand what kind of effect that stuff will have on them. As for this boy. He very clearly did not want this.
You bringing in an unrelated example does nothing but skew our debate. Statutory rape has nothing to do with this - it wasn't even directly sexual. That issue goes much deeper and has much more heavy-weighing reasons behind the legislation.
As far as legislation goes, in general nudity, unless classified as art, is typically considered to be sexual in nature. When you see a dick or boobs in a movie, that's adult/sexual content, even if all they're doing is taking a shower. I don't really see how stripping someone over the age of 5 in public can be considered anything but sexual.
Ugh. Come on. I didn't have an easy time in school. I hated it. I literally fought my way through school and high school. I hate these stories of people being victimized and bullies getting away without a scratch. The mother should press charges, and it's no minor thing. I hate that in school people can live like assholes and nothing ever happens to them.
On June 06 2011 06:39 IzieBoy wrote: those girls are young... give them another chance. is the kid hurt? doubtful...
How in the world can you read through the OP and think that the boy probably wasn't hurt? Try to put yourself in his shoes, and knowing you have to go back to a school where everyone has seen you get humiliated by 3 girls and stripped naked.
Its easy to be macho as a grownup. If 3 girls attacked and stripped me, I'd probably enjoy it. But for a 11 year old boy, its traumatizing.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality is sexism. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
gender equality certainly should hold in the job market (esp. white collar)... it would be strange to have unilateral equality though...are we going to take away maternal leave, rights of pregnant women to not only breast-feed in public but just go shirtless? it's common sense that them stripping a kid against his will is different than 3 dudes stripping a defenseless girl (the latter case, victim has a high chance of getting hurt, murdered historically.) it's not just a video exploitation when the victim is female. yes, let's just forget everything about anatomy.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
Yes, intepretations are inevitably based on assumptions. These assumptions come from our intuition, and our intuition is the sum of our past experiences. As such, this is what makes basis for almost all actions that any person carries out. Has nothing to do with double standards. As said, often the reaction to boys doing something similar would be an overreaction. Not due to a gender bias, but simply from whatever rationale you act upon. Just like, today, terrorists are treated much worse that other citizens in the eye of the law rather than equals.
I'm not sure what you mean about who will stop bullying. This is no different from any other case of bullying. The relates parties will make an effort to stop the bullying. Be that whether it is parents, the school, fellow students, interest organizations or government professionals.
There is no use of people screaming "equality!" at everything. Consider the different actions and what effects they would have. This is not much different from the people in Denmark who are considering to force companies by law to have at least 50% women in the board of directors, non-compliance being met by being forcefully dissolved. All in the name of equality. If you just think of it in terms of even line, numbers and percentages, you won't get far ...
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality is sexism. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
gender equality certainly should hold in the job market (esp. white collar)... it would be strange to have unilateral equality...are we going to take away maternal leave, rights of pregnant women to not only breast-feed in public but just go shirtless? it's common sense that them stripping a kid against his will is different than 3 dudes stripping a defenseless girl (the latter case, victim has a high chance of getting hurt, murdered historically.) it's not just a video exploitation when the victim is female.
I find the way that you refer to a male being stripped as a "kid" but if it's female she's a "defenseless girl." It's almost as if you're blaming the kid for not being tough enough. Guys don't need protection, they can defend themselves. Even eleven year olds!
This is disgusting. How the mom has reacted, how some people in this thread have reacted, how the school reacted and how the police reacted. Its all disgusting. If it was three boys doing this they would have been cuffed and taken to jail and probably much worse. I highly doubt the mother of a girl wouldn't press charges and say it was "just a prank that went too far." And it wouldn't matter if it did or did not happen on school property, if three boys did this they would be expelled. And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality is sexism. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
gender equality certainly should hold in the job market (esp. white collar)... it would be strange to have unilateral equality though...are we going to take away maternal leave, rights of pregnant women to not only breast-feed in public but just go shirtless? it's common sense that them stripping a kid against his will is different than 3 dudes stripping a defenseless girl (the latter case, victim has a high chance of getting hurt, murdered historically.) it's not just a video exploitation when the victim is female. yes, let's just forget everything about anatomy.
I don't know what your trying to say... ? Are you saying this is OK, but if it was 3 boys doing it to 1 girl then it wouldn't be OK and would also turn out to be murder, or brutally assaulted? If that is what you are saying.... you need help.
On June 06 2011 06:46 shinosai wrote: As far as legislation goes, in general nudity, unless classified as art, is typically considered to be sexual in nature. When you see a dick or boobs in a movie, that's adult/sexual content, even if all they're doing is taking a shower. I don't really see how stripping someone over the age of 5 in public can be considered anything but sexual.
As such, "sexual" is just a word. It has been given meaning by legislation to make it useful in a context. For instance, when it comes to sexual harassment in the work place, you have to apply the rules very broadly because it otherwise would be too hard to rule on a case. You do this because protecting the rights of someone on the work market is a very sensitive subject due to the constraints that this context provides. People are dependant on their wages and can be contractually obligated in various ways, which creates a power different that can make it very hard to clearly communicate and protest sexual harassment.
As such, there is nothing wrong with a film of a young kid taking a shower, as long as you had the right to film it and don't use it for unlawful purposes (specifically in a context of child pornography).
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality is sexism. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
gender equality certainly should hold in the job market (esp. white collar)... it would be strange to have unilateral equality though...are we going to take away maternal leave, rights of pregnant women to not only breast-feed in public but just go shirtless? it's common sense that them stripping a kid against his will is different than 3 dudes stripping a defenseless girl (the latter case, victim has a high chance of getting hurt, murdered historically.) it's not just a video exploitation when the victim is female. yes, let's just forget everything about anatomy.
I don't know what your trying to say... ? Are you saying this is OK, but if it was 3 boys doing it to 1 girl then it wouldn't be OK and would also turn out to be murder, or brutally assaulted? If that is what you are saying.... you need help.
so what i understand is this is an EQUAL event as 3 boys bullying a girl in the same way, because we all know that girls rape and murder little defenseless boys and that this happens every single day. i guess we have different realities.
i would love to stick to absolutism... but i do agree the mother should press charges for bullying, and child pornography/voyeurism maybe (what's that law for displaying stuff on the internet without consent)
i'm just sick of people arguing off-tangently about equality and double-standards... i mean come on... use some sense please.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
And who will act to stop the bullying in this case. Certainly not the people who think its okay what they do just because they were girls. Thats a double-standard, and sexist. Implying that the girls themselves didnt have sexual motives is just an assumption based on the image that young girls are SUPPOSED to be the innocent, while the boys at this age are supposed to be the ones that get ugly and try to satisfy their growing sexuality is sexism. If you stand for gender equality, you cannot stand for not punishing those girls the same way as if the situation was reversed. And even when i say i think gender equality is an important part, i would respect people more that didnt want the girls to get punished to just say they dont care about gender equality. At least that would be honest.
gender equality certainly should hold in the job market (esp. white collar)... it would be strange to have unilateral equality though...are we going to take away maternal leave, rights of pregnant women to not only breast-feed in public but just go shirtless? it's common sense that them stripping a kid against his will is different than 3 dudes stripping a defenseless girl (the latter case, victim has a high chance of getting hurt, murdered historically.) it's not just a video exploitation when the victim is female. yes, let's just forget everything about anatomy.
I don't know what your trying to say... ? Are you saying this is OK, but if it was 3 boys doing it to 1 girl then it wouldn't be OK and would also turn out to be murder, or brutally assaulted? If that is what you are saying.... you need help.
so what i understand is this is an EQUAL event as 3 boys bullying a girl in the same way, because we all know that girls rape and murder little defenseless boys and that this happens every single day. i guess we have different realities.
Sorry buddy, too much Law & Order SVU for you! Your thinking is total nonsense, Olivia Benson.
Seriously, you wanna know my take on this? Stand up for yourself, take care of your own life. I never let bullies bully me and I never made myself a victim. If you're ganged up on then put up a fight. I've lost plenty of fights but I never backed down and I always went out with getting a punch in somewhere and I'll guarantee that that person will always remember his broken nose next time he tries to cause trouble.
There's the contact info for the girls school. I suggest we all give them a call and ask the principal why he allows girls like that in his school.
This isn't 4 chan and I highly doubt spamming their phone line will accomplish very much. Why blame the school, they can't do anything if it happened off school grounds.
I got suspended from school for punching out a student even though I was no where near school property.
And I didn't say anything about spamming their phone line. Just a nice question asking why they preach about parents disciplining their kids on their site yet we hear nothing about what the school says.
There's the contact info for the girls school. I suggest we all give them a call and ask the principal why he allows girls like that in his school.
This isn't 4 chan and I highly doubt spamming their phone line will accomplish very much. Why blame the school, they can't do anything if it happened off school grounds.
I got suspended from school for punching out a student even though I was no where near school property.
And I didn't say anything about spamming their phone line. Just a nice question asking why they preach about parents disciplining their kids on their site yet we hear nothing about what the school says.
Yeh I agree that is really weird, people at my schools have been repremanded, supsended and even expelled for things they've done well away from school property.
There's the contact info for the girls school. I suggest we all give them a call and ask the principal why he allows girls like that in his school.
This isn't 4 chan and I highly doubt spamming their phone line will accomplish very much. Why blame the school, they can't do anything if it happened off school grounds.
I got suspended from school for punching out a student even though I was no where near school property.
And I didn't say anything about spamming their phone line. Just a nice question asking why they preach about parents disciplining their kids on their site yet we hear nothing about what the school says.
Different laws for different schools since the law varies based on where you live. Where I live you can also get punished for fighting off school grounds, but this does not appear to be the case here. As for not saying anything about spamming their phone line: When you post a phone number on a website where thousands of people will see it (at this point this thread has been viewed 41,000 times) and ask everyone to call them, what exactly do you think will happen to their phone line? Spam.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
Those moronic girls deserve to be punished. Literally.
Joking aside, I can understand how if the roles were reversed, it's most likely "sexual intention", but if it wasn't, would the result be the same as this case?
Probably not. They should be punished for this... -_-
its pretty sexist.. i mean if boys did that to a girl parents around the world would rage to get the boys tried as adults. it would be international news.
the fact its not the same for girls doing it to a boy is so sexist its disgusting. and we wonder why we roll our eyes at the word "feminism" someone else this post wrote it best:
women want to be treated fair right?
these girls DESERVE juvy. they posted the video to humiliate the kid. AND HES 11 like come on.
no one can say that its more traumatizing for a girl than a boy, there's no scientific or anthropological proof. we can just say its less likely for females to gang on a boy than vice versa.
its like female rape, seriously unlikely, but i'm sure it happens.
if i was that 11 yr old, i'd have a baseball bat with me and the next day it'd meet some faces.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't need to cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific research will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretation of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
You will only call it "assault" if you make it a legal matter. As such, it is a couple of kids toppling over another kid and holding him down.
As to timidness and openness existing on both sides - of course, I cannot disagree with such statement. However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles. Guys will typically run head-on into a wall (metaphorically speaking) again and again without being discourage, as they will focus on different aspects of the situation. A girl might be more likely to consider the prospects of making friends with the opposite gender, while guys will accept more superficial relations in the name of exploration. Such an event can be part of an "exploration" whereas it will likely serve to convince you that making friendships will be hard (even if this is just a generalized assumption).
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
she did the right thing to not press charges, stupid and wrong as this was they are 13 and should not be sent to juvenile hall or something like that just for this prank. Hopefully she has good parents and they will punish the girls for this, but pressing charges would not have been the right thing to do.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific explanation will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretations of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
Your thinking is the type of thinking that needs to change if equality is to prevail. Young boys are just as emotional as young girls, unfortunately young boys are taught to not show there feelings. If your in high school as a young boy, and you start crying like a "pussy" you will be picked on as being a "pussy" right? A young girl crying is normally seen as OK, right? Everyone treated the same please! We are all humans, don't forget that. Male or female we all have emotions, if you think otherwise you need to go see a doctor. When this boy gets ridiculed for this and becomes a drug addict and / or kills himself, then what? He was a pussy right? Should have beaten those 3 girls up, right?
Lol I cant believe that people are discussing every stupid thing someone does somewhere.
According to the standards nowadays a lot of the shit we did as kids would be news now and would be posted and discussed on the internet, just ridiculous.
Seriously, can anyone exlain what is somehow that interesting about this?
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't need to cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific research will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretation of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
You will only call it "assault" if you make it a legal matter. As such, it is a couple of kids toppling over another kid and holding him down.
As to timidness and openness existing on both sides - of course, I cannot disagree with such statement. However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles. Guys will typically run head-on into a wall (metaphorically speaking) again and again without being discourage, as they will focus on different aspects of the situation. A girl might be more likely to consider the prospects of making friends with the opposite gender, while guys will accept more superficial relations in the name of exploration. Such an event can be part of an "exploration" whereas it will likely serve to convince you that making friendships will be hard (even if this is just a generalized assumption).
I Really don't understand how people can be so stupid, using ridiculously sexist/biased arguments over a pretty serious matter. The kid liked it? if it were three guys they'd probably be trying to rape her? since it's girls the kid should "count himself lucky"? This is Insanity...INSANITY, Abuse is abuse, if you're a girl or a guy you're going to suffer the SAME trauma from this event. It Does Not Make A Difference What Gender You Are No one, And I Mean No One is going to be PERFECTLY fine, AT THIS AGE, Being STRIPPED NAKED FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AT ALL. "However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles" Literally my brain is being liquidized and vomited out of my mouth as i read this, and re-read it. Are you basing your gender roles of the 1950s? Boys Like Blue and Trucks and Girls Like Pink and dolls? please, catch up with the rest of society, or at least the non-sexist portion of it, Girls Are JUST AS LIKELY in today's "Gender Roles" To rape a guy, Girls are JUST AS LIKELY to commit assault or other things that is associated with "Male gender roles".....i am literally so, just so..i can't even think straight..you sir or ma'am, have literally caused me physical and mental stress from your ignorant, sexist, pre-2000's era way of thinking..i may have to go cry into a bucket and i better stop doing "Manly things" while i'm at it, it's not in my "Gender role"
Can we get a mod in here to close this thread or something? like..
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific explanation will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretations of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
Your thinking is the type of thinking that needs to change if equality is to prevail. Young boys are just as emotional as young girls, unfortunately young boys are taught to not show there feelings. If your in high school as a young boy, and you start crying like a "pussy" you will be picked on as being a "pussy" right? A young girl crying is normally seen as OK, right? Everyone treated the same please! We are all humans, don't forget that. Male or female we all have emotions, if you think otherwise you need to go see a doctor. When this boy gets ridiculed for this and becomes a drug addict and / or kills himself, then what? He was a pussy right? Should have beaten those 3 girls up, right?
Saying that we all have feelings really is a moot point. As such, the ways society works creates many sensitivities. If people were socialized differently, they would feel differently about things. Our way of understanding things and reacting to them have their base in social constructs. What I say has nothing to do with equality, but simply how different situations would affect different people based on their bagground. No doubt that some boys could be affected gravely by this situation, it's just less likely. Just like it's less likely that the situation would turn into rape because the aggressors were girls. That doesn't mean that men or women should have different opportunities in the work market - it's simple something we judge on a situational bases based on our past experiences.
It seems like what you are addressing is not legislative part of equality, but the stigma that you can feel due to the socializaiton. That you're excluded from a group or treated differently because you don't exhibit the desired or expected behaviour in some way. I have no doubt that this can feel very unjust, and it's important that people are aware of the effects of something like gender roles. However, it's not something you can legislate. It just something you have to deal with by breaking the norms or otherwise compensating for what reactions you might receive in a specific situation.
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
I imagine you're looking forward to showing 'em who's boss a couple of years from now when you transfer to highschool. Good luck!
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
We're getting to an inarguable divide at this point, so I'll kill this conversation.
Alright, your experiences may suggest whatever in regards to the situations being different in gender role reversal.
I think this is a huge double standard that you're perpetuating and it's rather idiotic to me. I don't see how you can say this boy is more likely to enjoy this situation than a girl is, particularly at that age. I think you're incredibly out of touch, so that's that... Don't want to take this further because it'll just be repetitive.
On June 06 2011 08:00 Redox wrote: Lol I cant believe that people are discussing every stupid thing someone does somewhere.
According to the standards nowadays a lot of the shit we did as kids would be news now and would be posted and discussed on the internet, just ridiculous.
Seriously, can anyone exlain what is somehow that interesting about this?
The more i read the responses to this thread, the more I feel the same way. There have been issues probably 20x more important than this one discussed on TL that didn't get as many pages and responses as this one has gotten in one day.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't need to cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific research will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretation of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
You will only call it "assault" if you make it a legal matter. As such, it is a couple of kids toppling over another kid and holding him down.
As to timidness and openness existing on both sides - of course, I cannot disagree with such statement. However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles. Guys will typically run head-on into a wall (metaphorically speaking) again and again without being discourage, as they will focus on different aspects of the situation. A girl might be more likely to consider the prospects of making friends with the opposite gender, while guys will accept more superficial relations in the name of exploration. Such an event can be part of an "exploration" whereas it will likely serve to convince you that making friendships will be hard (even if this is just a generalized assumption).
I Really don't understand how people can be so stupid, using ridiculously sexist/biased arguments over a pretty serious matter. The kid liked it? if it were three guys they'd probably be trying to rape her? since it's girls the kid should "count himself lucky"? This is Insanity...INSANITY, Abuse is abuse, if you're a girl or a guy you're going to suffer the SAME trauma from this event. It Does Not Make A Difference What Gender You Are No one, And I Mean No One is going to be PERFECTLY fine, AT THIS AGE, Being STRIPPED NAKED FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AT ALL. "However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles" Literally my brain is being liquidized and vomited out of my mouth as i read this, and re-read it. Are you basing your gender roles of the 1950s? Boys Like Blue and Trucks and Girls Like Pink and dolls? please, catch up with the rest of society, or at least the non-sexist portion of it, Girls Are JUST AS LIKELY in today's "Gender Roles" To rape a guy, Girls are JUST AS LIKELY to commit assault or other things that is associated with "Male gender roles".....i am literally so, just so..i can't even think straight..you sir or ma'am, have literally caused me physical and mental stress from your ignorant, sexist, pre-2000's era way of thinking..i may have to go cry into a bucket and i better stop doing "Manly things" while i'm at it, it's not in my "Gender role"
You're basing your call on what you think would be the desired reaction on the interpretation that boys and girls would be completely identitical in this situation. Others will interpret this situation differently and therefore react differently. You make it out to be about double standards or morality, whereas it's simply a judgement call. Statistics will disagree that girls are just as likely to rape a guy.
Of course I will make generalized statements since I simply base this upon my own observation, statements and experiences. It's not a topic I have studied in-depth or have taken any time to write about at lenght. It's simply me using me intuition and common sense based on how I understand the world around me. That does not in itself make me sexist or stupid. If I actually knew the individuals and judge to judge the situation more specifically, I would have to consider it differently, however since I don't, I'm simply considering the general idea of the situation and what rationale could likely be extracted.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
We're getting to an inarguable divide at this point, so I'll kill this conversation.
Alright, your experiences may suggest whatever in regards to the situations being different in gender role reversal.
I think this is a huge double standard that you're perpetuating and it's rather idiotic to me. I don't see how you can say this boy is more likely to enjoy this situation than a girl is, particularly at that age. I think you're incredibly out of touch, so that's that... Don't want to take this further because it'll just be repetitive.
I think you're right. Any further continuation of our specific discussion would likely be repetitive unless we develop it (which it is unlikely that we will do, as that would be very time consuming). You acknowlegde that we have simply come to interpret this situation differently, but suggest that from your point of view my interpretation might be less likely to be commonly shared.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't need to cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific research will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretation of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
You will only call it "assault" if you make it a legal matter. As such, it is a couple of kids toppling over another kid and holding him down.
As to timidness and openness existing on both sides - of course, I cannot disagree with such statement. However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles. Guys will typically run head-on into a wall (metaphorically speaking) again and again without being discourage, as they will focus on different aspects of the situation. A girl might be more likely to consider the prospects of making friends with the opposite gender, while guys will accept more superficial relations in the name of exploration. Such an event can be part of an "exploration" whereas it will likely serve to convince you that making friendships will be hard (even if this is just a generalized assumption).
I Really don't understand how people can be so stupid, using ridiculously sexist/biased arguments over a pretty serious matter. The kid liked it? if it were three guys they'd probably be trying to rape her? since it's girls the kid should "count himself lucky"? This is Insanity...INSANITY, Abuse is abuse, if you're a girl or a guy you're going to suffer the SAME trauma from this event. It Does Not Make A Difference What Gender You Are No one, And I Mean No One is going to be PERFECTLY fine, AT THIS AGE, Being STRIPPED NAKED FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AT ALL. "However, it is more likely that this event would discourage a girl due to the dynamics of the current gender roles" Literally my brain is being liquidized and vomited out of my mouth as i read this, and re-read it. Are you basing your gender roles of the 1950s? Boys Like Blue and Trucks and Girls Like Pink and dolls? please, catch up with the rest of society, or at least the non-sexist portion of it, Girls Are JUST AS LIKELY in today's "Gender Roles" To rape a guy, Girls are JUST AS LIKELY to commit assault or other things that is associated with "Male gender roles".....i am literally so, just so..i can't even think straight..you sir or ma'am, have literally caused me physical and mental stress from your ignorant, sexist, pre-2000's era way of thinking..i may have to go cry into a bucket and i better stop doing "Manly things" while i'm at it, it's not in my "Gender role"
You're basing your call on what you think would be the desired reaction on the interpretation that boys and girls would be completely identitical in this situation. Others will interpret this situation differently and therefore react differently. You make it out to be about double standards or morality, whereas it's simply a judgement call. Statistics will disagree that girls are just as likely to rape a guy.
Of course I will make generalized statements since I simply base this upon my own observation, statements and experiences. It's not a topic I have studied in-depth or have taken any time to write about at lenght. It's simply me using me intuition and common sense based on how I understand the world around me. That does not in itself make me sexist or stupid. If I actually knew the individuals and judge to judge the situation more specifically, I would have to consider it differently, however since I don't, I'm simply considering the general idea of the situation and what rationale could likely be extracted.
No, I think that is pretty much a double standard and it does make you sexist...
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
On June 06 2011 08:00 Redox wrote: Lol I cant believe that people are discussing every stupid thing someone does somewhere.
According to the standards nowadays a lot of the shit we did as kids would be news now and would be posted and discussed on the internet, just ridiculous.
Seriously, can anyone exlain what is somehow that interesting about this?
The more i read the responses to this thread, the more I feel the same way. There have been issues probably 20x more important than this one discussed on TL that didn't get as many pages and responses as this one has gotten in one day.
I feel exactly the same, which is why I'm trying to quell the people who scream out at any minor incident and want the legal system involved. I see it as decay in the moral fibre in society, because it clearly shows that people cannot relate properly to things, which causes debated and actions to lose proportion or purpose-oriented usefulness. I did the same thing in the topic "Cheerleader Removed for Not Cheering her Rapist", for instance.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific explanation will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretations of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
Your thinking is the type of thinking that needs to change if equality is to prevail. Young boys are just as emotional as young girls, unfortunately young boys are taught to not show there feelings. If your in high school as a young boy, and you start crying like a "pussy" you will be picked on as being a "pussy" right? A young girl crying is normally seen as OK, right? Everyone treated the same please! We are all humans, don't forget that. Male or female we all have emotions, if you think otherwise you need to go see a doctor. When this boy gets ridiculed for this and becomes a drug addict and / or kills himself, then what? He was a pussy right? Should have beaten those 3 girls up, right?
Saying that we all have feelings really is a moot point. As such, the ways society works creates many sensitivities. If people were socialized differently, they would feel differently about things. Our way of understanding things and reacting to them have their base in social constructs. What I say has nothing to do with equality, but simply how different situations would affect different people based on their bagground. No doubt that some boys could be affected gravely by this situation, it's just less likely. Just like it's less likely that the situation would turn into rape because the aggressors were girls. That doesn't mean that men or women should have different opportunities in the work market - it's simple something we judge on a situational bases based on our past experiences.
It seems like what you are addressing is not legislative part of equality, but the stigma that you can feel due to the socializaiton. That you're excluded from a group or treated differently because you don't exhibit the desired or expected behaviour in some way. I have no doubt that this can feel very unjust, and it's important that people are aware of the effects of something like gender roles. However, it's not something you can legislate. It just something you have to deal with by breaking the norms or otherwise compensating for what reactions you might receive in a specific situation.
I beg to differ. Who would be ridiculed more for this happening to them? A "helpless" young girl who can't defend herself ( Your rational thinking, all girls are wusses. Right? ), or a "strong" young boy who should be able to defend himself? This is going by your own thinking, the boy would be the one that would get ridiculed, the girl would get comfort and people to talk to.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific explanation will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretations of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
Your thinking is the type of thinking that needs to change if equality is to prevail. Young boys are just as emotional as young girls, unfortunately young boys are taught to not show there feelings. If your in high school as a young boy, and you start crying like a "pussy" you will be picked on as being a "pussy" right? A young girl crying is normally seen as OK, right? Everyone treated the same please! We are all humans, don't forget that. Male or female we all have emotions, if you think otherwise you need to go see a doctor. When this boy gets ridiculed for this and becomes a drug addict and / or kills himself, then what? He was a pussy right? Should have beaten those 3 girls up, right?
Saying that we all have feelings really is a moot point. As such, the ways society works creates many sensitivities. If people were socialized differently, they would feel differently about things. Our way of understanding things and reacting to them have their base in social constructs. What I say has nothing to do with equality, but simply how different situations would affect different people based on their bagground. No doubt that some boys could be affected gravely by this situation, it's just less likely. Just like it's less likely that the situation would turn into rape because the aggressors were girls. That doesn't mean that men or women should have different opportunities in the work market - it's simple something we judge on a situational bases based on our past experiences.
It seems like what you are addressing is not legislative part of equality, but the stigma that you can feel due to the socializaiton. That you're excluded from a group or treated differently because you don't exhibit the desired or expected behaviour in some way. I have no doubt that this can feel very unjust, and it's important that people are aware of the effects of something like gender roles. However, it's not something you can legislate. It just something you have to deal with by breaking the norms or otherwise compensating for what reactions you might receive in a specific situation.
I beg to differ. Who would be ridiculed more for this happening to them? A "helpless" young girl who can't defend herself ( Your rational thinking, all girls are wusses. Right? ), or a "strong" young boy who should be able to defend himself? This is going by your own thinking, the boy would be the one that would get ridiculed, the girl would get comfort and people to talk to.
I think you must have confused my post with another, given your reference to characteristics "helpless", "wusses" or "strong". However, regardless of whether this is our intepretation, these characteristics need not be the most important ones in determining how we react to such incident. I pointed out some other factors in a previous post of mine.
On June 06 2011 08:00 Redox wrote: Lol I cant believe that people are discussing every stupid thing someone does somewhere.
According to the standards nowadays a lot of the shit we did as kids would be news now and would be posted and discussed on the internet, just ridiculous.
Seriously, can anyone exlain what is somehow that interesting about this?
The more i read the responses to this thread, the more I feel the same way. There have been issues probably 20x more important than this one discussed on TL that didn't get as many pages and responses as this one has gotten in one day.
I feel exactly the same, which is why I'm trying to quell the people who scream out at any minor incident and want the legal system involved. I see it as decay in the moral fibre in society, because it clearly shows that people cannot relate properly to things, which causes debated and actions to lose proportion or purpose-oriented usefulness. I did the same thing in the topic "Cheerleader Removed for Not Cheering her Rapist", for instance.
True. It's pretty difficult to take many serious, difficult arguments on TL seriously. I'm not saying that the site, or, by extent, it's users, are bad, but it's hard to follow. Between people blurting out made up facts, referencing studies that never happened, explaining theories of psychology that aren't necesarilly true, and pointing out their ideas/thoughts as proven scientific facts, you MUST take large-scale TL arguments with a grain of salt. God forbid it be an international issue, as in that case, fuck multiculturalism and tolerance. Which country's fault is it for having different government or cultural beliefs?
On June 06 2011 07:54 rickybobby wrote: she did the right thing to not press charges, stupid and wrong as this was they are 13 and should not be sent to juvenile hall or something like that just for this prank. Hopefully she has good parents and they will punish the girls for this, but pressing charges would not have been the right thing to do.
Are you serious? The mom was right not to press charges? Everyone is right if this wouldve have involved boys undressing a girl they wouldve been tried as a adult and probably registered as a sex offender.
I dont think you know what a prank is. A prank is suppose to be funny with a bit of humiliation. When someone's crying and telling other people to stop with a knee up on their face that isnt a prank anymore. It wouldve been a prank if they pants the guy but they were holding him down against his will. The worst thing was they recorded it and displayed it online.
This has to go to court, it will set precedent for future court cases regarding gender equality. If it doesnt men need to rally for gender equality. The reason why kids these days are f*** up is because they arent disciplined like back in the days. Where you do something bad and ur dad would give u an ass whooping. Which would make u think twice about doing something (real preventive measure). I want to know what type of punishment will make this right in your opinion. Because I can't really see any punishment that a parent can do to make this right unless its an eye for an eye.
On June 06 2011 04:47 Eknoid4 wrote: no 11 year olds should be put through the current legal system. Their parents should face charges if charges are pressed.
so if a 11 year old murders someone they shouldn't be put through or if the girls raped the boy? People shouldn't do stuff like this and not expect legal action to be taken.
No, they shouldn't.
What about a 4 year old? The parents should be held responsible. Put the kid on a list. Don't make him/her waste their whole life away and rule out the possibility of them ever being ap roductive citizen.
This is such an idiotically prison culture. Sending an 11 year old to prison doesn't help anybody.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific explanation will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretations of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
Your thinking is the type of thinking that needs to change if equality is to prevail. Young boys are just as emotional as young girls, unfortunately young boys are taught to not show there feelings. If your in high school as a young boy, and you start crying like a "pussy" you will be picked on as being a "pussy" right? A young girl crying is normally seen as OK, right? Everyone treated the same please! We are all humans, don't forget that. Male or female we all have emotions, if you think otherwise you need to go see a doctor. When this boy gets ridiculed for this and becomes a drug addict and / or kills himself, then what? He was a pussy right? Should have beaten those 3 girls up, right?
Saying that we all have feelings really is a moot point. As such, the ways society works creates many sensitivities. If people were socialized differently, they would feel differently about things. Our way of understanding things and reacting to them have their base in social constructs. What I say has nothing to do with equality, but simply how different situations would affect different people based on their bagground. No doubt that some boys could be affected gravely by this situation, it's just less likely. Just like it's less likely that the situation would turn into rape because the aggressors were girls. That doesn't mean that men or women should have different opportunities in the work market - it's simple something we judge on a situational bases based on our past experiences.
It seems like what you are addressing is not legislative part of equality, but the stigma that you can feel due to the socializaiton. That you're excluded from a group or treated differently because you don't exhibit the desired or expected behaviour in some way. I have no doubt that this can feel very unjust, and it's important that people are aware of the effects of something like gender roles. However, it's not something you can legislate. It just something you have to deal with by breaking the norms or otherwise compensating for what reactions you might receive in a specific situation.
I beg to differ. Who would be ridiculed more for this happening to them? A "helpless" young girl who can't defend herself ( Your rational thinking, all girls are wusses. Right? ), or a "strong" young boy who should be able to defend himself? This is going by your own thinking, the boy would be the one that would get ridiculed, the girl would get comfort and people to talk to.
I think you must have confused my post with another, given your reference to characteristics "helpless", "wusses" or "strong". However, regardless of whether this is our intepretation, these characteristics need not be the most important ones in determining how we react to such incident. I pointed out some other factors in a previous post of mine.
OK I may have read your posts and interpreted your posts as basically stating that, sorry. But answer this question "Who would be ridiculed more for this happening to them?"
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
This is one of the most disgusting and degrading things a child can do to another, the panic and fear the kid must have been growing through.
The immature, horrible people, attempting to either justify this or attempting to show off by wishing it happened to them should take a long hard look in the mirror and think about how real humans interact. Disgusting.
Last post in this thread, i cant take this sexist bullshit in here.
Just get the girls some community service, they need to be punished in order to advance in gender equality. Not necessarily a note in their criminal record, but something like community service for a not so short time would be the least i expect from this incident. The crime is not supposed to be determined on the intentions of the offender, much more the damage that was caused by the act itself. I dont think the kid enjoyed it in the least bit. Having been in a quite similar position myself i think i have probably the best idea what is going on in him. Not to say i KNOW whats going on inside of him but i think i have a pretty good idea.
TL;DR: i think the boy might have been mentally damaged, girls should at least get community service.
On June 06 2011 06:56 NinjaDrone wrote: And if this had happened to a girl I doubt anyone would be like "herp derp derp she probably enjoyed it." When is the double standard for men and women on these matters going to stop. Molestation and rape are serious crimes where gender of offender and victim do not matter.
Of course they wouldn't. They would interpret it differently, based on their experience and knowledge. They would know that girls at that age are extremely sensitive (developing identity, emotionally fragile, etc.) and are conscious about physical things. As they generally place more weight on appearances, they would not only see the display as a humiliating one, but one that changes their self-image. There is more of a chance that this would affect a girl's relation to the other gender (with boys often being more motivated to get to know the other gender while girls are more held back) and that being overpowered physically would make her very uneasy in the future (unlike for boys, who likely will have experienced this frequently).
Needless to say, we don't actually know. We base our interpretation on what we can see and what we have experienced. In our case, we don't know much, since we didn't see the incident, don't fully understand the context and don't know the people involved. 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). As of now, nothing happened that requires legal involvement.
Can you cite a fucking source? I don't understand where people are getting all this shit from...
So if a guy does it the girl has more of a chance to be traumatized and scarred than if a girl does it to a guy? I don't believe this assumption is true, particularly at that age. Also, I don't know about this "Boys are more motivated to get to know the other gender", there is timidness and openness on both sides.
I also really disagree with the person who said that one is more likely to end in murder or what not, once again, I don't know about that...
Also, the doubt standard still exist because we're talking about a situation where boys strip a girl in a similar fashion to this, not in a situation where they rape a girl. And this is still a legal matter, if you watch the video it involves assault.
People don't cite sources to make judgement calls in everyday situations. I already mentioned where I'm getting this from; intuition. Regardless of what any scientific explanation will say, we understand our sorroudings from how we interpret our experiences. As such, this understanding motivates a large majority of any actions we will make.
It sounds like you have a different interpretations of the events and possible consequences of what occurred. Just like me, you will have a bias that we cause you to interpret it one way or another. As it happens, people will commonly interpret the situation the way I do (the girls being more likely to be traumatized) and as a result will act from these assumptions (whether this manifests in the legal system, parents' reactions or the school's response). Just like the example I made about terrorists, where they are assumed to be more dangerous and are therefore treated differently in a specific situation. The main point is that this action is not motivated for a bias towards favouring girls, but simply an interpretation of events. I'm sure there will be other sitiuations where people react more harshly because it was a girl who did it rather than a boy - all depends on the context.
Your thinking is the type of thinking that needs to change if equality is to prevail. Young boys are just as emotional as young girls, unfortunately young boys are taught to not show there feelings. If your in high school as a young boy, and you start crying like a "pussy" you will be picked on as being a "pussy" right? A young girl crying is normally seen as OK, right? Everyone treated the same please! We are all humans, don't forget that. Male or female we all have emotions, if you think otherwise you need to go see a doctor. When this boy gets ridiculed for this and becomes a drug addict and / or kills himself, then what? He was a pussy right? Should have beaten those 3 girls up, right?
Saying that we all have feelings really is a moot point. As such, the ways society works creates many sensitivities. If people were socialized differently, they would feel differently about things. Our way of understanding things and reacting to them have their base in social constructs. What I say has nothing to do with equality, but simply how different situations would affect different people based on their bagground. No doubt that some boys could be affected gravely by this situation, it's just less likely. Just like it's less likely that the situation would turn into rape because the aggressors were girls. That doesn't mean that men or women should have different opportunities in the work market - it's simple something we judge on a situational bases based on our past experiences.
It seems like what you are addressing is not legislative part of equality, but the stigma that you can feel due to the socializaiton. That you're excluded from a group or treated differently because you don't exhibit the desired or expected behaviour in some way. I have no doubt that this can feel very unjust, and it's important that people are aware of the effects of something like gender roles. However, it's not something you can legislate. It just something you have to deal with by breaking the norms or otherwise compensating for what reactions you might receive in a specific situation.
I beg to differ. Who would be ridiculed more for this happening to them? A "helpless" young girl who can't defend herself ( Your rational thinking, all girls are wusses. Right? ), or a "strong" young boy who should be able to defend himself? This is going by your own thinking, the boy would be the one that would get ridiculed, the girl would get comfort and people to talk to.
I think you must have confused my post with another, given your reference to characteristics "helpless", "wusses" or "strong". However, regardless of whether this is our intepretation, these characteristics need not be the most important ones in determining how we react to such incident. I pointed out some other factors in a previous post of mine.
OK I may have read your posts and interpreted your posts as basically stating that, sorry. But answer this question "Who would be ridiculed more for this happening to them?"
As I see it, it's not important who would be ridiculed the most. The question is rather that which I have already addressed: Who would be affected most and how?
Either way, I'll indulge your hypothetical point and say that based on this isolated incident, a boy would likely receive the most ridicule as a result of this incident. This depends on many factors, of course. It could be that girls were normally not ridiculed by boys at this hypothetical school, and the event served to legitimize that this happened because one of the "alpha males" did it as an act of bullying. The girl, being ugly, fat or having some other characteristic that would make her the likely target of bullying, suddenly started to become bullied a lot more. In this scenario, but boy wouldn't be bullied quite as much, as he would more likely be considered one of several "targets". So, really, that is very hard to generalize, since specific circumstances are more important that the general psychology of it.
On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote: I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
See, this is a double standard and this is what makes you sexist...
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
See, this is a double standard and this is what makes you sexist...
You'll have to elaborate on that, I'm afraid
The "double standard" completely missed me, but I assume the "sexist" remark comes from me making generalized statements.
I'll help you out, however. The definition of sexism on Dictionary.com:
1) attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
What generalized statements I have made don't dictatice a general attidude or behaviour towards females or males that I apply to my own life. It simply making a judgement call in a specific situation based on past experience.
2) discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.
None of what I have said has had anything to do with discrimating or devaluating against someone due to their gender. I have simply claimed that we act based on our understanding of the specific circumstances and the likely consequences. And I have presented my interpretation as far as this goes, suggesting that it will likely be the general intepretation, which explains the reaction that people in this thread are complaining about.
First of all, the double standard here is disgusting. Second of all, I cant believe how many idiots there are saying that the boy probably wasnt hurt by this, and that he may have enjoyed it. It's clear that the INTENT of the girls was to completely humiliate him, why else would they go as far as to videotape it? The intent is enough for them to be held completely responsible, so whether or not the boy liked it (which he CLEARLY did not, he was screaming for his mother...) is irrelevant. That's like saying if you plan on killing someone, kill them, and then find out that the person was suicidal, then it wouldnt be murder. That doesnt make sense.
ok upon actually watching this video (I was just kinda high reading random shit on the site), that is really fucked up, those girls probably should have gone to court and at least gotten like community service etc..
This may have been asked, but I am didn't find it in the thread, so I apologize if it has been.
A lot of people are mentioning: "They are girls, that's why they won't have charges pressed against them; if they were guys, they'd get charged." So my question is - ok, say this is the situation described, but with genders reversed. And the girl's mother says: "This was a prank gone too far, I DO NOT WANT TO PRESS CHARGES, but I want the boys' parents to punish the boys." What would happen? Would the police be forced to say: "OK, we are out." or are they allowed, in this case, to say: "No, the crime is too serious, we will press charges anyway?"
On June 06 2011 09:13 Doorhandle wrote: First of all, the double standard here is disgusting. Second of all, I cant believe how many idiots there are saying that the boy probably wasnt hurt by this, and that he may have enjoyed it. It's clear that the INTENT of the girls was to completely humiliate him, why else would they go as far as to videotape it? The intent is enough for them to be held completely responsible, so whether or not the boy liked it (which he CLEARLY did not, he was screaming for his mother...) is irrelevant. That's like saying if you plan on killing someone, kill them, and then find out that the person was suicidal, then it wouldnt be murder. That doesnt make sense.
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.
Edit: By the way, I'm off to bed (2:24 AM in Denmark), in case anyone will be waiting around for responses to their responses
On June 06 2011 09:13 Doorhandle wrote: First of all, the double standard here is disgusting. Second of all, I cant believe how many idiots there are saying that the boy probably wasnt hurt by this, and that he may have enjoyed it. It's clear that the INTENT of the girls was to completely humiliate him, why else would they go as far as to videotape it? The intent is enough for them to be held completely responsible, so whether or not the boy liked it (which he CLEARLY did not, he was screaming for his mother...) is irrelevant. That's like saying if you plan on killing someone, kill them, and then find out that the person was suicidal, then it wouldnt be murder. That doesnt make sense.
I wonder how many people were watching that video. after seeing the way he was crying and fighting the girls he clearly was severely affected by what happened. The mom was wrong to not press charges, I just hope the parents of the girls are smart and strict enough to give the girls the punishment they deserve.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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."
Is it just me, or are girls getting more aggressive nowadays?
Certainly, this was a horrific experience for the boy (Hope he was wearing clean underwear). Should the mother have pressed charges against the girls. IMO, yes. However, playing the devil's advocate, it could very well be that she wants the incident over and done so that the boy can recover quicker.
As so many others have said, if the situation was in reverse, the boys who committed the "crime" would have to stand trial.
Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
So is I set fire to your car I shouldn't go to jail if no body got hurt?
On June 05 2011 14:48 jaybee wrote: Dang I wish that happened to me rofl. No, but seriously, it's kinda pathetic to be bullied by girls LOL. The weak always get bulled; its Nature's way. Still, bullied by girls hahahaha!! just man the boy up for a lil while and he will be fine.
They outnumbered him 3-to-1 and were about 4 years older...
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
So is I set fire to your car I shouldn't go to jail if no body got hurt?
Tangible damage isn't really applicable in this situation.
And why are people to so fucking convinced that this kid is emotional wrecked and scarred for life? For all anyone here knows, he'll be fine in a month. He's in 5th grade. He can rebound pretty quickly.
The only reason i can think why the mother wants the parents to punish the girls instead of the police is because she may think that the parents have to discipline the children and not the police and if the parents dont because the police do these girls most likely will reoffend.
IMO I feel that the girls should be charged by the police isnt there a way the police can go ahead with charges in the us?
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
A prank shouldn't violate somebody's rights. IF you knock on their door and run or whatever, then its just a prank and imo isn't a big deal. But if you break their property or do something directly to them then its a matter that should be dealt with accordingly. If this happened to a girl by 3 boys, the 3 boys would be locked up in juvie.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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 your insistence that "intuition" is at all a valid form of reasoning in any way, shape or form, is utterly idiotic.
Go make a post in the sc2 strategy form. "ZERG IS OP. I HAZ INTUITION!"
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".
Wow! This was handled improperly by everyone but the poor kid AKA the victim. Since no punishment was handed out for this, it has taught the girls that they can get away with this type of behavior and will promote similar or escalated incidents in the future.
This shoulda never been aired on the news for the boys sake, and mom probably didnt press charges to avoid dragging this out further. Dickheads in news outlet just made this more embarrassing for the kid
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
So is I set fire to your car I shouldn't go to jail if no body got hurt?
Tangible damage isn't really applicable in this situation.
And why are people to so fucking convinced that this kid is emotional wrecked and scarred for life? For all anyone here knows, he'll be fine in a month. He's in 5th grade. He can rebound pretty quickly.
So the harassment he'll face in school for what will be years is nothing? Stuff like this isn't easily forgotten. The parents heard it through the older brother from the junior high where these girls are from, where I'm guessing the boy will go. I don't doubt the incident itself has done its' damage, it's the aftermath that will haunt him though.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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 your insistence that "intuition" is at all a valid form of reasoning in any way, shape or form, is utterly idiotic.
Go make a post in the sc2 strategy form. "ZERG IS OP. I HAZ INTUITION!"
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".
Jesus, your misandrous views are revolting.
Simply citing intuition Asjo, is what makes it a double standard and sexist to me. You're specifically stating that it would be different in a role reversal with no citation other than "Intuition, I think it's this way".
I think women are dumber, intuition, they shouldn't be given any jobs. See, that's intuition, but it's sexist as fuck.
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
It may have been a prank, but it was a malicious prank that involves assault, sexual assault and child pornography.
This prank crossed the line, and hence the girls should be punished, to the exact same extent as if the genders were swapped.
LOL boy getting bullied is pretty pathetic... I mean seriously, not being mean, but bullying usually happens for a reason. Usually its because the person getting bullied is fuckin annoying and pisses everyone off LOL at least thats the reason at my school. So usually people just gang up and jump him at a park.
On June 06 2011 10:29 koolaid1990 wrote: LOL boy getting bullied is pretty pathetic... I mean seriously, not being mean, but bullying usually happens for a reason. Usually its because the person getting bullied is fuckin annoying and pisses everyone off LOL at least thats the reason at my school. So usually people just gang up and jump him at a park.
Did you even read the OP? How you post something so dumb is beyond me. The kid is ELEVEN.
On June 06 2011 10:29 koolaid1990 wrote: LOL boy getting bullied is pretty pathetic... I mean seriously, not being mean, but bullying usually happens for a reason. Usually its because the person getting bullied is fuckin annoying and pisses everyone off LOL at least thats the reason at my school. So usually people just gang up and jump him at a park.
Best solution: the girls should suffer the same embarassment as the boy. People should post videos condemning them for acting like barbarians, and demanding a joint apology video. Make it happen internet.
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
No, it really wouldn't. If three 14-year-old boys had gone up to an 11-year-old girl, pinned her to the ground with a knee to her neck, and stripped her naked, no one would be calling it "just a prank." And the girl's mother sure as hell would press charges.
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
Some people do get carried away when commenting on threads like this (I won't speculate as to why that is), but I still don't think the subject should be dismissed as an innocent prank.
When a prank involves sexual harassment, and is uploaded online for all to see (potentially scarring the victim for life socially and emotionally), things becomes a little more serious. Serious enough to press charges? It's not my place to say. Serious enough to take some disciplinary measures and start a conversation? Absolutely.
There is no question about it, the consequences would have been far greater if the genders were reversed. That in itself is an interesting phenomenon, and perhaps something to think about. If gender equality is selective, why do we even use the word equality?
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This is basically how I feel.
If it was 3, 14 year old boys who've done it, the media would go into a feeding frenzy over it. I still can't believe the mother of the victim, words escape me.
Also to the people saying "he liked it". How the hell do you know if he liked it? He just got publicly humiliated. He got pinned down by 3 girls. Stripped naked, while they taped it and then they uploaded the video to you tube(which got removed). What in the world makes you think he would like being humiliated like this? Either some people here are trolling or got a few screws loose in their head.
This was no prank. The girls knew what they were doing, they held him down, stripped him all the while they taped the event. Then they uploaded the video to youtube for everyone to see. This does not even fit into the category of a prank, this is bullying to an extreme. Just like not long ago with the other bullying case we had where the kid slammed the bully onto the concrete.
On June 06 2011 09:45 TALegion wrote: Okay, i'm probably going to regret asking this, but I don't see how this is SUCH a big deal. It was a prank, was it not? Not malicious, aggressive, sexual intent. Gender is irrelevant. They weren't raping the kid. It was a prank. If it were men and they were fairly and correctly judged, it'd still be just a prank.
Maybe it was a bit vicious of a prank, but people here are saying they should go to jail, get raped, and are comparable to murderers. I honestly don't get why people are reacting to harshly. It was a fucking prank.
So is I set fire to your car I shouldn't go to jail if no body got hurt?
Tangible damage isn't really applicable in this situation.
And why are people to so fucking convinced that this kid is emotional wrecked and scarred for life? For all anyone here knows, he'll be fine in a month. He's in 5th grade. He can rebound pretty quickly.
Maybe because they were molested as kids?
It's the internet and most are agreeing on something.
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.
On June 06 2011 11:22 IzieBoy wrote: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.
The way you say that, it sounds as though nothing short of rape and murder should be punished.
So if someone were to restrain you in the middle of the street and strip you naked, then post the video of it online, you'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as they had no other intentions in mind?
It's a violation of basic personal rights. That doesn't become acceptable just because someone thought it would be funny.
On June 05 2011 15:59 MethodSC wrote: The girls should be expelled at the very least. If this was 3 boys on 1 girl there would be so much outcry the boys would probably spend time in juvy along with many many charges. Equal crime requires equal punishment, regardless of who is committing it. There should be no use of double standards since every person has equal rights.
If they lived in Edmonton they would have been. According to the OP video, the school says they "can't charge them because it was off school property" but every fight ever found out about by the Edmonton Public Schoolboard has everyone fighting and anyone witnessing getting either an expulsion or heavy suspesions.
On the way to, on the way from, or in the midst of any potential school activity is under school jurisdiction as far as any bullying is concerned. I even know someone who got suspended for flaming someone else on facebook when I was in highschool.
Not entirely I was routinely beat up after school in elementary here in Edmonton and the teachers wouldn't do anything about it because it was off school property. That I don't care about to much because one of them got/is heavily addicted to hard drugs while the other one OD'd . Although my dad who crusaded against the system to help make it so hard assed like it is now.
Incidents like this also happened to me in middle school (albeit not nearly as extreme) where I was picked on by a bunch older girls. To the people here saying things like you should have been stronger, wtf man, being stronger than people older and therefor much more developed than you BEFORE you hit puberty; because that's reasonable. Girls at that age are absolutely vicious and are more developed than boys in that age group.
It is reasonable to expect though that the schools should have power over incidents that happen both at school and transport to and from it, anything less would be just lazy and criminally negligent. There needs to be a drastic shift in how societies deal with bullying starting asap, show people that just because things seem historically ironic doesn't make them right. Punish these girls as you would anyone at that age and mental capacity who had completely humiliated some one like that.
To those he say they would have enjoyed it: good for you, you probably would have. However he clearly didn't enjoy it, he was the one in that situation not you.
i agree that this is absolutely ridiculous that these 3 girls would get away with it but if three boys did that they'd pretty much be castrated and put on some sex offender list.
plus those florescent green and blue crocks are horrible.
On June 06 2011 11:22 IzieBoy wrote: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.
The way you say that, it sounds as though nothing short of rape and murder should be punished.
So if someone were to restrain you in the middle of the street and strip you naked, then post the video of it online, you'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as they had no other intentions in mind?
It's a violation of basic personal rights. That doesn't become acceptable just because someone thought it would be funny.
you have a good point. regardless of intentions, their actions are wrong.
however, i think there are still 3 points that bothers me
1) if i were violated, i think it's my call whether to forgive or not.. the mom of the boy has the right to pardon the girls (assuming she's acting out the boy's will) without facing so much heat from the public
2) if it were 3 boys who did this, they would be judged based on the assumption that they had worse intentions than girls.. whether this is gender inequality is debatable
3) the root of this problem is still unclear... it seems to derive from some kind of win-lose desire to feel schadenfreude... if people can all work together for win-win and to trust each other, this world would be a more productive place.
On June 05 2011 20:43 nihlon wrote:Feminists are also not a hive mind and the action of a few doesn't not represent all of them. Just like atheists or other groups where a wide range of people fall under.
The actions of a majority or substantial minority, however, do.
It's reasonably accurate to say that atheists would probably react negatively towards school-sanctioned prayer, no?
In what world is this a fucking harmless prank? 3 kids intentionally video taping an act that is literally one fucking step away from what is rape. Sure it's 3 girls, but for fucks sake had it been 3 guys on 1 girl it the news would have taken it so much further than just a prank.
IMO, if 3 older boys took the clothes off of a girl, but didn't rape her... it'd still be charged as a rape crime. IMO, this isn't really bullying, it's more like some sort of torture.
On June 06 2011 03:25 Phenny wrote: To be fair, I highly doubt many people would tell their parents if this happened to them. Based purely on what I know about people and nothing substantive but I feel strongly that this would be the case.
Thats my point, you cant say you know you son/daughter better than anyone else when they dont even trust you for delicate or sensitive matters. And that is the case as you just said with most people, parents are the ones that often know less about their own children.
On June 06 2011 03:26 Euronyme wrote: America's justice system is based around 'eye for an eye' and revenge. Ofcourse that would be the reason. What else? It doesn't help the boy and it doesn't help the girls.
How it doesnt help the boy? help me here i fail to see the logic in that, offenders are walking away without consequences after committing a crime, which tells them and any other person in the country that they are free to do that as many times as they want without having to worry about anything. To me it helps the boy showing him that the system and society in which he lives in punishes this kind of acts being done to other people, and it helps the girls shown them that they cant just do whatever the hell they want with other people.
LOL. You're talking as if this was a murder by some hardcore batshit child abuser. It was a couple of young girls force undressing a young boy. You really want that to go through the justice system? "offenders walking away without consequences after commiting a crime".. Wow seriously? They're kids for christ sakes.
Justice to me is not about punishment, it's about helping people. I don't think this is a serious enough crime (honestly, is it even a crime?) to warrant being called a criminal. Might as well sue the toddler who finger painted on your walls for disturbing of peace, and destroying private property.
If a law exist against it you could do it, crime is a crime, and it warrants punishment from the law that is there to prevent that from happening and to punish (sorry for being redundant) the individuals that do it.
Their kids? thats all? so, what if they shot at someone? their kids so its okay? and dont come saying its a different matter, its a crime, law exist, law should be enforced and criminals judged. What if they were all grown ups, 20-30 years, wouldnt it be a crime? wouldnt the victim take it to the court? why is it different just because "they are kids".
Enlighten me on how justice helps people be letting them walk off like they hadnt do anything.
Are you seriously saying that shooting someone and taking off someones clothes is the same thing, and should deserve the same punishment? Haha you can't get much action with the ladies I guess ^^
It is different because kids have worse judgement, and should be excused in a bigger extent. Are you serious? "Why is it different because they're kids [...] instead of being 20-30". This has gotta be the most fucking stupid question /statement in the entire thread. Alot of people do stupid shit when they're kids that they would never do when they get older.
Why do you quote to respond when you arent even reading what i write? Where am i saying both crimes deserve the same punishment? im saying both actions are crimes, and as crimes they deserve judgement. Again your argument is pointless, you just say because they are kids things are different, so again, enlighten me, if a kid kills someone does it have less impact because they are kids and they do stupid stuff when they are young? A crime is a crime, then fact that some crimes might be worse than others, does not make lesser crimes stop being crimes. And this time please, read before answering.
On June 06 2011 11:22 IzieBoy wrote: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.
The way you say that, it sounds as though nothing short of rape and murder should be punished.
So if someone were to restrain you in the middle of the street and strip you naked, then post the video of it online, you'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as they had no other intentions in mind?
It's a violation of basic personal rights. That doesn't become acceptable just because someone thought it would be funny.
you have a good point. regardless of intentions, their actions are wrong.
however, i think there are still 3 points that bothers me
1) if i were violated, i think it's my call whether to forgive or not.. the mom of the boy has the right to pardon the girls (assuming she's acting out the boy's will) without facing so much heat from the public
2) if it were 3 boys who did this, they would be judged based on the assumption that they had worse intentions than girls.. whether this is gender inequality is debatable
3) the root of this problem is still unclear... it seems to derive from some kind of win-lose desire to feel schadenfreude... if people can all work together for win-win and to trust each other, this world would be a more productive place.
Addressing point 1, she does have the call if the criteria you stated has been filled.
However, we, as the public, have the right to express what we think about her decision. Frankly, I think its foolish not to press charges. She has every right not to press charges, but I can still say what I think about them.
It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
People shouldnt compare boys doing this to a girl and girls doing this to a boy because it isn't the same as much as we would like it to be.
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
And if it was your daughter being stripped by three older boys?
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
And if it was your daughter being stripped by three older boys?
that a different situation i wouldn't be happy with that.
in the neighborhood i grew up in you may as well kiss your social life good bye if you ratted on a couple of girls.
The mother also doesn't want the girls to go un punished she just doesn't want to press charges.
OP, the mothers response is fine. She probably knows these girls' parents. They are all kids. People need to learn to not be so quick to jump to legal action when a situation can be handled in a civilized manner among a community.
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
And if it was your daughter being stripped by three older boys?
You and everyone else on this forum have no clue about the circumstances of this instance. Fuck letting the courts decide what kind of punishment these girls deserve, let their parents deal with their kids.
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
And if it was your daughter being stripped by three older boys?
You and everyone else on this forum have no clue about the circumstances of this instance. Fuck letting the courts decide what kind of punishment these girls deserve, let their parents deal with their kids.
Thats is what im saying there buddy. Whats with the righteousness?
This is very messed up, i agree. But i think not pressing charges was also the right choice. There is no need to take this incident and to ruin those girls' chances at future jobs / opportunities because of some teenage (granted sick and stupid) urge and need to attain a feeling of control and power.
I'm sure the boy will grow out of this eventually, but posting this video on youtube and the news BROADCASTING THIS (wtf?) is the true crime. Youtube should take this down if they havent already.
If you take a second and think about the scenario, it's really fucked up. Hope those girls are scarred for life cause they obviously need something in their lives to make them not so screwed-the-absolute-fucked up.
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
And if it was your daughter being stripped by three older boys?
You and everyone else on this forum have no clue about the circumstances of this instance. Fuck letting the courts decide what kind of punishment these girls deserve, let their parents deal with their kids.
Thats is what im saying there buddy. Whats with the righteousness?
so still to this day if a couple guys stripped you naked against your will and video taped it and put it online you would not sue them?
if you say you would let them go and have a good laugh you're a liar
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
People shouldnt compare boys doing this to a girl and girls doing this to a boy because it isn't the same as much as we would like it to be.
See, thats called a double standard.
Why is it ok to say it would be different if the exact same thing happened, but with reversed roles?
I bet the kid liked being humiliated by molestation, and roses grow out of clouds. Not really a place for people to argue about gender issues, cause anyone defending PEOPLE who humiliated another human being in such an extreme way is probably mentally fucked up.
The ridiculous people claiming to not care, or laugh at this are retarded. You be young again and get humiliated by someone and have it posted online. By the way, you're next to naked. So dumb... have fun being scarred for life.
You can't press charges against 3 retarded 14 year old girls, it is unfortunate but this shit happens all the time. This kid will remember this event for the rest of his life but he will eventually learn to deal with it. Kids in general are assholes anyway.
Food for thought before anyone lynches anyone else.
Was there force? Did the boy offer anything else other then, as a scummy pick up artist would say, "Token Resistance"?
If 3 14 year old boys take off an 11 year old girls clothes, the implicit assumption is "By force/intimidation".
In this case...was there force? did the kid feel intimidated by 3 14 year old girls? In the video, he isn't offering any kind of meaningful resistance. Hes kind of just lying there and letting them do it. I know it says "tackled", but honestly, if 3 girls suddenly just jumped at you your first reaction isn't going to be "Punch them in the face".
In the end how this is prosecuted should depend on how traumatized that victim would be. Did he feel sexually violated, or was he just "eh"?
Karma is gonna bite (or fuck) them in the ass eventually. This angers me like nothing else but still.... Also Hakker, consider setting yourself on fire for that retarded comment, really consider it, please.
On June 06 2011 14:16 Rylaji wrote: Well, as usual when girls do something its a slap on the wrist. Had this been reversed it would have been rape charges..
Altho, what guy lets some girl tackle you and then strip you and make no resistance? I would punch those cunts in the face if I had to.
With a mother like that, the kid was probably taught all his life to never hit a girl.
On June 06 2011 14:00 Half wrote: Food for thought before anyone lynches anyone else.
Was there force? Did the boy offer anything else other then, as a scummy pick up artist would say, "Token Resistance"?
If 3 14 year old boys take off an 11 year old girls clothes, the implicit assumption is "By force/intimidation".
In this case...was there force? did the kid feel intimidated by 3 14 year old girls? In the video, he isn't offering any kind of meaningful resistance. Hes kind of just lying there and letting them do it. I know it says "tackled", but honestly, if 3 girls suddenly just jumped at you your first reaction isn't going to be "Punch them in the face".
In the end how this is prosecuted should depend on how traumatized that victim would be. Did he feel sexually violated, or was he just "eh"?
The video is on the internet and all through the news. How would YOU feel if something like that would happen to a video showing you in a humiliating position?
Punishments are NOT GOOD if they have zero "deterrent value" and in the spirit of "an eye for an eye" I would think that public humiliation of the girls (by having to sincerely apologize in public and putting it on the news/internet) should do at least some good. The penalty has to be as well known as the seemingly cool dirty deed! If the punishment isnt handled the same way the value as a deterrent equals zero.
Laws = rules / morals of a society punishments = deterrents from breaking laws
That is how societies work ... mostly ... but with the advent of TV and the internet it has become fashionable to "break minor laws / conventions of society" (swearing as a rapper OR a Starcraft caster, breaking laws with only minor penalties, the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake incident ...) to be cool and to create a "scandal" for more viewers. This will slowly change the behaviour of society and not for the better. Penalties in our nice modern societies dont work as a deterrent anymore ... and that is bad.
On June 06 2011 13:19 splinter9 wrote: It is so refreshing to see the mother not pressing charges. Americans are way to court happy. I know if i was that kid i would flip on my parents if they pressed charges.
And if it was your daughter being stripped by three older boys?
You and everyone else on this forum have no clue about the circumstances of this instance. Fuck letting the courts decide what kind of punishment these girls deserve, let their parents deal with their kids.
Thats is what im saying there buddy. Whats with the righteousness?
so still to this day if a couple guys stripped you naked against your will and video taped it and put it online you would not sue them?
if you say you would let them go and have a good laugh you're a liar
First off this is children messing around with children its totally different then two Adults doing the samething. But just for fun , if it did happen to me today, the only way id ever even think of pressing charges was if i could make money off of it. If i just had to go in and out of courts for a year all just to get a couple idiots in minor trouble with the law i wouldnt waste my time. Im really not that sensitive. No one got hurt here aside from the kid being embarassed big deal he will get over it. It obviously didnt bother him sooo much that he went home crying to his parents. In fact id vernture to say the story going public is actually more detrimental to him.
If your the type of fickle person that wants to waste days in courtrooms debating over nothing go for it id rather do something better with my time.
Actually, it may not be the right idea to immediately say that due to innate biological differences, girls stripping a boy is worse than guys stripping a girl.
In the past, men were believed to have greater intelligence than women, because of their greater brain weight. This could also be "proven" due to the higher number of male scientists, artists, leaders, etc. However now we see that this is due to the historical oppression of women.
Now with this incident, is it fair to say that girls stripping a younger boy is less serious than guys stripping a younger girl due to "innate biological differences?"
On June 06 2011 14:00 Half wrote: Food for thought before anyone lynches anyone else.
Was there force? Did the boy offer anything else other then, as a scummy pick up artist would say, "Token Resistance"?
If 3 14 year old boys take off an 11 year old girls clothes, the implicit assumption is "By force/intimidation".
In this case...was there force? did the kid feel intimidated by 3 14 year old girls? In the video, he isn't offering any kind of meaningful resistance. Hes kind of just lying there and letting them do it. I know it says "tackled", but honestly, if 3 girls suddenly just jumped at you your first reaction isn't going to be "Punch them in the face".
In the end how this is prosecuted should depend on how traumatized that victim would be. Did he feel sexually violated, or was he just "eh"?
Are you kidding? One pinned him down while the other stripped him naked. He tried screaming, but one covered his mouth. He also tried to keep his shorts up from the looks of it.
And you don't seem to understand: This is an 11 year old boy going against 2 14 year old girls. The girls have gone through puberty while this young boy still has yet to experience it. I'm sure I don't need to tell you who wins when you realize those facts.
On June 06 2011 14:30 gta1 wrote: No she did the right thing by not charging them....parents can do worse than the law can at that age.
I'm going to go ahead and call bull shit on this one.
What would parents do, ground them? Take away TV/cell phone/social privileges? Oh yeah, that definitely beats spending time in Juvy...
I think that either way this is just wrong. The girls did a stupid ass thing and should be punished for it either by their parents, if not, then by the law.
I just hate to think how much shit this guy must go through when other guys around his age make fun of him for getting stripped and attacked by 2 girls. Hope he makes it out of high school alive.
I'm glad that the mother didn't press charges. All that would do is further publicly humiliate the kid by prolonging the case, and since the media seems so happy to broadcast the footage on national television over and over, it would only make things worse for the kid. Then of course he would also have to deal with the harassment from his peers for having to resort to legal action against a few girls. Whether you agree with it or not, a boy who pursues legal action against a girl will suffer for it socially.
At the same time, I'm really hoping that the parents of those girls punish them severely, or at the very least have the school suspend them or something. It's going to send a really bad message to everyone if girls can get away with public humiliation of another person just because they lack a Y chromosome.
These girls truly deserve punishment but not battery assault charges. That could ruin their lives for good. Definitely a lawsuit is in hand. They should pay for a while.
On June 06 2011 13:45 Batssa wrote: I bet the kid liked being humiliated by molestation, and roses grow out of clouds. Not really a place for people to argue about gender issues, cause anyone defending PEOPLE who humiliated another human being in such an extreme way is probably mentally fucked up.
The ridiculous people claiming to not care, or laugh at this are retarded. You be young again and get humiliated by someone and have it posted online. By the way, you're next to naked. So dumb... have fun being scarred for life.
You know something, I'm 23 I know what I can do with girls. That kid was 11. He probably thinking girls will give him cooties, either way it's a sex crime despite what porn teaches you men have feelings to. We are not horney dogs that will give our testicles and dignity for girls to undress us. We are people despite the fact that the world makes people like me into borderline sociopaths.
These girls should be made an example of and punished MORE SEVERELY than if the genders were reversed.
Why? Because that will send the message out that it is NOT OKAY to do this kind of shit regardless of gender. Society as a whole obviously doesn't have it through their head that this is not acceptable in any way shape or form.
3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl
The above four sentences are all equally disgusting and offensive and I lose faith in the human race reading some of the comments like "lol lucky kid" or "they shouldn't be punished" or worse still "it's just evolution, the strong picking on the weak".
Press charges. WTF? How can intentional public humiliation be a "prank?" That's complete bullshit. Those girls probably don't even have any remorse. Why would anyone in their right mind think that something like that would be okay? Despicable. They deserve some sort of legal action. Imagine how scared that 11 year old boy is now. How scarred he is. This is downright unacceptable behavior
On June 06 2011 15:25 Tektos wrote: These girls should be made an example of and punished MORE SEVERELY than if the genders were reversed.
Why? Because that will send the message out that it is NOT OKAY to do this kind of shit regardless of gender. Society as a whole obviously doesn't have it through their head that this is not acceptable in any way shape or form.
3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl
The above four sentences are all equally disgusting and offensive and I lose faith in the human race reading some of the comments like "lol lucky kid" or "they shouldn't be punished" or worse still "it's just evolution, the strong picking on the weak".
i completely agree with this. anyone posting that it should be treated differently if the offenders were of a different gender is seriously idiotic.
that said, i'm kind of surprised a thread about bullying made it this far and that it was on national news in the first place. bullying happens every day and to be honest i'd rather this happen to me than getting beaten up, humiliating as it is. you can punish them however you want but its not going to change the fact that kids are just mean.
On June 06 2011 15:25 Tektos wrote: These girls should be made an example of and punished MORE SEVERELY than if the genders were reversed.
Why? Because that will send the message out that it is NOT OKAY to do this kind of shit regardless of gender. Society as a whole obviously doesn't have it through their head that this is not acceptable in any way shape or form.
3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl
The above four sentences are all equally disgusting and offensive and I lose faith in the human race reading some of the comments like "lol lucky kid" or "they shouldn't be punished" or worse still "it's just evolution, the strong picking on the weak".
i completely agree with this. anyone posting that it should be treated differently if the offenders were of a different gender is seriously idiotic.
that said, i'm kind of surprised a thread about bullying made it this far and that it was on national news in the first place. bullying happens every day and to be honest i'd rather this happen to me than getting beaten up, humiliating as it is. you can punish them however you want but its not going to change the fact that kids are just mean.
I suspect that the reason why this thread went on so long is precisely because of the gender reversal. Had it been boy on boy, or girl on girl, it would have been forgotten. Obv, if it had been boy on girl, people would have been calling for heads to roll. (Imagine the shit storm if the police officer had dismissed it as just a prank, had it been boy on girl. He'd be getting serious death threats.)
The fact that its girl on boy, and is dismissed as just a prank, allows men to vent about a legal system that actively discriminates against males.
On June 06 2011 15:25 Tektos wrote: These girls should be made an example of and punished MORE SEVERELY than if the genders were reversed.
Why? Because that will send the message out that it is NOT OKAY to do this kind of shit regardless of gender. Society as a whole obviously doesn't have it through their head that this is not acceptable in any way shape or form.
3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl
The above four sentences are all equally disgusting and offensive and I lose faith in the human race reading some of the comments like "lol lucky kid" or "they shouldn't be punished" or worse still "it's just evolution, the strong picking on the weak".
i completely agree with this. anyone posting that it should be treated differently if the offenders were of a different gender is seriously idiotic.
that said, i'm kind of surprised a thread about bullying made it this far and that it was on national news in the first place. bullying happens every day and to be honest i'd rather this happen to me than getting beaten up, humiliating as it is. you can punish them however you want but its not going to change the fact that kids are just mean.
This is bullying? I'm pretty sure the fact that they completely stripped him qualifies this for sexual assault or something equally significant.
On June 06 2011 15:39 rycho wrote: bullying happens every day and to be honest i'd rather this happen to me than getting beaten up, humiliating as it is.
The lesser of two evils, I see.
Shame that you're still picking evil.
EDIT:
If it were my son I would ask him what he wanted me to do. If he didn't want to press charges then I wouldn't, because he's obviously scared of what it will do to him at school which I totally understand. If he said he wanted to press charges then I would do it. There's not really a wrong answer there. Just like boys, girls make mistakes when they're kids too, and just like boys, they shouldn't have to suffer the rest of their lives because of something they did as a minor.
If it were my daughters, I'd probably be in prison because I would fucking kill them.
Seriously though, they'd be harshly grounded for an unset amount of time and they would definitely be apologizing to that poor kid, face to face. And I'd be thanking that mother a thousand times for not pressing charges and realizing that kids fuck up.
On June 06 2011 15:25 Tektos wrote: These girls should be made an example of and punished MORE SEVERELY than if the genders were reversed.
Why? Because that will send the message out that it is NOT OKAY to do this kind of shit regardless of gender. Society as a whole obviously doesn't have it through their head that this is not acceptable in any way shape or form.
3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old boys assaulting and stripping an 11 year old boy 3 14 year old girls assaulting and stripping an 11 year old girl
The above four sentences are all equally disgusting and offensive and I lose faith in the human race reading some of the comments like "lol lucky kid" or "they shouldn't be punished" or worse still "it's just evolution, the strong picking on the weak".
i completely agree with this. anyone posting that it should be treated differently if the offenders were of a different gender is seriously idiotic.
that said, i'm kind of surprised a thread about bullying made it this far and that it was on national news in the first place. bullying happens every day and to be honest i'd rather this happen to me than getting beaten up, humiliating as it is. you can punish them however you want but its not going to change the fact that kids are just mean.
I suspect that the reason why this thread went on so long is precisely because of the gender reversal. Had it been boy on boy, or girl on girl, it would have been forgotten. Obv, if it had been boy on girl, people would have been calling for heads to roll. (Imagine the shit storm if the police officer had dismissed it as just a prank, had it been boy on girl. He'd be getting serious death threats.)
The fact that its girl on boy, and is dismissed as just a prank, allows men to vent about a legal system that actively discriminates against males.
It does. Sexism and racism are thriving in society. If racism really has been defeated, then black people should appear in high profile jobs just as often as their population says they should. There is less of a percentage that a black person will receive a doctorate degree than a white person. If a girl punches a boy it is generally dismissed, and if the boy claims personal harm he will be made fun of for getting beat up by a girl, and the girl will be given a slap on the wrist. If a boy punches a girl then the girl can milk it for all it's worth and turn the whole event into a shit storm where suddenly the girl's word law and no one will believe the boy no matter what he'd say.
What happened: 11-year old boy is outnumbered, assaulted and stripped by 14-year olds. The whole thing is filmed and put on YouTube. It's a horrific video, and if it started as a prank it stopped being funny very quickly indeed. The boy's mother decides not to press charges against the girls. We don't know why she made this decision.
How the majority of TL forumers react: Deduce that the mother must be siding with the girls against her son, possibly due to the awesome telepathic power of vaginas. Also, there would apparently be rape charges if the genders were reversed, despite actual video evidence that no rape took place. Some of you even appear to have taken this entire what-if-the-genders-were-reversed situation, constructed a little story in which CNN and a jury of soccer moms make sure some 14-year old boys get castrated, and on these grounds decided that USA is a matriarchy.
What the fuck, TL forumers, what the fuck.
In this society, women are seen as weak and ineffectual. This is misogyny. It also means that when girls are violent against boys, even in cases like this where the power balance is horrendously skewed, they are less likely to be held responsible. The victim probably won't take it so hard – he's male, they're female, so he must have been in control – and if he does take it hard, he will be seen as unmanly, possibly even womanly, and that is bad. Very bad. He will never hear the end of it.
This is one of several situations where systemic misogyny results in misandric practices: see also "women and children first". I honestly don't know what to make of the fact that some of you see this attitude as evidence of "feminism gone too far". Do you really think people would have sympathized more with this boy in a more macho age? Really? Because those idiots who think this 11-year old should have been able to singlehandedly beat up three older, stronger kids, or think of the whole thing as an ego-boosting sexual adventure, or somehow just forget about it? Those people are prooooobably not feminists. I'm not saying they'd beat you up if you suggested they were, but I am saying they'd probably do some posturing on a message board to convince you they could. Because, you know, that's what Real Men do.
Someone upthread correctly pointed out that feminists are not a hive mind, but I am quite confident that you'll be hard pressed to find a feminist who endorses the behavior of these girls. Certainly all the feminists I know, and I include myself here, would find that "prank" reprehensible. And I know some pretty diverse feminists, including some I disagree with about almost everything.
So could we please stop with this fervent construction of straw feminists? I don't see what it contributes except making this thread even more depressing.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This was exactly my thoughts when I saw this. If the genders were reversed here, the offenders would be punished heavily and the person you replied to would be talking about what a disgusting and grievous crime this was.
I feel sorry for the kid who is probably now humiliated, shamed and has his self esteem shattered. But har har girls are tearing his clothes off what a lucky fellow!
He should be allowed to rape them back when he's 16. It would clear the humiliation from his mind, and punish the girls without serious legal consequences that would screw anyone for the rest of their life. To be honest, everyone would then just forget about this and move on.
On June 06 2011 17:09 Muki wrote: He should be allowed to rape them back when he's 16. It would clear the humiliation from his mind, and punish the girls without serious legal consequences that would screw anyone for the rest of their life. To be honest, everyone would then just forget about this and move on.
Surely you can't be serious. As terrible and humiliating as this is, it is nowhere near as terrible as rape. In addition to that, an eye for an eye is a dumb punishment system. I still can't believe you suggested he should be allowed to rape them, grow up.
the kid is a siege tank"Got no patience for sittin' around!" "Lay it on me!" the girls are the banshees "You can only tie the record for low flight.""This could get messy!"
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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 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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
On June 06 2011 06:24 ChinaRestaurant wrote: [quote]
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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 06:24 ChinaRestaurant wrote: [quote]
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
You probably should limit yourself to arguing based on evidence, because arguments from intuition are utterly useless drivel.
I fail to see how you pointing out the implications of the incident at all adds to the debate, especially since you seem to be saying that 11 years olds have femdom fantasies. Seriously? What the fuck, mate.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 06:36 Asjo wrote: [quote]
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
You probably should limit yourself to arguing based on evidence, because arguments from intuition are utterly useless drivel.
I fail to see how you pointing out the implications of the incident at all adds to the debate, especially since you seem to be saying that 11 years olds have femdom fantasies. Seriously? What the fuck, mate.
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates. All but a few percentages of debates have their base in common knowledge, experience, morality, etc. That does not make them "useless drivel" and the points can be just as valid without the backing of a scientific article.
Once again, it seems that people prefer using rhetorics and twisting my points rather than to actually argue. Here, you translate "touching" and "getting into contact with" to "being dominated by". Not that I think the part about femdom fantasies would be impossible, but that's not what I said. I have already pointed out what it adds; it helps point out the ambiguity of the situation.
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
You probably should limit yourself to arguing based on evidence, because arguments from intuition are utterly useless drivel.
I fail to see how you pointing out the implications of the incident at all adds to the debate, especially since you seem to be saying that 11 years olds have femdom fantasies. Seriously? What the fuck, mate.
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates. All but a few percentages of debates have their base in common knowledge, experience, morality, etc. That does not make them "useless drivel" and the points can be just as valid without the backing of a scientific article.
Once again, it seems that people prefer using rhetorics and twisting my points rather than to actually argue. Here, you translate "touching" and "getting into contact with" to "being dominated by". Not that I think the part about femdom fantasies would be impossible, but that's not what I said. I have already pointed out what it adds; it helps point out the ambiguity of the situation.
Fair enough, though my attitude towards people who claim something as fact is still [citation needed]
The situation at hand is one of domination, though, so pointing out that he might have enjoyed it had they undressed him in a different manner is bit silly.
On June 06 2011 16:54 Redukt wrote: Deduce that the mother must be siding with the girls against her son, possibly due to the awesome telepathic power of vaginas. Also, there would apparently be rape charges if the genders were reversed, despite actual video evidence that no rape took place. Some of you even appear to have taken this entire what-if-the-genders-were-reversed situation, constructed a little story in which CNN and a jury of soccer moms make sure some 14-year old boys get castrated, and on these grounds decided that USA is a matriarchy.
While there are people here who do not understand the difference between sexual assault and rape, the general idea that if the genders were reversed that 14-year-old boys would face sexual criminal charges is likely accurate.
This doesn't make the USA a matriarchy, but it certainly does highlight an inherently sexist social view of sexual assault, even if it stems from gender roles that are simultaneously misogynistic and misandrc.
This is one of several situations where systemic misogyny results in misandric practices: see also "women and children first".
No, it isn't, and the fact that you think so suggests you've been drinking too much of the feminist Kool-Aid.
Sexist things happen to girls? Misogyny! Sexist things happen to boys? Misogyny still!
I don't suppose it has ever occured to you that it's not black-and-white, and that society can hold views that are both misogynistic and misandric?
Someone upthread correctly pointed out that feminists are not a hive mind, but I am quite confident that you'll be hard pressed to find a feminist who endorses the behavior of these girls. Certainly all the feminists I know, and I include myself here, would find that "prank" reprehensible. And I know some pretty diverse feminists, including some I disagree with about almost everything.
It's more likely that this incident will be overlooked by the feminist community entirely, since harm to boys is not one of their concerns. I certainly haven't seen any sort of discussion of this going on at Jezebel, Feministe, Shakesville, or the rest of the feminist blogosphere.
However, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Lorena Bobbitt was widely hailed as a feminist hero when that incident occurred. There's been several other high-profile incidents, such as the recent Hofstra false rape allegation case, where a majority of feminists have sided against innocent males. In most cases, any wrong done by a woman or girl is white-washed with something along the lines of the 'patriarchy made them do it'.
It is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that feminists as a group (though not all of them) would side with the girls here in a similar fashion; e.g., something like the girls don't deserve to be punished because they are merely acting out social scripts conferred by rape culture, the boy isn't really humiliated since hegemonic masculinity makes that impossible, the boy must have provoked the attack, etc.
On June 06 2011 16:54 Redukt wrote: This doesn't make the USA a matriarchy, but it certainly does highlight an inherently sexist social view of sexual assault, even if it stems from gender roles that are simultaneously misogynistic and misandrc.
lol before the pilgrims came, this ground was ruled by mothers lol...i think
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
You probably should limit yourself to arguing based on evidence, because arguments from intuition are utterly useless drivel.
I fail to see how you pointing out the implications of the incident at all adds to the debate, especially since you seem to be saying that 11 years olds have femdom fantasies. Seriously? What the fuck, mate.
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates. All but a few percentages of debates have their base in common knowledge, experience, morality, etc. That does not make them "useless drivel" and the points can be just as valid without the backing of a scientific article.
Once again, it seems that people prefer using rhetorics and twisting my points rather than to actually argue. Here, you translate "touching" and "getting into contact with" to "being dominated by". Not that I think the part about femdom fantasies would be impossible, but that's not what I said. I have already pointed out what it adds; it helps point out the ambiguity of the situation.
You say a lot and in turn it is actually nothing, you repeat yourself over and over. Your point is the old sexist thinking is still OK? I honestly think you don't even have a point, though. Everything you say is based on either old stereotyping of males or a hypothesis on your side. Almost pointless in responding to you, feel like I am being trolled to keep the thread alive.
I just want to say one thing to those people who feel discriminated by women, because if the genders would be reversed there would be prisontime.
The thought about sexual assault by women on men was never even tought, because we live in a patriarchaical society, with very strong gender roles. Women have to be protected, are weak, etc. while men (or boys) are strong, masculin and fighters. The thought that men get sexually attacked by women didn't even exist for a long time, and because boys are stronger, they could just fight back "if they really wanted to". There's no lawsuit, not because those "evil feminists" want men raped, but because this boy didn't fit in his role given by society.
I think it's very funny that people on an internet message board for a computergame all spout that shit about being "hard" and how you can be beaten up by girls. so, who of you has ever been in a fight?
On June 06 2011 20:48 tskarzyn wrote: Girls should be suspended from school, but that boy needs to hit the gym..... how the hell do he get overpowered by a few girls? Man up, son!
This is pretty funny and I would agree if he was 16+
But since he is 11 year old boy he probably hasn't even hit puberty yet, and as such I doubt there would be that much of a muscular difference, at least not enough to offset the odds.
As for the situation itself, I doubt this kid is going to grow up having healthy views on women. I can understand laughing at a matured male that cannot defend himself physically from women. But seriously this kid had no chance, the fact that society is fine with this makes me facepalm pretty hard.
Why are people suggesting that ~society~ is fine with it?
Just because charges weren't pressed doesn't mean that the vast majority of people do not find this abhorrently fucked up. Although the fact the school is doing nothing is really quite unfathomable.
Why are people suggesting that ~society~ is fine with it?
Although the fact the school is doing nothing is really quite unfathomable.
I should rephrase though, society is relatively fine with it. When realistically there is little difference if the genders were swapped in the scenario; in either case the victim was unable to defend themselves.
On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote: Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register.
3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
That wouldn't have been the case if the mom wasn't such a horrible god damn parent. Hard to do anything with such retarded parents on this planet, I bet before this happened the poor child was scarred for life to begin with from some other incident caused by his mother anyways.
She didn't press charges because she didn't want to do a ridiculous ammount of damage to a bunch of kids. That's all it has nothing to do with society, they are kids, kid problems are solved by parents not a court.
You also turn it into some "if boys did this then blabla discussion", in truth there was no sex crime to be done there, was just a shitty joke, kids do lots of those. Fact that your society has idiots who would send young boys on a road to failure over something like that, doesn't mean the mom was wrong for not pressing charges. It just means your vision is already so warped you can't see a proper action when you're presented with it.
Yeh the mother's decision is completely understandable, though with the school not punishing the girls I think it'd be hard for me not to pursue a legal course of action unless the son didn't want to.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
The son already is the laughing stock of the whole school considering the video was posted on youtube + news and stuff, everyone knows what happened and I bet he's going to be bullied and humiliated further more. At the very least, pressing charges would punish the girls well, and I would like for them to get punishment from school as well but alas, the girls face ZERO consequences for their actions.
Okay, but I think that having the mom come in and go hard like that will be even more damaging.
I know I would not want my mom to defend me when I was at that age but then again I've never really being bullied in such way, all the stuff that was dealt to me was settled with fists. I guess I was lucky to have a straight forward option to react.
On June 06 2011 21:23 Cyba wrote: She didn't press charges because she didn't want to do a ridiculous ammount of damage to a bunch of kids. That's all it has nothing to do with society, they are kids, kid problems are solved by parents not a court.
You also turn it into some "if boys did this then blabla discussion", in truth there was no sex crime to be done there, was just a shitty joke, kids do lots of those. Fact that your society has idiots who would send young boys on a road to failure over something like that, doesn't mean the mom was wrong for not pressing charges. It just means your vision is already so warped you can't see a proper action when you're presented with it.
I agree with the mother's choice, what I don't agree with is the school's choice. People should not have their lives ruined over a prank. However this is a pretty bad form of bullying and the school doing nothing about it is pretty sad.
I think the entire response to this "incident" is pretty exaggerated. Kids are kids, they do stuff like this. The harmful part is that it appeared on Youtube.
If these were kids past puberty with a clear understanding of why it was inappropriate behavior, then sure, throw around sexual harassment claims. Back when I was in school, you could rarely go a day without seeing a kid trying to embarrass another kid by pulling down his/her pants/skirt/whatever.
The sad thing is, that - if only behind closed doors - I'm sure many of the people who are involved in this (school employees, parents of pupils there etc.) are finding this pretty funny.
Otherwise there would be no justification for the school doing nothing. If I had a son OR a daughter there, I'm not sure if I'd be ok with him/her going to this school ever again. Just because the mere thought of them being taught by people who are ok with pupils assaulting each other wouldn't let me sleep.
On June 06 2011 21:35 Dox wrote: I think the entire response to this "incident" is pretty exaggerated. Kids are kids, they do stuff like this. The harmful part is that it appeared on Youtube.
If these were kids past puberty with a clear understanding of why it was inappropriate behavior, then sure, throw around sexual harassment claims. Back when I was in school, you could rarely go a day without seeing a kid trying to embarrass another kid by pulling down his/her pants/skirt/whatever.
Females have usually at least started puberty by the age of 14, I know of a few that had actually finished it by that age.
Kids these days need to harden the fuck up and parents need to stop being overprotective bitches.
Kids also need to learn that their image is not their entire world. When they get out and step into real world, there are way worse things people can inflict and humiliate them with.
On June 06 2011 21:41 haduken wrote: Kids these days need to harden the fuck up and parents need to stop being overprotective bitches.
Kids also need to learn that their image is not their entire world. When they get out and step into real world, there are way worse things people can inflict and humiliate them with.
Yeah I kinda agree with you. Even if I feel the girls were bitches and that the guy should slam them for revenge, what he suffered is still kinda trivial and the girls do not deserve to go to prison for that. It should not even be on TV in the first place.
On June 06 2011 21:41 haduken wrote: Kids these days need to harden the fuck up and parents need to stop being overprotective bitches.
Kids also need to learn that their image is not their entire world. When they get out and step into real world, there are way worse things people can inflict and humiliate them with.
I agree with everything but the first bit. He's 11 years old, that's gotta be pretty fucken traumatising and will probably haunt him long time
On June 06 2011 21:41 haduken wrote: Kids these days need to harden the fuck up and parents need to stop being overprotective bitches.
Kids also need to learn that their image is not their entire world. When they get out and step into real world, there are way worse things people can inflict and humiliate them with.
Same with those fucking rape victims. All crying and shit, just man up and stop being such pussies, right? Traumatising? More like "I'm-a-bitch-look-at-how-much-I-suck-at-life-ising."
In all seriousness I hope you choke on semen and die. People with your mindset don't belong in any civilised society.
On June 06 2011 06:24 ChinaRestaurant wrote: [quote]
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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 06:24 ChinaRestaurant wrote: [quote]
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
You probably should limit yourself to arguing based on evidence, because arguments from intuition are utterly useless drivel.
I fail to see how you pointing out the implications of the incident at all adds to the debate, especially since you seem to be saying that 11 years olds have femdom fantasies. Seriously? What the fuck, mate.
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates. All but a few percentages of debates have their base in common knowledge, experience, morality, etc. That does not make them "useless drivel" and the points can be just as valid without the backing of a scientific article.
Once again, it seems that people prefer using rhetorics and twisting my points rather than to actually argue. Here, you translate "touching" and "getting into contact with" to "being dominated by". Not that I think the part about femdom fantasies would be impossible, but that's not what I said. I have already pointed out what it adds; it helps point out the ambiguity of the situation.
there is no ambiguity in this situation, kid is being bullied there is a difference between touching and throwing a kid to the ground, violently, you adding the possibility of "femdom" to this equation makes you look even more ridiculous then you did a few minutes ago. you can't twist someones point if they don't have one everything you've said is bias, and has no place in this discussion at all.
On June 05 2011 14:51 haduken wrote: The mother did the right thing. If she went ahead and press charges then her son would be the laughing stock of the school.
Sad but true.
That's a terrible way to think about it. Sexual harrassment isn't worth pressing charges over because you may get laughed at? What if he got raped? "Oh, kids will be kids"? "They didn't *really* know what they were doing"? They're not three years old.
He's already been posted on the internet. There's no "saving face". And to even suggest that your classmate's opinion of you is on par with the law and sexual safety is ridiculous.
On June 06 2011 08:58 Gahlo wrote: If the genders in this were reversed this would be one hell of a shitstorm.
Agreed. There would be fear of incoming rape, whereas so many people see this example as merely a harmless prank. Why the double standard? Because girls don't/ can't rape boys? Because that's not what the stereotype dictates? It's a pity that people are so closed-minded.
On June 06 2011 21:41 haduken wrote: Kids these days need to harden the fuck up and parents need to stop being overprotective bitches.
Kids also need to learn that their image is not their entire world. When they get out and step into real world, there are way worse things people can inflict and humiliate them with.
Same with those fucking rape victims. All crying and shit, just man up and stop being such pussies, right? Traumatising? More like "I'm-a-bitch-look-at-how-much-I-suck-at-life-ising."
In all seriousness I hope you choke on semen and die. People with your mindset don't belong in any civilised society.
I like your post! except the part about him dying. :D
Shit sucks for the kid. I had similar crappy experiences growing up, albeit it was a much different time. This kind of thing would never happen when I was a kid (the YouTube element), although in 4th grade a girl did beat me up. Nowadays I would deck any woman that hit me with enough force to piss me off, citing equality, but I'm an entirely different person and I've manned up from the way I was as a kid.
This kid is no different. His mother wants what's best for her son and she's right not resorting to litigation for something like this. The courts should be used for more serious problems than some cruel girls affecting a finite moment in a kid's social life.
The problem is that for every good parent there are about 10 bad ones nowadays. I'll bet many of these girls don't even get punished for what they did because their parents could care less.
People keep saying how if 4 boys were doing this to a girl it would be a shitstorm. I think that it would be and justifiably so, since girls are generally more pleasant and good-natured than guys. Girls will only go so far as pulling pranks. Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science. That's why there are so many more men than women in prison.
On June 06 2011 23:37 Gummy wrote: People keep saying how if 4 boys were doing this to a girl it would be a shitstorm. I think that it would be and justifiably so, since girls are generally more pleasant and good-natured than guys. Girls will only go so far as pulling pranks. Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science. That's why there are so many more men than women in prison.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic? Are you saying that the male gender is more responsible for its "pranks" than females? You are basically saying that because it was females assaulting a male that it is ok because females in society are nicer. But if it was males assaulting a female then they should get it more trouble? The law SHOULD NOT CHANGE dependent on gender for cases such as this. There is something twisted in your head if you think that people can be more/less at fault for doing the same thing with gender reversals..
It's ok because it's girls bullying a boy. If it was the other way around, there would be a massive outcry and shit would hit the fan so hard, those boys lives would probably be ruined. Here, it's just a harmless funny prank, no charges.
Fact of the matter is equality will never be true.
On June 06 2011 23:37 Gummy wrote: People keep saying how if 4 boys were doing this to a girl it would be a shitstorm. I think that it would be and justifiably so, since girls are generally more pleasant and good-natured than guys. Girls will only go so far as pulling pranks. Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science. That's why there are so many more men than women in prison.
Very poor response, and sexist at that. Generalizing men/boys as devious is totally pathetic. Maybe YOU are more devious than other people, don't include every other male person into your conclusion. Maybe there are more men in prison than there are women because the judges all think as pathetic as you do, and give lighter sentences to them as such? Or maybe a lot of them just couldn't handle the pressure of "being a man and being strong" because of the sexist views that men should be strong, and turned to drugs then crimes to pay for the drugs. All because of sexist opinions of men having to "deal with it" or "be a man!"?
On June 06 2011 23:37 Gummy wrote: People keep saying how if 4 boys were doing this to a girl it would be a shitstorm. I think that it would be and justifiably so, since girls are generally more pleasant and good-natured than guys. Girls will only go so far as pulling pranks. Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science. That's why there are so many more men than women in prison.
Very poor response, and sexist at that. Generalizing men/boys as devious is totally pathetic. Maybe YOU are more devious than other people, don't include every other male person into your conclusion. Maybe there are more men in prison than there are women because the judges all think as pathetic as you do, and give lighter sentences to them as such? Or maybe a lot of them just couldn't handle the pressure of "being a man and being strong" because of the sexist views that men should be strong, and turned to drugs then crimes to pay for the drugs. All because of sexist opinions of men having to "deal with it" or "be a man!"?
Relax man he was trolling. The reason there are more men in prison isn't because we are all rapist scientists. Its because we are more physically violent and more driven by money.
What I find fucked up is How these girls thought what they were doing was Fun.
I don't know too be honest forcefully stripping someone is kind of over the top.
I mean youtube videos inspired this? Fuckin bitches and their fame fantasies. (omg we can show all our friends this video we made.... ) Yeah good one.
And yes I agree, if you reverse the Sexes you have a much different picture. Let's be real though, double standards are 100% fact in the USA.
If in the USA you have 5 white males who beat to death a black man. It would be called "Racist" crime. But if 5 black guys kill a white male, it would be called "murder"
This is a perfect example of collective failure to apply logic in social settings. America is plagued with morality issues and conservatism.
You can't really see this as tramatizing. I mean this kid could grow up to get mugged and beaten, but hey who cares ... because that is "Standard". And also the reason why 3 guys doing this to a girl is much harder. Look at the intent, guys stripping a girl = sexual implications, and males have a long listed track record of this type of crime. 3 Girls doing this to a guy.... Just a case of wierd ass bullying.
The mother is right, children are foolish and should be educated how to live by their parents.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 06:36 Asjo wrote: [quote]
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote: [quote]
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
You probably should limit yourself to arguing based on evidence, because arguments from intuition are utterly useless drivel.
I fail to see how you pointing out the implications of the incident at all adds to the debate, especially since you seem to be saying that 11 years olds have femdom fantasies. Seriously? What the fuck, mate.
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates. All but a few percentages of debates have their base in common knowledge, experience, morality, etc. That does not make them "useless drivel" and the points can be just as valid without the backing of a scientific article.
Once again, it seems that people prefer using rhetorics and twisting my points rather than to actually argue. Here, you translate "touching" and "getting into contact with" to "being dominated by". Not that I think the part about femdom fantasies would be impossible, but that's not what I said. I have already pointed out what it adds; it helps point out the ambiguity of the situation.
there is no ambiguity in this situation, kid is being bullied there is a difference between touching and throwing a kid to the ground, violently, you adding the possibility of "femdom" to this equation makes you look even more ridiculous then you did a few minutes ago. you can't twist someones point if they don't have one everything you've said is bias, and has no place in this discussion at all.
I'll have to remind you that vetinari was the one who thought along the lines of femdom. Depending on how you consider this term, it might have very sexual implications. With the kid being 11 years old, I hardly think that's the case, although I know for a fact that the enjoyment of being submissive in much the way that this concept construes can easily exist at this age.
I will have you know, it has been hard for me to read your points. The negativity and hostility really makes my stomach tense up. What's interesting is that I'm sure it comes from a perspective trying to defend cerain values. It would almost seem as if you feel that you're trying to defend "the good". Meanwhile, I personally feel that I have the positive human view here in trying to bring a more humane interpretation of the situation and how we could react to both the girls and the boy instead of screaming "prison!". It seems that you have blindly told yourself that I'm trying to belittle the possible feelings of anguish and hurt that the boy will have suffered as a result of this incident. I can easily emphathize with what he might be going through, though, and I have been bullied through most of primary school myself. Yet, I manage to keep a level head.
I can understand that when you're emotionally invested in something you discuss, it can be hard to participate in a discussion without trying to trick others into agreeing with you by the use of logical fallacies (for instance, through examples) or by making it personal (equating the views of another person to those of a negatively viewed group, implying your moral superiority). After all, you are in it to prove you're right, not to otherwise benefit from the discussion. My most important point in this is how we we can actually make this a better society without having to resort to the legal system, but simply by making space for each other, letting people be human:
On June 06 2011 06:36 Asjo wrote: Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
On June 06 2011 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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
Not that it matters, but in terms of interpreting what goes on in the video, I would have to say that I agree that the boy very likely did not enjoy it. I just had the chance to watch it with sound, which reveals how he's crying hystically like a small child, which I won't assume anyone would fake. When you just watch the image, the boy does't necessarily seem to be putting up any great resistance, but of course something like that is hard to judge from clips that last only a few seconds and does not reveal any context (at that point he might just have had it and was busy feeling sorry for himself, not finding the strength to fight it, or he might have been fatigued).
On June 06 2011 19:25 sunprince wrote: it certainly does highlight an inherently sexist social view of sexual assault, even if it stems from gender roles that are simultaneously misogynistic and misandrc.
I'm not disagreeing with this, as you will see. Still not sure they would be charged - I suppose it would still be up to the parents to press charges - but as this thread amply shows, it would be considered a more serious crime.
Sexist things happen to girls? Misogyny! Sexist things happen to boys? Misogyny still!
I don't suppose it has ever occured to you that it's not black-and-white, and that society can hold views that are both misogynistic and misandric?
...it has occurred to me. In fact, it is kind of what I'm saying. I'm also saying that I believe these views stem from a deeper, pervasive sense that being a man is good and being a woman is bad. But I won't quibble about this last part with you. We seem to agree about the most important thing. Gender roles are stupid, throw rocks at them. If you're equally vocal about double standards when they hurt girls and women, imma go ahead and consider you a crypto-feminist.
It's more likely that this incident will be overlooked by the feminist community entirely, since harm to boys is not one of their concerns. I certainly haven't seen any sort of discussion of this going on at Jezebel, Feministe, Shakesville, or the rest of the feminist blogosphere.
This is probably true. Doesn't mean they side with the girls. They blog about feminism, and this wasn't actually a feminist issue until this thread made it into one by getting all chin-strokingly hypotethical.
However, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Lorena Bobbitt was widely hailed as a feminist hero when that incident occurred.
[citation needed.] I remember some support for her, but none from academic feminists. In fact, they were mostly busy trying to convince everyone that they weren't manhaters.
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.
I dont think youve ever undressed or have been undressed unwillingly in front of relative strangers have you? Try putting yourself in the shoes of the boy, 3 years younger and alone, in public, getting undressed while being kept down by the girls. Sure is quite a lot of humiliation in that. Something similar happened to me once, just that the people doing it were 3 boys from my class and they undressed me for practically everyone in my class to see. Believe me there is nothing to secretly enjoy about this at that age. Later on in your life when you might or might not develop kinks and fetishes is another thing, but dont tell me an 11 year old might be into humiliation, even if it involved being in close contact with some girls.
I beg to differ about your last point. You can develop certain ways of relating to girls in terms physical contact, conversation, etc. At this age your hormones might be kicking in, and you're desperate to somehow get in touch with the girls. So, based on whatever experience you have, you assume a behaviour that allows you to do so. This might mean willingly engaging is humiliating situations of some kind and repeating this due to past "success". For all we know, the boy might have somehow tries to encourage the reaction of the girls, even if not this specific act. We don't know. But I certainly wouldn't count out the fact that the boy might have enjoyed it.
The other you example you give is more clear cut. At this age, boys start getting more insecure about group dynamics and will battle for dominance. Your lack of power in relation to the boys that you compete with being so clearly displayed will certainly mark you. Mind you, it likely won't have any long-term effects, but you certainly won't like it. Even more so, the situation being designed to humiliate you (carried out for the audience), not just and act of fun/soperiority/venting, enhances this effect.
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.
First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
Not that it matters, but in terms of interpreting what goes on in the video, I would have to say that I agree that the boy very likely did not enjoy it. I just had the chance to watch it with sound, which reveals how he's crying hystically like a small child, which I won't assume anyone would fake. When you just watch the image, the boy does't necessarily seem to be putting up any great resistance, but of course something like that is hard to judge from clips that last only a few seconds and does not reveal any context (at that point he might just have had it and was busy feeling sorry for himself, not finding the strength to fight it, or he might have been fatigued).
I'm not sure that I think it matters if he enjoyed it or not, 3 older girls forcing a boy to the ground, stripping him naked, filming it, then posting the video on youtube is inappropriate and qualifies as assault regardless of whether or not the kid had deep set dark urges to be humiliated in public by older girls. Sexual assault is still sexual assault even if the victim gets off...
As for it being made less of an issue because it was girls doing this to a boy rather than the other way around, ya obviously a double standard but frankly that's the double standard is the standard in western society so I'm not at all surprised by that though a disgusted as I frequently am on matters regarding gender equality, but that's a discussion for a different thread I'm sure.
The only other comment I have on this story is that this kids mother is either stupid, or... actually no just stupid. I can't believe that a mother would let something like that happen to their child (something which regardless or "trials make you strong blah blah" BS will probably give him social issues for at least the next couple years) and not want something legally done about it. Parental punishment holds much less sway in the minds of kids than the threat of legal action and having to admit to what you did in court. On top of that putting her trust in the parents of the children who were apparently raised to think that something like this is funny just seems even stupider to me.
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:
On June 06 2011 07:49 Nanoko wrote: [quote] First of all let's say he did enjoy it..why was he screaming and bawling his eyes out?,if I am correct in believing that being publicly humiliated to some people is enjoyable...they wouldn't be screaming or protesting against it would they? Call me crazy, but when people do stuff that they enjoy (Even S&M activities) they don't react in the same way that kid did...do they? NO! Good, now we're learning! Also the whole "Close physical contact with girls" thing, at the onset of puberty (can start in either sex between ages of 10-13, potentially earlier, potentially later). You begin to develop an interest in girls...that is not to say you want to see them NAKED OR that you want THEM TO SEE YOU NAKED, you merely begin to get interested at them. You're not by any means "Desperate" to get into contact with girls, in my experience most guys are scared to hell to even TALK to a girl at around that age BECAUSE of their new found interest in them.
It's not like puberty hits and boys are just like "Wow...I never thought about this before but...girls..are awesome, I wanna hang out with them...and ...i get this weird feeling whenever I'm near them..i wonder if they touch me?....". I really am astonished at how you, and people like you can think this way..it's Mind boggling, absolutely Mind Boggling. as for it not being child porn, Clearly you do not know what child porn is, they do not have to be sexually explicit and child nudity IS considered Child Porn. Maybe at ages 1-4 i can see it not being child porn, cause it's just a baby...but even then there are some Sick Fucks out there. I'm honestly hoping you're just trolling, because this is a pretty fucked up way to look at this....saying that kid, who was clearly NOT enjoying being publicly humiliated and assaulted, could've liked it is just...Wow
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote:
On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote: [quote]
I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.
I never said that child porn had to be sexually explicit. I'm saying it involved the exploitation of children. This is not exploitation of the boy for the sake of child pornography (at least not that we know of ). He just happens to be naked, the context not at all related. Now, if you're a family father who takes pictures of your daughter while she is naked and bathing there is nothing wrong with that, even if you have her pose. There is nothing wrong with putting these pictures in your family album and showing said album to visitors. However, if you circulate all the nude pictures among other adult males the circumstances do start to point towards to use of these pictures as child pornography.
You must be conscious about the heavy stigma that had developed around child pornograpy due to media coverage of incidents. This has gotten to the point where some fathers are afraid to touch their own daughters. It is important to insist that the fear of child explotation does invade and dictate other areas of life, where children can be naked in completely normal circumstances, where they are not being exploited.
I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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" ...
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.....
On June 06 2011 20:39 BlackFlag wrote:There's no lawsuit, not because those "evil feminists" want men raped, but because this boy didn't fit in his role given by society.
I don't think anyone has suggsted that "evil feminists" want men raped. The point that has been made is that feminists haven't noticed and probably wouldn't care about the boy in this case, but would probably be in an uproar if the genders were reversed.
Though this reaction is common for much of our society, feminists are ostensibly (at least in theory) in favor of equal rights for everyone. The fact that they only go out of their way to defend girls makes this idea questionable.
On June 06 2011 23:37 Gummy wrote: People keep saying how if 4 boys were doing this to a girl it would be a shitstorm. I think that it would be and justifiably so, since girls are generally more pleasant and good-natured than guys. Girls will only go so far as pulling pranks. Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science. That's why there are so many more men than women in prison.
Very poor response, and sexist at that. Generalizing men/boys as devious is totally pathetic. Maybe YOU are more devious than other people, don't include every other male person into your conclusion. Maybe there are more men in prison than there are women because the judges all think as pathetic as you do, and give lighter sentences to them as such? Or maybe a lot of them just couldn't handle the pressure of "being a man and being strong" because of the sexist views that men should be strong, and turned to drugs then crimes to pay for the drugs. All because of sexist opinions of men having to "deal with it" or "be a man!"?
Relax man he was trolling. The reason there are more men in prison isn't because we are all rapist scientists. Its because we are more physically violent and more driven by money.
hey man...he's only stating the status quo.
this IS why men are given the double standard.
it's because we are stereotyped as rapist scientists... we are bombarded each day with our morning coffee a story of rapist low lives gang-banging hoes without an ounce of conscience to jolt our memories...in fact rapist women is a fekking oxymoron
it's fekking pathetic how our actions have to be interpreted always in such a negative light... if we were to strip a girl, it won't be no prank...we be up a certain offender list without a paddle
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote: [quote] I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote: [quote] I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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.
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote: [quote] I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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:
On June 06 2011 08:24 Nanoko wrote: [quote] I'm narrow-minded? Ok I'll bite, from what personal experiences have you concluded that this kid could potentially enjoy this, not related to you by friends, the internet, or anywhere else. What PERSONAL experience with being publicly stripped down by 3 other people and enjoying it do you have? You say that you're using your experience and knowledge, so knowledge of what? do you have a degree in child psychology? most likely not, were you as a child stripped down naked and had a video of it posted on the internet for thousands to see? Also the whole " he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it." thing....11 year olds are not Smart enough to have thought that out While being Assaulted, this isn't speculation, this is fact, Kids are not that smart, that's why Adults make the majority of their decisions for them. but no, this kid is obviously faking it cause he wants the sexy time with the ladies right? ofc couldn't possible be he is actually being traumatized, potentially for life or anything? not at all.
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" ...
calling anyone who randomly disagrees with you a guy is sexist, thanks for asking btw
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.
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" ...
calling anyone who randomly disagrees with you a guy is sexist, thanks for asking btw
No, it's not - it's a practical assumption, mam
Edit: That is, not because girls wouldn't disagree with my observations about them, but because, according to the TL Census, less than two percent of this community are females.
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...
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 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 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 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 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:
(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;
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
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:
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.
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.
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 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:
(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;
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
(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;
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
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:
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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
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.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
This i agree with. The law treats everyone equally which mean males and females will be treated the same.
Honestly, i feel like some people are way too sexist and/or feminist. In a fair trial, you cant say "because they're female" or "because they're male"
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor.
On June 05 2011 14:59 [FSM]Doji wrote: The kid is 11, seriously. When you were that age, anyone of 14 would've beaten you up, girl or not. It's horrible that this stuff happens and even worse that the news anchor couldn't surpress a smile at the end.
As many stated before, if the roles were reversed. This would've been a case of "attempted rape, mollestation, etc. " and the boys responsible would've been kicked from the school instantly. I don't get why these girls are getting away with no punishment whatsoever.
I feel horrible to say it but: gang up on these bitches and do the same on them...
This is a post i would like to address with a formal statement: The mother of the boy who got was assaulted is not smart. And also, yes, definitely get 3 boys for each girl and have them rape the girls. See what punishment that gets and apply it to the girls.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ).
To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ).
To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
Well to be fair, i don't think anyone but that one guy actually credited the mother for making the right choice. Yes the mother is fucking stupid, but you have to realize, the city that the girls are (were? maybe they fled) in is 100 times fucking stupider for not charging the girls.
On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: [quote] 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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
The reactions are completely based on a double standard. Read 1000 reports of guys raping girls, and count how many guys are released free of charge. Read 1000 reports of girls raping guys, and count how many girls are released free of charge. There is a huge difference.
On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: [quote] 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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor.
Yes, but only for the damages, not to actually hurt/punish him. Because of his age, the "wrongfulness" of his act will be excused, but the damages of course need to be covered somehow (seing as it results in the loss of a tangible asset).
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor.
Yes, but only for the damages, not to actually hurt/punish him. Because of his age, it will be excused, but the damages of course need to be covered somehow (seing as it results in the loss of a tangible asset).
Yes for the damages, and yes, you can't hurt him. But this is different from the case of rape at hand. There are predefined punishments for rape (just as there are for breaking a $100000 car), but in this case, they weren't applied and that is why this case doesn't show justice being served.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ).
To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
The reason I said she made the right choice is because what exactly can be done to fix this situation?
What form of justice?
I did a thought experiment on myself to see what it would be like to if three men did this to me and three women. The biggest difference I felt was that with the men, I would be truly scared for being raped, tortured ( beyond stripping) and beaten/killed.
On the other hand with the women, I felt helpless, embarrassed, hurt emotionally, and physically (from being overly restrained, struggling), which are all the things I felt with the men but the highest form of terror I would feel would be the things that could help.
Is my though experiment, in anyway accurate? No of course not but from where I sit the differences are so large that I can't help but feel a different.
I also have 6 older brothers and 4 older sisters. I'm the youngest male. My brothers did horrible shit and it was always 50 times worse then when my sisters would do the same thing. Of course there was no fear of rape, murder, blah blah but still it is just how it was.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor.
Yes, but only for the damages, not to actually hurt/punish him. Because of his age, it will be excused, but the damages of course need to be covered somehow (seing as it results in the loss of a tangible asset).
Yes for the damages, and yes, you can't hurt him. But this is different from the case of rape at hand. There are predefined punishments for rape (just as there are for breaking a $100000 car), but in this case, they weren't applied and that is why this case doesn't show justice being served.
I'm not sure which rape you speak of ... I'm guessing you have switched to talking in legal terms instead conversational terms now.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ).
To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
The reason I said she made the right choice is because what exactly can be done to fix this situation?
What form of justice?
I did a thought experiment on myself to see what it would be like to if three men did this to me and three women. The biggest difference I felt was that with the men, I would be truly scared for being raped, tortured ( beyond stripping) and beaten/killed.
On the other hand with the women, I felt helpless, embarrassed, hurt emotionally, and physically (from being overly restrained, struggling), which are all the things I felt with the men but the highest form of terror I would feel would be the things that could help.
Is my though experiment, in anyway accurate? No of course not but from where I sit the differences are so large that I can't help but feel a different.
I also have 6 older brothers and 4 older sisters. I'm the youngest male. My brothers did horrible shit and it was always 50 times worse then when my sisters would do the same thing. Of course there was no fear of rape, murder, blah blah but still it is just how it was.
Are you being intentionally stupid? You can't perfom an experiment with yourself as the only subject. It's way too subjective. By your logic i could say that females would murder me after they finish, and the males would ask me politely what they wanted to do (and stop when i said no).
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
So being male, when one can be male or "not male", plays a role? That is completely double standard.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ).
To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
The reason I said she made the right choice is because what exactly can be done to fix this situation?
What form of justice?
I did a thought experiment on myself to see what it would be like to if three men did this to me and three women. The biggest difference I felt was that with the men, I would be truly scared for being raped, tortured ( beyond stripping) and beaten/killed.
On the other hand with the women, I felt helpless, embarrassed, hurt emotionally, and physically (from being overly restrained, struggling), which are all the things I felt with the men but the highest form of terror I would feel would be the things that could help.
Is my though experiment, in anyway accurate? No of course not but from where I sit the differences are so large that I can't help but feel a different.
I also have 6 older brothers and 4 older sisters. I'm the youngest male. My brothers did horrible shit and it was always 50 times worse then when my sisters would do the same thing. Of course there was no fear of rape, murder, blah blah but still it is just how it was.
Are you being intentionally stupid? You can't perfom an experiment with yourself as the only subject. It's way too subjective. By your logic i could say that females would murder me after they finish, and the males would ask me politely what they wanted to do (and stop when i said no).
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
So being male, when one can be male or "not male", plays a role? That is completely double standard.
Of course, it plays a role. It can't not play a role in trying to understand and individual. So, your point is void - in that case, anything would be double standard. Gender is not the deciding factor here, though.
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
In addition to this how are you claiming an intuitive understanding of the situation? Are you close friends which each of the persons involved in this story such that you have an exclusive view on what happened and we're all missing something? Or are you just claiming that you have an infallible understanding of the human condition?
It's got to be one of the two, else I'm not clear on why you think you have this deep understanding of what's going on here or why you feel you know how the kids feel about the situation...
Is it just me or does anyone else think that if it were three 8th grade boys force-stripping a 5th grade girl, the boys would probably be marked as sex offenders and this would be a much bigger deal?
On June 07 2011 08:17 Emperor_Earth wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else think that if it were three 8th grade boys force-stripping a 5th grade girl, the boys would probably be marked as sex offenders and this would be a much bigger deal?
LOL!
No, it's not just you, 70% of the people who posted in this thread have directly claimed this :D
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
Are you really fucking doing this dance right now?
So the reaction is equal, but you have more reason to believe that if it were men, it'd be more damaging and more likely to lead to rape so you'd charge them as such, if it were women, it'd be less damaging and less likely to lead to rape so you'd charge them with that reasoning. That is a fucking double standard, what part of this is difficult?
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.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
But you have stated that if "you" is a male, then people are more likely have a stronger reaction to it in previous posts.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age.
This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to.
Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl?
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Alright, then we'll go with sexist...
That is what this is, you're stereotyping on a massive scale in a discriminatory way.
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age.
This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to.
Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl?
I am a sexist, and even though my opinion may not be educated by standards of fairness or other areas it is how I feel and I won't apologize for not forcing my feelings into a box of political correctness that they don't fit in.
I don't think it would be wasting time if 3 boys did the same thing and were charged. I'm sorry that being aware of my sexism doesn't change how I feel.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age.
This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to.
Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl?
I am a sexist, and even though my opinion may not be educated by standards of fairness or other areas it is how I feel and I won't apologize for not forcing my feelings into a box of political correctness that they don't fit in.
I don't think it would be wasting time if 3 boys did the same thing and were charged. I'm sorry that being aware of my sexism doesn't change how I feel.
Okay, thats all I needed to hear. I could go on, but I'm really not going to. Waste of my time and yours.
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age.
This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to.
Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl?
I am a sexist, and even though my opinion may not be educated by standards of fairness or other areas it is how I feel and I won't apologize for not forcing my feelings into a box of political correctness that they don't fit in.
I don't think it would be wasting time if 3 boys did the same thing and were charged. I'm sorry that being aware of my sexism doesn't change how I feel.
Okay, thats all I needed to hear. I could go on, but I'm really not going to. Waste of my time and yours.
On June 07 2011 04:26 Redukt wrote:We seem to agree about the most important thing. Gender roles are stupid, throw rocks at them. If you're equally vocal about double standards when they hurt girls and women, imma go ahead and consider you a crypto-feminist.
I'd prefer the term 'ally', as there are a number of positions where I'd differ from mainstream feminists (despite agreeing on many others), but you seem to have the right idea. I'd be more inclined to identify as feminist in the event that equity feminists ever displace the gyno-centric feminists who make up the leadership/voice of the modern feminist community.
On June 07 2011 04:26 Redukt wrote: This is probably true. Doesn't mean they side with the girls. They blog about feminism, and this wasn't actually a feminist issue until this thread made it into one by getting all chin-strokingly hypotethical.
You're right that overlooking the issue doesn't imply they'd side with the girls (though other examples do). However, the fact that they don't care about this issue, when they would likely be in uproar should the genders be reversed, is a significant discrepancy with the stated claim of feminists to advance gender equality. Only throwing rocks when gender roles hurt girls, and not when gender roles hurt boys, is somewhat hypocritical, and is particularly damaging given the monopoly that feminists hold over mainstream gender equality discourse.
On June 07 2011 04:26 Redukt wrote:[citation needed.] I remember some support for her, but none from academic feminists. In fact, they were mostly busy trying to convince everyone that they weren't manhaters.
The academics of course distanced themselves from the politically incorrect support of Lorena Bobbitt that rippled through the feminist rank-and-file. However, this is little different from the way that anti-abortion leaders distance themselves from anti-abortion violence or the way that Republican leaders distanced themselves from the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. The fact that the perpetrators are simply taking their ideology to their logical (if extreme) conclusion, as well as the support they receive from the rank-and-file, demonstrates that there is a problem with the group's ideology/rhetoric to begin with.
Due to the Bobbitt case occurring years ago, before the proliferation of the Internet, the best link I can come up with that includes a meta-discussion (rather than pulling individual quotes from various sources) can be found here. Though it certainly comes with a MRA-slant, the general idea there is what I'm referring to, and the quotes can be verified with Google searches for the most part.
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
This is unacceptable, but I'm glad my outrage is shared by most people who've responded to this story.
yeah.. there should be charges pressed.. by the police fuck the mom if she decides not to press charges. if the situation was reversed it would be such a huge deal and the girls, if they were boys would literally be in juvie for a year or 2..
them bitches need some real punishment.. like at the very least a couple hundred hours of community service
While I agree that it is a terrible double standard and if the genders were reversed it would have obviously created a fucking shitstorm, there's a great deal of truth in this:
On June 07 2011 16:41 Kickboxer wrote: Why... are... you... pretending... there.... is... no...difference...between....men...and....women...
@kickboxer yes, there is a difference, but the difference does not apply to legal right. It does, however, apply to popular perception. However, the law should treat this case as though it were a bunch of 14-year-olds stripping an 11-year-old (regardless of sex or gender). The mother of the 5th grader did not exercise that right. I feel sorry for the boy. Hopefully, he doesn't turn an adverse reaction to becoming humiliated... Or thanks girls! America has gained one more serial rapist...
On June 07 2011 16:50 Phenny wrote: While I agree that it is a terrible double standard and if the genders were reversed it would have obviously created a fucking shitstorm, there's a great deal of truth in this:
Her not pressing charges is most likely due to the fact that the "offenders" were 8th graders, very susceptible to group think and peer pressure, so not reflective of intent to harm psychologically etc...
Pretty interesting situation - I'm of the belief that male and female are different, so, this situation would've been 100 times more traumatising for the girl if the roles were reversed. Thus, I support the mother's stance on not pressing charges - but I sincerely hope that the parents' of the girls come up with some suitable punishment.
I also don't like many feminists in this world - I find many of them men-haters rather than doing what they should be doing. Their silent stance on this issue (and many others) shows what they really are up to.
The 11-yo hasn't reached puberty yet, so hopefully, in the next few years, he grows up and becomes a confident, strong young man. Maybe he'll have a story to tell in the future - he could tell a girl, "You know, there are girls who can't resist taking my clothes off..."
On June 07 2011 17:12 Aberu wrote: Her not pressing charges is most likely due to the fact that the "offenders" were 8th graders, very susceptible to group think and peer pressure, so not reflective of intent to harm psychologically etc...
Intent doesnt matter.. its what you do that matters. What they did was harm a young child, regardless of if they were being affected by peer pressure or not.
So by your logic its okay to murder someone if you dont intend to harm them? Intent matters not one whit when it comes to law, its actions that dictate.
On June 07 2011 17:15 Azzur wrote: Pretty interesting situation - I'm of the belief that male and female are different, so, this situation would've been 100 times more traumatising for the girl if the roles were reversed. Thus, I support the mother's stance on not pressing charges - but I sincerely hope that the parents' of the girls come up with some suitable punishment.
I also don't like many feminists in this world - I find many of them men-haters rather than doing what they should be doing. Their silent stance on this issue (and many others) shows what they really are up to.
The 11-yo hasn't reached puberty yet, so hopefully, in the next few years, he grows up and becomes a confident, strong young man. Maybe he'll have a story to tell in the future - he could tell a girl, "You know, there are girls who can't resist taking my clothes off..."
He easily could have been traumatized. You have no way of knowing. Just assuming that he wouldn't be because he's a boy is ridiculous.
On June 07 2011 17:15 Azzur wrote: Pretty interesting situation - I'm of the belief that male and female are different, so, this situation would've been 100 times more traumatising for the girl if the roles were reversed. Thus, I support the mother's stance on not pressing charges - but I sincerely hope that the parents' of the girls come up with some suitable punishment.
I also don't like many feminists in this world - I find many of them men-haters rather than doing what they should be doing. Their silent stance on this issue (and many others) shows what they really are up to.
The 11-yo hasn't reached puberty yet, so hopefully, in the next few years, he grows up and becomes a confident, strong young man. Maybe he'll have a story to tell in the future - he could tell a girl, "You know, there are girls who can't resist taking my clothes off..."
What is your thought process behind this? Being a prepubescent male gives you no advantage in this situation. A young girl in this situation would feel violated and scared, does the boy not feel the same way? His self confidence will actually take a huge blow (most likely) and actually be detrimental to his social life, which at that age is extremely important to develop.
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
On June 07 2011 17:16 sc14s wrote:Intent doesnt matter.. its what you do that matters. What they did was harm a young child, regardless of if they were being affected by peer pressure or not.
So by your logic its okay to murder someone if you dont intend to harm them? Intent matters not one whit when it comes to law, its actions that dictate.
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
On June 07 2011 17:12 Aberu wrote: Her not pressing charges is most likely due to the fact that the "offenders" were 8th graders, very susceptible to group think and peer pressure, so not reflective of intent to harm psychologically etc...
Intent doesnt matter.. its what you do that matters. What they did was harm a young child, regardless of if they were being affected by peer pressure or not.
So by your logic its okay to murder someone if you dont intend to harm them? Intent matters not one whit when it comes to law, its actions that dictate.
For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful, the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter[24] constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging.
My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote: [quote] You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging.
My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote: My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
On June 08 2011 01:47 Mordiford wrote: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging.
My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote: No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
Of course it would be true different in the genders where reversed. Where was I not clear about that? This has been my point all along. I believe you did actually take crazy pills
Meanwhile, I have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, I might be more worried if a boy did something similar, making more of an effort to reach out.
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote: My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging.
My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
This is a double standard.
On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote: [quote] You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
Of course it would be true different in the genders where reversed. Where was I not clear about that? This has been my point all along. I believe you did actually take crazy pills
Meanwhile, I have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, I might be more worried if a boy did something similar, making more of an effort to reach out.
Wait, so you've been going over why this would be a different case if it were three boys for purpose? How the boy could have enjoyed it(or was more likely to) than a girl at that age? And how ANY of that is relevant to the situation?
I'm thoroughly fucking confused now, I can't tell if you're back-pedalling or just genuinely inconsistent.
So if this exact same thing happened with 3 boys stripping a girl, your reaction would be similar to what it is now? You'd want the boys to receive the same punishment/rehabilitation or what not that the girls are receiving?
Regardless of all this, you still perpetuated a double standard throughout all your posts to this point, I'm so fucking confused right now.
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging.
My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
This is a double standard.
On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:
On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote: [quote]
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..."
and
"... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote: to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
Of course it would be true different in the genders where reversed. Where was I not clear about that? This has been my point all along. I believe you did actually take crazy pills
Meanwhile, I have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, I might be more worried if a boy did something similar, making more of an effort to reach out.
Wait, so you've been going over why this would be a different case if it were three boys for purpose? How the boy could have enjoyed it(or was more likely to) than a girl at that age? And how ANY of that is relevant to the situation?
I'm thoroughly fucking confused now, I can't tell if you're back-pedalling or just genuinely inconsistent.
So if this exact same thing happened with 3 boys stripping a girl, your reaction would be similar to what it is now? You'd want the boys to receive the same punishment/rehabilitation or what not that the girls are receiving?
Regardless of all this, you still perpetuated a double standard throughout all your posts to this point, I'm so fucking confused right now.
haha ... yes, that's why it's a terrible read. And I don't blame you that you have missed out on a few twists and turns through the discussion (well, as long as you don't call me an idiot for your own shortcomings ). It quickly lost its goal and ended up in an emotional discussion and one of semantics.
The sidetrack that you're referring to was that I was originally trying to point out the ambiguity of the situation by saying that it wasn't inconceivable that the boy actually enjoyed it. This I did both to balance the unnuanced indignation represented in the calls for a jail-time as well as to point out that there could be alternate reasons for the mother of the boy (other than her being a responsible adult, with a sensible and proportionate reaction to the incident) and why it would not necesarily be in the best interests of the boy to start a court case. Here, at long discussion ensued, calling for me to explain how this could even be possible. From the top of my mind, I listed a few reasons as to why it might be different from the boy than a girl in a similar situation. These were then nitpicked, and to expose a few misleading meta-arguements concerning debating, I decided to half-heartedly expand on those reasons when requested to do so.
The other part of the debate that happened has been about explaining the intuitive understanding that people might have of such a situation, why this causes them to react in a particular way, and why it isn't necessarily bad or a double standard.
haha ... yes, that's why it's a terrible read. And I don't blame you that you have missed out on a few twists and turns through the discussion (well, as long as you don't call me an idiot for your own shortcomings ). It quickly lost its goal and ended up in an emotional discussion and one of semantics.
Just skimming the last few pages, but I'm fairly certain that the problem is that your stance is illogical and incoherent.
Or maybe I'm simply not getting what you're trying to say. I'm, once again, fairly certain it's the former, but clarification would be nice.
If what you're saying is that you'd approve of the same (or lack) of punishment regardless of gender, then that's reasonable. If you're also saying is that both sexes have, on average, differences, that's also reasonable. If you're saying that the sex differences on average should influence sentencing in individual cases, that's ridiculous.
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote: My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place.
Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused.
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote: My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place.
Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused.
I have explained all these things before - the topic of intent has even been discussed a few pages before this. Your comparison fails because you are comparing a person who did something (manslaughter) with a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse). In the example you mention, if the guy was deemed to be right, it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, by the way.
Let me put it simply for you, since this is mostly just semantics:
Rape/molestation = sexual abuse Forcefully pulling down someone's pants = prank/bullying
haha ... yes, that's why it's a terrible read. And I don't blame you that you have missed out on a few twists and turns through the discussion (well, as long as you don't call me an idiot for your own shortcomings ). It quickly lost its goal and ended up in an emotional discussion and one of semantics.
Just skimming the last few pages, but I'm fairly certain that the problem is that your stance is illogical and incoherent.
Or maybe I'm simply not getting what you're trying to say. I'm, once again, fairly certain it's the former, but clarification would be nice.
If what you're saying is that you'd approve of the same (or lack) of punishment regardless of gender, then that's reasonable. If you're also saying is that both sexes have, on average, differences, that's also reasonable. If you're saying that the sex differences on average should influence sentencing in individual cases, that's ridiculous.
I have argued purely from a logical standpoint, even to a degree where I have addressed small things brought up by others in detail, even though they had little relevance to the discissuon. Of course, my reasons for not wanting to punish girls or boys for an incident such as this are probably affected by emtional reasoning to some degree, but it's also partly a moral issue.
If it's hard to follow the line of reasoning, I suggest you start with my first post. That way, it's easier to see what I'm actually saying rather than how my posts are represented by those who seek to "prove me wrong".
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote: My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place.
Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused.
I have explained all these things before - the topic of intent has even been discussed a few pages before this. Your comparison fails because you are comparing a person who did something (manslaughter) with a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse). In the example you mention, if the guy was deemed to be right, it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, by the way.
Let me put it simply for you, since this is mostly just semantics:
Rape/molestation = sexual abuse Forcefully pulling down someone's pants = prank/bullying
Forcefully pulling down someone's pants (while holding them on the ground, video taping it and putting the video on youtube) = molestation. I'll let you do the transitive math.
I don't know what you think is okay to do to other people but frankly I not sure I want to.
In addition either you decided not to read what I wrote or you ability to understand text is a little weak, the situation I specified is one in which:
a) "You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial" -> I think you got this part hurray! b) " try and convince the judge that ... the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal." -> didn't get this one apparently c) because "you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed" -> you also skipped over this part.
In addition:
"a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse)."
Really? I'm pretty sure video footage released to the public takes out any form of doubt on whether or not they did it. You could be trying to argue here that what they did wasn't sexual assault but I believe I already covered that and you tried to wave it off as "technicality".
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote: My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place.
Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused.
I have explained all these things before - the topic of intent has even been discussed a few pages before this. Your comparison fails because you are comparing a person who did something (manslaughter) with a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse). In the example you mention, if the guy was deemed to be right, it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, by the way.
Let me put it simply for you, since this is mostly just semantics:
Rape/molestation = sexual abuse Forcefully pulling down someone's pants = prank/bullying
Forcefully pulling down someone's pants (while holding them on the ground, video taping it and putting the video on youtube) = molestation. I'll let you do the transitive math.
I don't know what you think is okay to do to other people but frankly I not sure I want to.
In addition either you decided not to read what I wrote or you ability to understand text is a little weak, the situation I specified is one in which:
a) "You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial" -> I think you got this part hurray! b) " try and convince the judge that ... the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal." -> didn't get this one apparently c) because "you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed" -> you also skipped over this part.
In addition:
"a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse)."
Really? I'm pretty sure video footage released to the public takes out any form of doubt on whether or not they did it. You could be trying to argue here that what they did wasn't sexual assault but I believe I already covered that and you tried to wave it off as "technicality".
I assumed that you had just put in unclear terms, with "first guy" referring to "the first member of the family that you killed". Changing your example doesn't really add to the logic of what you're trying to say.
I now get that you're simply, once again, talking of pulling down someone's pants as sexual abuse, even though I clearly use that to refer to other acts, such as rape. I'm not sure why you would willfully mislead me. Regardless, the conclusion still is that this might be "sexual assault" in legal terms, but it isn't sexual abuse in actual terms. I don't see what keeps confusing your here. Either way, it's just a game of words that doesn't really add to the discussion. You're trying to promote your definition because it indicates a great severity. However, it doesn't really change what happened. They did not engage in unnapropriate sexual contact, perform forceful sexual acts, they simply pulled down the pants of the boy. While that might be a terrible experience for the boy, it's still just that. He might suffer the same emotional damage for being laughed at after a school presentation. The reason that it's a serious situation is that it clearly highlights the lacking empathy of the girls, which would be a problem to address. I would tend to agree that the most severe part of the act was them posting it on the internet (something which I also stated earlier in this thread).
I've decided to make a summary post of some interesting points that Asjo has posted since I joined this discussion on about page 32, hopefully this will help him realise the circles he's going in.
Asjo on providing Evidence:
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates.
Asjo on sexual equality before the law:
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.
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.
People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe.
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Asjo on double standards:
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation.
Asjo on the utility of law when defining sexual assault and/or sexual abuse: + Show Spoiler +
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:
(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;
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
I now get that you're simply, once again, talking of pulling down someone's pants as sexual abuse, even though I clearly use that to refer to other acts, such as rape. I'm not sure why you would willfully mislead me. Regardless, the conclusion still is that this might be "sexual assault" in legal terms, but it isn't sexual abuse in actual terms.
That's all I really have to say on this. you've been inconsistent, argued that your common sense should define criminal punishment, promoted double standards endlessly without ever recognising that you're doing it, refused to cite any evidence for anything you say as it "limits discussion", indicated that the law is merely "technical" and has no place in this discussion, and determined that your personal definition of sexual assault and/or abuse should be the defining point of discussion with regards to this thread.
Best of luck to anyone else who tries to say something here.
I don't see the point of quoting some of my posts only to repeat past points that I have refuted. It's not so strange if you find it hard to follow my reasoning when "I don't want what I talk about to be limited by what I can find scientific articles to support" becomes "science limits discussion"
On June 08 2011 05:06 dogmeatstew wrote: I've decided to make a summary post of some interesting points that Asjo has posted since I joined this discussion on about page 32, hopefully this will help him realise the circles he's going in.
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.
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.
People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe.
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
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:
(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;
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
I now get that you're simply, once again, talking of pulling down someone's pants as sexual abuse, even though I clearly use that to refer to other acts, such as rape. I'm not sure why you would willfully mislead me. Regardless, the conclusion still is that this might be "sexual assault" in legal terms, but it isn't sexual abuse in actual terms.
That's all I really have to say on this. you've been inconsistent, argued that your common sense should define criminal punishment, promoted double standards endlessly without ever recognising that you're doing it, refused to cite any evidence for anything you say as it "limits discussion", indicated that the law is merely "technical" and has no place in this discussion, and determined that your personal definition of sexual assault and/or abuse should be the defining point of discussion with regards to this thread.
Best of luck to anyone else who tries to say something here.
Pretty much this.
Look over your own post and you'll see how inconsistent you are and how many illogical arguments you make, it's almost incomprehensible and incredibly tiring to go through since every few pages it's on to something new that's completely at odds with what was established to that point.
way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
How would the stats change anything in this scenario? Double standards are everywhere so I guess we should just pack up and suck our fucking thumbs, right? You cited stats but failed to point out how a boy doing this to a girl is "totally different", we're talking about the same scenario, not three boys raping a girl.
Statistics suggest that black people are more prone to crime, I guess that means we should treat them worse than white people doing the exact same thing, right? That's not racist at all either right? And if it is, who gives a fuck, it happens everywhere, we should learn to live with it.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
How would the stats change anything in this scenario? Double standards are everywhere so I guess we should just pack up and suck our fucking thumbs, right? You cited stats but failed to point out how a boy doing this to a girl is "totally different", we're talking about the same scenario, not three boys raping a girl.
Statistics suggest that black people are more prone to crime, I guess that means we should treat them worse than white people doing the exact same thing, right? That's not racist at all either right? And if it is, who gives a fuck, it happens everywhere, we should learn to live with it.
NO sometimes those double standards are there for a good reason. Im not saying these girls should go un punished just sending this thing to court is waste of everyone's time as well as detrimental to everyones lives involved. all your doing is filling lawyers pockets with money, and tieing courts up more then they already are
Your black people thing doesn't really fit into this context, black people are commiting crimes because of the circumstances and society they are brought up in. Not because they have some defect that makes them so.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
there is a reason why 20 year old white males pay the highest care insurance, its cause most of the time they do stupid shit at that age. Its not because the insurance or government have it out for 20 year old males and just think 20 year old females are too cute to charge high premiums. ..
But you guys can keep bangin on this 100% equality drum you love the sound of
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
So you just admitted your a sexist, why are we still talking to you?
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
So basically your saying, you are sexist and that's that? I would treat both of those the same way, by talking with my kids about being safe. Why should it be treated differently?
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Splinter, regardless of weather one sex is more likely to commit a certain crime than the other, why should the punishment be different?
If a woman was to commit rape then you think she should be let off easier because other women are less likely to have done the same act?
yes i think men are more prone to abusing women. If that makes me sexist then so be it.
what world do you people live in that the lines between right and wrong are so clear cut and easy to comprehend and have such simple explanations. cause i would certainly like to visit such a place.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
So you just admitted your a sexist, why are we still talking to you?
because sexism is ok as long as the girl stays in the kitchen and the man makes the money....
im curious to know why splinter9 thinks that girls cant rape boys. already giving 2 examples that he thinks girls ganging up on a smaller boy is less bad than the other way around. and why he thinks statutory rape only applies to man on girl.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Splinter, regardless of weather one sex is more likely to commit a certain crime than the other, why should the punishment be different?
If a woman was to commit rape then you think she should be let off easier because other women are less likely to have done the same act?
A women committing rape is an extremely rare occurrence in comparison to men raping women. I believe they should be both be treating equally if they are convicted of it obviously.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
So you just admitted your a sexist, why are we still talking to you?
Are you fucking serious? I seriously hope you are just a random tl troll.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
So you just admitted your a sexist, why are we still talking to you?
Are you fucking serious? I seriously hope you are just a random tl troll.
When you guys grow up and realize that life isn't a 1+1 = 2 subject. You'll hopefully remember this thread and might know what im talking about. Until then everyone is entitled to there opinion even if its wrong.
On June 09 2011 01:02 splinter9 wrote: When you guys grow up and realize that life isn't a 1+1 = 2 subject. You'll hopefully remember this thread and might know what im talking about. Until then everyone is entitled to there opinion even if its wrong.
"I know I've lost the argument so I'm just gonna call you a kid then pretentiously type out nonsense."
On June 09 2011 01:02 splinter9 wrote: When you guys grow up and realize that life isn't a 1+1 = 2 subject. You'll hopefully remember this thread and might know what im talking about. Until then everyone is entitled to there opinion even if its wrong.
On June 09 2011 01:02 splinter9 wrote: When you guys grow up and realize that life isn't a 1+1 = 2 subject. You'll hopefully remember this thread and might know what im talking about. Until then everyone is entitled to there opinion even if its wrong.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
Hahaha I was thinking the exact same thing. Ironic that the post implies he is older and wiser yet it reeks of immaturity.
On June 09 2011 01:02 splinter9 wrote: When you guys grow up and realize that life isn't a 1+1 = 2 subject. You'll hopefully remember this thread and might know what im talking about. Until then everyone is entitled to there opinion even if its wrong.
"I know I've lost the argument so I'm just gonna call you a kid then pretentiously type out nonsense."
it not about winning and losing. It only seems like non sense cause your still too young or immature to understand.
On June 09 2011 01:02 splinter9 wrote: When you guys grow up and realize that life isn't a 1+1 = 2 subject. You'll hopefully remember this thread and might know what im talking about. Until then everyone is entitled to there opinion even if its wrong.
"I know I've lost the argument so I'm just gonna call you a kid then pretentiously type out nonsense."
it not about winning and losing. It only seems like non sense cause your still too young or immature to understand.
Is it logical fallacy day or something? If so give this wise geezer a medal.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
Dude get your head checked. You are the definition of sexism.
i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot is just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Technically, they aren't, there is no place in the constitution (or the amendments) where it says that women and men are equal. Usually that is placed in the context of (used to be that) men could be paid more than women, and such. But in this argument, women could feasibly have the right to press charges in this situation, while men could not.
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Proud to be a sexist. Well you don't hear that every day.
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
yeah cause kids always do as they are told even with greatest up bringing you could imagine.
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
yeah cause kids always do as they are told even with greatest up bringing you could imagine.
You can only do so much bud, you have to understand they grow up. Everyone makes mistakes whether its big or small. I understand when my kids get older I will have a difficult time watching them both grow up and make decisions themselves, but that's life. All you can do is help guide them on the right path, not treat them differently for who they date (basically, I mean have sex with). It will only give you high blood pressure, and you will be older at that time too! :D
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
yeah cause kids always do as they are told even with greatest up bringing you could imagine.
You can only do so much bud, you have to understand they grow up. Everyone makes mistakes whether its big or small. I understand when my kids get older I will have a difficult time watching them both grow up and make decisions themselves, but that's life. All you can do is help guide them on the right path, not treat them differently for who they date (basically, I mean have sex with). It will only give you high blood pressure, and you will be older at that time too! :D
Its your responsibility as a parent to anticipate stupid easy mistakes your kids may make especially when there lives and dignity are at stake.I really don't think that is to much to ask of myself.
I don't see why you are so adverse to saying that your son and daughter are going to be treated slightly differently in certain situations. Its actually a beautiful thing not something to say is terrible.
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
yeah cause kids always do as they are told even with greatest up bringing you could imagine.
You can only do so much bud, you have to understand they grow up. Everyone makes mistakes whether its big or small. I understand when my kids get older I will have a difficult time watching them both grow up and make decisions themselves, but that's life. All you can do is help guide them on the right path, not treat them differently for who they date (basically, I mean have sex with). It will only give you high blood pressure, and you will be older at that time too! :D
Its your responsibility as a parent to anticipate stupid easy mistakes your kids may make especially when there lives and dignity are at stake.I really don't think that is to much to ask of myself.
I don't see why you are so adverse to saying that your son and daughter are going to be treated slightly differently in certain situations. Its actually a beautiful thing not something to say is terrible.
So back on topic, if this kind of thing happens to your son or daughter. You would want the people responsible to be punished equally or not? ( Example: 3 older girls doing this to your son, or 3 older boys doing this to your daughter. )
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
yeah cause kids always do as they are told even with greatest up bringing you could imagine.
You can only do so much bud, you have to understand they grow up. Everyone makes mistakes whether its big or small. I understand when my kids get older I will have a difficult time watching them both grow up and make decisions themselves, but that's life. All you can do is help guide them on the right path, not treat them differently for who they date (basically, I mean have sex with). It will only give you high blood pressure, and you will be older at that time too! :D
Its your responsibility as a parent to anticipate stupid easy mistakes your kids may make especially when there lives and dignity are at stake.I really don't think that is to much to ask of myself.
I don't see why you are so adverse to saying that your son and daughter are going to be treated slightly differently in certain situations. Its actually a beautiful thing not something to say is terrible.
So back on topic, if this kind of thing happens to your son or daughter. You would want the people responsible to be punished equally or not? ( Example: 3 older girls doing this to your son, or 3 older boys doing this to your daughter. )
yes i have said that clearly many pages ago they should be punished by there parents or school. Going to court is just a waste of time and money as well as detrimental to everyone involved. There just a couple of kids messing around here no one got hurt physically and theboy obviously wasn't that damaged, he didn't even tell his parents. Now were just piling on this kids embarassment by making it go public. If it went to court he would be dragged in and out of court for years, which is a terrible thing to put a kid through worse then what actually happened to him.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
Dude get your head checked. You are the definition of sexism.
Actually not really "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is 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." - Wikipedia He is just saying that he would be more worried about is daughter, because it is a chance chance that she will get raped at a party then his son..obviously..
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot in just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Then I feel sorry for you. Just talk to your children and explain the consequences of having sex, and how to protect themselves. Then you can sleep easier at night!
yeah cause kids always do as they are told even with greatest up bringing you could imagine.
You can only do so much bud, you have to understand they grow up. Everyone makes mistakes whether its big or small. I understand when my kids get older I will have a difficult time watching them both grow up and make decisions themselves, but that's life. All you can do is help guide them on the right path, not treat them differently for who they date (basically, I mean have sex with). It will only give you high blood pressure, and you will be older at that time too! :D
Its your responsibility as a parent to anticipate stupid easy mistakes your kids may make especially when there lives and dignity are at stake.I really don't think that is to much to ask of myself.
I don't see why you are so adverse to saying that your son and daughter are going to be treated slightly differently in certain situations. Its actually a beautiful thing not something to say is terrible.
So back on topic, if this kind of thing happens to your son or daughter. You would want the people responsible to be punished equally or not? ( Example: 3 older girls doing this to your son, or 3 older boys doing this to your daughter. )
yes i have said that clearly many pages ago they should be punished by there parents or school. Going to court is just a waste of time and money as well as detrimental to everyone involved. There just a couple of kids messing around here no one got hurt physically and theboy obviously wasn't that damaged, he didn't even tell his parents. Now were just piling on this kids embarassment by making it go public. If it went to court he would be dragged in and out of court for years, which is a terrible thing to put a kid through worse then what actually happened to him.
He probably didn't tell his parents out of embarrassment I would assume. But I am glad to see you would want both situations dealt with equally.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
Dude get your head checked. You are the definition of sexism.
Actually not really "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is 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." - Wikipedia He is just saying that he would be more worried about is daughter, because it is a chance chance that she will get raped at a party then his son..obviously..
Here's another definition " Sexism -behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex "
"But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally."
"Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist"
These are things he said. His son would be just as likely to get an std, a number of things could happen to him, just as bad as what could happen to his daughter, but its clear he subscribes to the helpless victim stereotypes. He even admits he would barely be worried about his son in that situation. Yes, there are generally biological differences between boys and girls.
It's best to parent/judge accordingly based on the person themselves, not their gender, clearly something this person would not do. "You're a girl? NO SEX WITH SOMEONE ABOVE YOUR AGE!!!" "Screwing that 30 year old milf, son? Nice job buddy!"
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot is just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Sure, a lot of people subconsciously or deliberately value females higher than men. But if you claim that it's more dangerous to be a female as well I'd like to see some sources, because as far as I know it's generally more dangerous to be a man than a woman, by a large margin.
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote: way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
Dude get your head checked. You are the definition of sexism.
Actually not really "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is 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." - Wikipedia He is just saying that he would be more worried about is daughter, because it is a chance chance that she will get raped at a party then his son..obviously..
Here's another definition " Sexism -behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex "
"But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally."
"Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist"
These are things he said. His son would be just as likely to get an std, a number of things could happen to him, just as bad as what could happen to his daughter, but its clear he subscribes to the helpless victim stereotypes. He even admits he would barely be worried about his son in that situation. Yes, there are generally biological differences between boys and girls.
It's best to parent/judge accordingly based on the person themselves, not their gender, clearly something this person would not do. "You're a girl? NO SEX WITH SOMEONE ABOVE YOUR AGE!!!" "Screwing that 30 year old milf, son? Nice job buddy!"
On June 09 2011 00:03 gold_ wrote: [quote] Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
Yes on paper women and men should be equal. But there are many grey areas of life that you can't just "paint with one pleasing colour". This happens to be one of those areas.
Ill give another example of one of these "grey areas"
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
I actually have a son & daughter, I treat them equally and always will. I will not show biased for either, and tell them both to be careful. I love them both equally. I am sorry for the way your mind works, did something bad happen to you? Or you just brainwashed by news?
you didn't answer my question. Yet you skillfully danced around the subject.
Yes my daughter and son will be treated equally 95% of the time. To treat them absolutely equally is ridiculous and not even possible girls and boys have totally different upbringing.
I am not dancing around any question.... ? I WILL treat both my kids equally, you opinion won't change my mind. What do you mean have different upbringings? If my daughter wants to play soccer like my son, so be it. My son and daughter both go to dance class, nothing wrong with that either. If either of my kids cry, I will hug them and help them with whatever there problem is. How or why should I treat them differently?
actually your still dancing.
Yes with those simple life issues that you mentioned yes they are obviously going to be treated 1000% equally. If my daughter gets a cookie so will my son. I will also kiss my son's "bobo's" better t. I will sing them both sweet lullabys to fall asleep at night. But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally.
Dude get your head checked. You are the definition of sexism.
Actually not really "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is 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." - Wikipedia He is just saying that he would be more worried about is daughter, because it is a chance chance that she will get raped at a party then his son..obviously..
Here's another definition " Sexism -behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex "
"But if i catch my son banging a 24 year old when he is 17 vs my daughter doing the same you better believe i wont be treating them equally."
"Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist"
These are things he said. His son would be just as likely to get an std, a number of things could happen to him, just as bad as what could happen to his daughter, but its clear he subscribes to the helpless victim stereotypes. He even admits he would barely be worried about his son in that situation. Yes, there are generally biological differences between boys and girls.
It's best to parent/judge accordingly based on the person themselves, not their gender, clearly something this person would not do. "You're a girl? NO SEX WITH SOMEONE ABOVE YOUR AGE!!!" "Screwing that 30 year old milf, son? Nice job buddy!"
Yeah, but he couldn't get pregnant.
Umm so what? He could get the other chick pregnant...
I wouldn't have to raise that kid and neither my son. Id have to raise my daughter's or have an abortion both situations much worse then vice versa with my son.
On June 09 2011 01:16 splinter9 wrote: i don't see how you see those situations as equal. A 17 year old boy in that spot is just getting his kicks. Where as a girl is literally putting her life in danger wheather she knows it or not. Im not saying id pat my son on the back, but it would'nt keep me up at night worrying the same way it would with my daughter. If that sexist then im proud to be your definetion of a sexist
Sure, a lot of people subconsciously or deliberately value females higher than men. But if you claim that it's more dangerous to be a female as well I'd like to see some sources, because as far as I know it's generally more dangerous to be a man than a woman, by a large margin.
Yes it is definently more dangerous to be a man in the sense that they are more likely, to rob a bank, assault someone,get in a fist fight etc.. . Not because women are snatching men of the street s and murdering them.
On June 09 2011 02:30 splinter9 wrote: I wouldn't have to raise that kid and neither my son. Id have to raise my daughter's or have an abortion both situations much worse then vice versa with my son.
Or give it up for adoption. Also your son would still have to pay child support so yeah.
So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
I'm quite aware the driving force for that behavior is no longer relevant, but it doesn't change the fact that we are still programmed that way; our instincts. If there was a way to pull up statistics on the following points, I'd love to see them:
How many stay-at-home men are there vs stay-at-home women ? How many men vs women make the majority of the meals for the family? What is the average income for men vs women? etc etc
I realize there are different variables in all of those, and I do cook for myself now and plan to when I get married etc, but my point being that I'd still be more worried for my daughter/younger sister than if they were male.
Anyways, I just wanted to contribute a bit to the thread, not derail it
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
Nobody is arguing that point.
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
Nobody is arguing that point.
I understand his point but yeah I don't agree with that line anyways
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
Nobody is arguing that point.
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
Nobody is arguing that point.
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
He said in his post that woman are the nurturers.
He is saying that it seems they are more so then men, even this day in age. I don't have stats but id assume he is right especially in 3rd world countries.
Either way. I wont claim I've read every single post but I've read most and I've seen nothing what so ever that supports that something like this would be more traumatizing for a female victim.
Which is what it's about, the child, not what gender random adults might feel most sorry for.
On June 09 2011 03:21 Akta wrote: Either way. I wont claim I've read every single post but I've read most and I've seen nothing what so ever that supports that something like this would be more traumatizing for a female victim.
Which is what it's about, the child, not what gender random adults might feel most sorry for.
this isn't who it's more traumatizing for actually, it's more that if 3 guys had taken off the clothes of a girl and video taping it they prolly would have been sent to juvie. Obviously (as we can see from this example) 3 girls barely get punished at all.
If three broads came up to me and tried to take my clothes off I'd kindly explain I only have the sexually competency to handle two. That being said I'm on my phone so I can't see the video but I can imagine the three girls being some butch herculean samsaquanch looking gremlins jumping on some 50lb nerd. The world gets weirder and weirder everyday. I'm hoping this doesn't put any detriment on the boys mental state as he grows older. As for the mother she is ignorant in her letting the parents hand out a punishment as behaviour like this is usually learned in the home.
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
I'm quite aware the driving force for that behavior is no longer relevant, but it doesn't change the fact that we are still programmed that way; our instincts. If there was a way to pull up statistics on the following points, I'd love to see them:
How many stay-at-home men are there vs stay-at-home women ? How many men vs women make the majority of the meals for the family? What is the average income for men vs women? etc etc
I realize there are different variables in all of those, and I do cook for myself now and plan to when I get married etc, but my point being that I'd still be more worried for my daughter/younger sister than if they were male.
Anyways, I just wanted to contribute a bit to the thread, not derail it
This is just a gut feeling, because I do not know anything scientific about that instinct idea in men and women. But humans, to me, seem to have very little stuff that is driven by instinct.
When born and a toddler, humans are pretty much 100 % useless, and this stays like that for years. For newborns, even very basic stuff, like identifying there is an object moving into and out of their view, seems to pose problems. Everything is learned while growing up from interactions with the environment and other humans.
After the start of their life, the genes of men and women seem to produce nearly the same growth in the body (and brain?) of boys and girls for 10 years or so, before development diverges. At that time, when starting to be a teenager, the brain is already done growing, I think, and the mind is just lacking experience for informed decisions about stuff (and puberty and hormones throw logic under the bus in certain situations).
I suspect that basic emotions about people close to you are the same between men and women, and the need you feel about cooking for your household or doing the laundry or having a career and earning money is programming from society, not instinct.
On June 09 2011 02:36 Sherbople wrote: So after reading last page's back-and-forth between splinter9 and gold_ I can't help but ask, regarding
I don't know if you have children but lets say you have a daughter and a son both seventeen and they tell you they are going to a party tonight where they will be only hanging out with people of the opposite sex. Tell me who are you more worried for?
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
That's an antiquated view at this point in human history. We evolved that way because of the need to HUNT. That's gone, a woman doesn't need to stay at home with the kids because she isn't physically strong enough to go kill an animal, that's irrelevant now, a woman can go get a job as easy as a man, and a man can nurture their kids just as well.
Nobody is arguing that point.
Assuming you're both male, how would your wives feel about that? I feel in our society (and in the realm of animals as well) that men are the protectors and women are the 'nurturers'. This would obviously lead us men to be more defensive about our female offspring then our male offspring. Maybe that's just my take on things, although I'd have to agree with splinter that I'd be much more worried about my daughter.
My wife might actually feel this way stronger then I. She thinks our daughter won't be dating until she is twentie which is LOLable even to me. I never had a sister just 3 older bros but im pretty sure id be a lot more defensive of them.
For those of us who don't have children, who would you be more worried about, your younger sister or your younger brother?
He said in his post that woman are the nurturers.
He is saying that it seems they are more so then men, even this day in age. I don't have stats but id assume he is right especially in 3rd world countries.
And ironically, children raised by single mothers do far worse on every metric than those raised by single fathers.
By the way, an unwanted pregnancy causes far greater problems for a man, than for a woman. A woman can get an abortion, which, contrary to popular belief, have very little psychological impact on the woman*. On the other hand, an unwanted pregnancy for a man is 18 years of child support payments, with strict liability (strict liability means that you have to pay child support no matter the circumstances of conception, even the male was raped. Yes, its possible for a man to get raped. Its actually pretty easy, especially using modern definitions of rape**.) (Child support payments generally run to 40% of pre-tax income, and if you get a pay rise, child support will increase, but if you lose your job and get a low paying one, child support payments will stay the same, and if you miss a payment, its prison time.)
*when performed early and on an unwanted pregnancy. Abortions are traumatising when the pregnancy is desired by the female, but such abortions are performed either under duress, or late term, for medical reasons, hence are traumatising for obvious reasons. Late term abortions on an unwanted pregnancy are illegal, hence are also traumatising for obvious reasons.
**you know that "1 in 4 college girls are raped" statistic? That statistic counts drunken sex as rape, given that a person under the influence cannot give informed consent, legally speaking.
If 3 8th grade boys did this to an 11 year old girl, this would be rape. Double standard much? God I hate how unfair the system is. Disappointing this is the world we live in.
I've been debating making a post about this since I heard about it a few days ago. This news is disturbing! The apparent double-standard aside, what these girls did is sexually-abusive, mean, and just down-right evil. The mother's inactions and downright not caring for her son is borderline neglect/abuse imo. And the fact that the news media is playing the video en masse without much editing (mild blurring on certain body parts is NOT enough!!! THIS IS STILL CHILD PORN!!! If it were three boys attacking a girl, the media would say something like "The footage is so hard/inappropriate to see, we're not going to play it") is just horrible and should be investigated imo. I don't know what pisses me off the most honestly: A) The girls' actions B) The mother's inactions/lax attitude/seemingly inability to care for her son C) The media playing the video en masse D) Everyone posting (on this site? and on other sites) how lucky this boy is...how they wouldn't resist if the girls' had attacked them...how they wouldn't have a problem with it. If they were that boy, they DEFINITELY WOULD see/have a problem with what those girls did.
END THE DOUBLE STANDARD!!! LOCK THESE F***ING GIRLS UP!!! THROW THEIR @$$3$ ON THE SEX OFFENDERS LIST!!! Just like if three boys had done this same thing to an eleven year old girl.
I also would like to add one more thing: Society teaches the boys to NEVER hit a girl. No matter WHAT! NEVER...HIT...A...GIRL!!!! Now, this same society is telling this boy that he should've fought back? What if he did before the video started but was still over-powered? (Remember, he was outnumbered 3-to-1...by people 3 grades older (and probably, a few inches and a couple pounds bigger...each))
I agree that a double standard is at work here as reguards gender. However when dealing with crimes commited by children different rules should apply, this is not 3 21 year olds stripping an 11 year old. Deciding not to use the court system is a perfectly legitimate response.
Another question to note while thinking about this... what if this had been 3 14-year-old boys stripping an 11-year-old boy? Or 3 14-year-old girls stripping an 11-year-old girl?
That is a case where I feel that this would be much more likely to be written off as a "prank gone too far." Does the fact that it is opposite genders make it more serious somehow?
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Child_development_stages.svg)
