Boy gets sexually assaulted by two girls, nobody gives a shit.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I found a youtube video that shocked, saddened and frightened me to the core. Be warned, some of it is pretty disturbing (albeit blurred out)

Basically the story is that an 11 year old boy was forcefully stripped by two girls whilst screaming, crying for his mother and struggling. And you know fucking what? The girls aren't going to get ANY sort of punishment outside of a slap-of-the-wrist.

What frightens me is that it's the mother who decided not to press charges, and quite frankly as a man I'm scared of ever getting raped because I know that it will go un-noticed and there will be no justice served because "we don't want to ruin the poor rapist's lives! They're girls, you misogynist!".

So what do you think, Escapist? Am I a misogynist pig who should check his privilege, or should my privilege be left unchecked?

That is just... wrong.

Like the attorney said, this is at -least- misdemeanor battery. The police saying that this looked like a 'prank' is just sad.

Yeah, I aint got much else to say, it really would of been 100% different if they genders were reversed.

That's Bullshit! I don't care if girls are girls they should have the same rules as everybody else! I don't care if it ruins their lives they should have the full force of the on them. If a man rapes a woman he should be thrown in jail for life, the same should apply for woman too.

Equality damn it!

Ive given up trying to understand society when it comes to sex/rape/sexual assault and children, because it is all over the place. You hav examples from both extremes.

thethird0611:
Yeah, I aint got much else to say, it really would of been 100% different if they genders were reversed.

Umm, haven't there been a number of cases where a girl was raped, not just stripped, and the police did jack shit until the internet called them out on it? Steubenville and Parsons being the ones that come to mind?

Police just seem to outright suck at everything involving sexual assault, not just the ones that involve girls attacking boys, so this thread really needs to pull back on the bitching about gender.

Thought maybe you were doing some kind of gender-flip parody but then you started talking about your privilege and misogyny which didn't fit the hypothetical irony so I'll treat it like you're serious (sorry if you weren't, poe's law and all that).

By 'nobody gives a shit' you actually mean 'mother can't be arsed to press charges so police can't do much about it'? Or at the very worst 'at face value some police didn't think it was that serious'? Because I'm seeing a lot of people in that report giving a shit.

Sexual assault crimes are often taken disgustingly less seriously than they should be. As a man you're scared of being raped because of things like this. As a woman I'm scared of being raped because of things like Steubenville (where the boys almost* didn't get charged because they 'don't want to ruin the poor rapists' lives, they're just boys!').

And anyone in any position of privilege (which is pretty much anyone who isn't a disabled gay transgender woman of colour living in poverty) should check it. Pretty sure no one would say you're a misogynist for wanting to punish females in the same way that men should be punished for the same crime but I'd just like to echo LifeCharacter's sentiments - don't get it twisted, as much as people like to think women are swaddled in protective bubble wrap all the time, sexual assaults on females are often taken about as seriously as this one.

*edit - Whoops, I said they didn't get charged at first. For a long time it looked like they weren't going to be. And the Steubenville boys got a lot more sympathy from some news reporters than the girls mentioned in the OP did in that report.

lisadagz:
Thought maybe you were doing some kind of gender-flip parody but then you started talking about your privilege and misogyny which didn't fit the hypothetical irony so I'll treat it like you're serious (sorry if you weren't, poe's law and all that).

By 'nobody gives a shit' you actually mean 'mother can't be arsed to press charges so police can't do much about it'? Or at the very worst 'at face value some police didn't think it was that serious'? Because I'm seeing a lot of people in that report giving a shit.

Sexual assault crimes are often taken disgustingly less seriously than they should be. As a man you're scared of being raped because of things like this. As a woman I'm scared of being raped because of things like Steubenville (where the boys almost* didn't get charged because they 'don't want to ruin the poor rapists' lives, they're just boys!').

And anyone in any position of privilege (which is pretty much anyone who isn't a disabled gay transgender woman of colour living in poverty) should check it. Pretty sure no one say you're a misogynist for wanting to punish females in the same way that men should be punished for the same crime but I'd just like to echo LifeCharacter's sentiments - don't get it twisted, as much as people like to think women are swaddled in protective bubble wrap all the time, sexual assaults on females are often taken about as seriously as this one.

*edit - Whoops, I said they didn't get charged at first. For a long time it looked like they weren't going to be. And the Steubenville boys got a lot more sympathy from some news reporters than the girls mentioned in the OP did in that report.

Well, the Steubenville boys got their treatment because of their status as town celebrities (the "pride of the town" so to speak), if it was members of the Steubenville marching band its suspect if they would have been treated the same. If so, all that proves is that gender, race, and other aspects takes a backseat compared to money, power, and status.

While Steubenville was an extreme example, VIP members of important/popular sports teams get to play fast and loose with the rules. We see this all the time with American football stars. ditto to my college's mens hockey team, and my high schools womens tennis team.

I feel for the kid because the fact that it was videotaped and put on youtube may have been almost if not as worse as the act itself, just knowing that people have witnessed your humiliation and might recognize you as you go about your every day life must be traumatic, not to mention as a boy he must feel terribly emasculated that he was stripped by two girls, of course in this day and age we try to instil equality into our kids, but the stereotype that boys are stronger than girls still prevails, so to be beaten by two girls would be very degrading for a young boy.

And of course if two boys stripped a girl the media outcry would be so much larger, in fact there would probably be a shit storm of major proportions, but as for the two girls what's going to happen to them?

People need to understand that sexual assault is NOT the same thing as having sex.

...I... what?! That is just disgusting! Fuckin' double standards...

It'd be easy to downplay this. Kids messing around, why assume a sinister or sexual motivation, who didn't get pantsed as a kid? The boy was more embarrassed than hurt, the media circus is likely to have a worse effect on him than the actual incident, why demonise the girls, they're just children?

But yeah, I guarantee that if you switched the genders - two boys holding down a screaming 11-year old girl, removing her bathing suit and uploading the footage to YouTube - you'd have cries for them to be tried as adults, put on the sex offenders register, yet more evidence of normalised rape culture and violence against women, etc. Not to mention I don't think any news network would have the balls to show footage, blurred or not, for fear of child porn associations.

So? Boys are tough. They can take it, right?

Poe

CrazyGirl17:
...I... what?! That is just disgusting! Fuckin' double standards...

What double standard? This is like a retread of Steubenville with the genders reversed, a lesser crime being committed, and the attorney and mother worrying about the girls' futures instead of the newscasters.

Batou667:
It'd be easy to downplay this. Kids messing around, why assume a sinister or sexual motivation, who didn't get pantsed as a kid? The boy was more embarrassed than hurt, the media circus is likely to have a worse effect on him than the actual incident, why demonise the girls, they're just children?

And if it were boys pantsing the kid, it wouldn't even be a thing.

LifeCharacter:

CrazyGirl17:
...I... what?! That is just disgusting! Fuckin' double standards...

What double standard? This is like a retread of Steubenville with the genders reversed, a lesser crime being committed, and the attorney and mother worrying about the girls' futures instead of the newscasters.

Why do people insist on spitting into the face of the girl who got raped in Steubenville and didn't even get justice? Why do people insist on objectifying her as the ace-in-the-sleeve card to be used use every time they want to shut down a discussion?

That girl was a victim of a heinous crime, she deserves better than to be used as an IWIN button in internet debates, for crying out loud! She's not an argument, she's a human being, start treating her as such.

Vegosiux:

LifeCharacter:

CrazyGirl17:
...I... what?! That is just disgusting! Fuckin' double standards...

What double standard? This is like a retread of Steubenville with the genders reversed, a lesser crime being committed, and the attorney and mother worrying about the girls' futures instead of the newscasters.

Why do people insist on spitting into the face of the girl who got raped in Steubenville and didn't even get justice? Why do people insist on objectifying her as the ace-in-the-sleeve card to be used use every time they want to shut down a discussion?

That girl was a victim of a heinous crime, she deserves better than to be used as an IWIN button in internet debates, for crying out loud! She's not an argument, she's a human being, start treating her as such.

"Shut down a discussion?" How is mentioning that what's happening here is not a double standard because something remarkably similar, though much worse, happened just recently, shutting down discussion? If they'd like to talk about the differences between them or why they think it's still a double standard, they're free to fucking bring it up, but just sitting back and watching them ignore what happened doesn't seem like a very good way to have a discussion.

Or should I just never mention any past crimes or victims, for fear of objectifying them? After all, they deserve better than to be evidence in some argument on the internet! They're human fucking beings; how dare we ever use what happened to them against people who would like to just ignore it!

LifeCharacter:

"Shut down a discussion?" How is mentioning that what's happening here is not a double standard because something remarkably similar, though much worse, happened just recently, shutting down discussion?

LifeCharacter:
so this thread really needs to pull back on the bitching about gender.

Yeah, totally not telling people they shouldn't be saying what they're saying.

If they'd like to talk about the differences between them or why they think it's still a double standard, they're free to fucking bring it up, but just sitting back and watching them ignore what happened doesn't seem like a very good way to have a discussion.

I'm sorry, but I call that "The Starving Kids in Africa Misdirection". It's a rather standard move really. And you basically used it almost word for word:

LifeCharacter:

Umm, haven't there been a number of cases where a girl was raped, not just stripped, and the police did jack shit until the internet called them out on it?

"Something worse happened somewhere! How dare you not think about that!"

Or should I just never mention any past crimes or victims, for fear of objectifying them? After all, they deserve better than to be evidence in some argument on the internet! They're human fucking beings; how dare we ever use what happened to them against people who would like to just ignore it!

It's not the act that objectifies said victims, it's the intent. Or in other words, if you're discussing the subject and trying to look how to improve lives for people who got through this, you're not objectifying these past victims.

But if your reference to them is basically "You have no argument, whatever you just said is invalid, because Steubenville!", then you are objectifying them.

Sometimes it almost makes think some people are happy the Steubenville case happened, because that way, they have more IWIN buttons on the internet. I generally recognize such people by the fact that they never pass up on a chance to bring it up anytime anything even remotely related is discussed.

Vegosiux:
"Something worse happened somewhere! How dare you not think about that!"

Why would be a flawed argument if it was being used, yes.

The point isn't that "something worse has happened". It's that this bad thing which only happens to men and boys because society is PC gone mad or whatever actually happens all the time to women and girls.

Vegosiux:

LifeCharacter:

CrazyGirl17:
...I... what?! That is just disgusting! Fuckin' double standards...

What double standard? This is like a retread of Steubenville with the genders reversed, a lesser crime being committed, and the attorney and mother worrying about the girls' futures instead of the newscasters.

Why do people insist on spitting into the face of the girl who got raped in Steubenville and didn't even get justice? Why do people insist on objectifying her as the ace-in-the-sleeve card to be used use every time they want to shut down a discussion?

That girl was a victim of a heinous crime, she deserves better than to be used as an IWIN button in internet debates, for crying out loud! She's not an argument, she's a human being, start treating her as such.

It's also false equivalence. The scenario there was essentially hero worship resulting in an individual not being prosecuted immediately. There was also the issue of the girl being so intoxicated that she didn't even remember the assault - this is not an excuse, it's just a factor that some people considered - a sort of "she deserved it" opinion seeping out of the small community.

But here we have a young boy being stripped down by two girls and recorded. Had the sexes been reversed this would have been all over every major news network.

Similarly, if the sexes had been reversed in Steubenville we probably would never heard of it.

Vegosiux:

LifeCharacter:

"Shut down a discussion?" How is mentioning that what's happening here is not a double standard because something remarkably similar, though much worse, happened just recently, shutting down discussion?

LifeCharacter:
so this thread really needs to pull back on the bitching about gender.

Yeah, totally not telling people they shouldn't be saying what they're saying.

Yeah, cut out the part where I said why they should stop making this out as a gendered issue instead of just an overall issue with police and their inability to handle sexual assault cases properly. That'll show me.

If they'd like to talk about the differences between them or why they think it's still a double standard, they're free to fucking bring it up, but just sitting back and watching them ignore what happened doesn't seem like a very good way to have a discussion.

I'm sorry, but I call that "The Starving Kids in Africa Misdirection". It's a rather standard move really. And you basically used it almost word for word:

LifeCharacter:

Umm, haven't there been a number of cases where a girl was raped, not just stripped, and the police did jack shit until the internet called them out on it?

"Something worse happened somewhere! How dare you not think about that!"

Except my point wasn't about how they should stop caring about this and care more about that. I was pointing out how something remarkably similar-though much worse, which you'd think would mean a bigger initial outcry-happened to a girl, making this not the male-centric problem lots of people really want to make it out to be. If you'd like to just say that I'm appealing to worse problems, fine, but that doesn't detract from the point that the police's incompetence isn't solely affecting males.

It's not the act that objectifies said victims, it's the intent. Or in other words, if you're discussing the subject and trying to look how to improve lives for people who got through this, you're not objectifying these past victims.

But if your reference to them is basically "You have no argument, whatever you just said is invalid, because Steubenville!", then you are objectifying them.

So what you're saying is that, unless you're aiming to directly improve someone's life, you can't bring up the fact that past crimes occurred in an argument without objectifying them, and that said objectification is some horrible act? It must suck for people who actually study things like crime rates and such, having to do such a morally abhorrent thing like objectify victims for the sake of making statistics.

Sometimes it almost makes think some people are happy the Steubenville case happened, because that way, they have more IWIN buttons on the internet. I generally recognize such people by the fact that they never pass up on a chance to bring it up anytime anything even remotely related is discussed.

Well isn't that great; I'm being told that I'm actually happy that people are raped because I get to use their situation as an IWIN button. Yep, can't bring up Steubenville without trying to objectify the victim and being happy that horrible things happen to people.

Tell you what. Next time, I'll try not to call people out when they bitch about a non-existent double standard that they have to ignore several victims to come up with; I'll just let them go on reveling in their perceived persecution. It'd certainly be better than being told that I like the fact that people are raped because it gives me the chance to mention that someone was raped.

If you'd like to quote me again, pull my statements out of that sacred thing known as context that tends to make the intended point clear, and accuse me of being happy about rape some more, I'll leave you to it, but I'll be in bed.

Gated community... crap I live in one of those.

Batou667:
It'd be easy to downplay this. Kids messing around, why assume a sinister or sexual motivation, who didn't get pantsed as a kid? The boy was more embarrassed than hurt, the media circus is likely to have a worse effect on him than the actual incident, why demonise the girls, they're just children?

But yeah, I guarantee that if you switched the genders - two boys holding down a screaming 11-year old girl, removing her bathing suit and uploading the footage to YouTube - you'd have cries for them to be tried as adults, put on the sex offenders register, yet more evidence of normalised rape culture and violence against women, etc. Not to mention I don't think any news network would have the balls to show footage, blurred or not, for fear of child porn associations.

Pretty much.

thaluikhain:

Why would be a flawed argument if it was being used, yes.

The point isn't that "something worse has happened". It's that this bad thing which only happens to men and boys because society is PC gone mad or whatever actually happens all the time to women and girls.

Can you point me to where that argument was used? I can wait.

In the meantime, I have to ask: how would people feel if, in case of Steubenville, I brought up how in other parts of the world, women who get raped also get imprisoned because they had extramarital sex, so obviously things worse than the Steubenville case happen all the time? "Oh, sure, she got raped while she was passed out, but at least she didn't go to prison for it, like Muslim women do! Check your Western privilege, people!"

It was a case of the appeal to worse problems fallacy. Just because appealing to a specific worse problem seems progressive and politically correct doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

Plus, there have been examples of the mentioned double standard on Escapist, even? Remember the threads about a female teacher getting busted over having sex with an underage student? Or the Chinese guy who got raped by a woman? Did you think the amount of outrage by the Escapist community in those threads was anywhere near the amount of outrage in the thread about Steubenville? I didn't. And I was one of the outraged ones in all those threads, believe it or not.

LifeCharacter:

So what you're saying is that, unless you're aiming to directly improve someone's life, you can't bring up the fact that past crimes occurred in an argument without objectifying them, and that said objectification is some horrible act?

Nope. I just used that as an example when it's fitting. My point was that it's objectification if you us the reference specifically and solely to tell someone else how they're full of shit.

For example, if in the Steubenville case, someone said "At least she didn't go to prison for it, like women in Saudi Arabia do if they get raped!" I'd argue they're spitting in the face of the women who live under oppressive laws that punish them even when they were the victim.

It must suck for people who actually study things like crime rates and such, having to do such a morally abhorrent thing like objectify victims for the sake of making statistics.

I'd argue those people actually study things like crime rates and such in order to be able to help improve people's lives and the society in general.

Well isn't that great; I'm being told that I'm actually happy that people are raped because I get to use their situation as an IWIN button. Yep, can't bring up Steubenville without trying to objectify the victim and being happy that horrible things happen to people.

Nah, I'm only going to be telling you that if you consistently shove Steubenville into the face of anyone who makes a point about a male sexual assault victim and the perpetrators getting away, and how that's a bad thing. Since I'm not feeling particularly vicious, though, I'm not going to make a reference to a certain currently hot thread on Escapist and draw similarities.

So far I'm simply assuming that you used the case as a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to a slightly too confrontational opening post. I'm assuming no malice on your part, just...basically that you didn't think your response through well, no offense intended.

Tell you what. Next time, I'll try not to call people out when they bitch about a non-existent double standard that they have to ignore several victims to come up with; I'll just let them go on reveling in their perceived persecution. It'd certainly be better than being told that I like the fact that people are raped because it gives me the chance to mention that someone was raped.

If you'd like to quote me again, pull my statements out of that sacred thing known as context that tends to make the intended point clear, and accuse me of being happy about rape some more, I'll leave you to it, but I'll be in bed.

"Again" and "next time" would imply I've done it at least once already. But, apologies for wording my post ambiguously enough that it could be understood that way. Guess I should be more careful in the future.

Vegosiux:

LifeCharacter:

CrazyGirl17:
...I... what?! That is just disgusting! Fuckin' double standards...

What double standard? This is like a retread of Steubenville with the genders reversed, a lesser crime being committed, and the attorney and mother worrying about the girls' futures instead of the newscasters.

Why do people insist on spitting into the face of the girl who got raped in Steubenville and didn't even get justice? Why do people insist on objectifying her as the ace-in-the-sleeve card to be used use every time they want to shut down a discussion?

That girl was a victim of a heinous crime, she deserves better than to be used as an IWIN button in internet debates, for crying out loud! She's not an argument, she's a human being, start treating her as such.

I notice you aren't employing the same standard to those who cry "double standard!" Why is that?

Doesn't this boy deserve better than to be ammunition by the "men have it so haaard!" crowd

Kaulen Fuhs:

I notice you aren't employing the same standard to those us this to cry "double standard!" Why is that?

Doesn't this boy deserve better than to be ammunition by the "men have it so haaard!" crowd

Oh, I will employ this standard the moment we have a thread about female rape and some member of that "crowd" brings up this particular incident in order to downplay the subject of that thread (female rape) and shut down the discussion.

Until then, please try to find other things to ad hominem me with, and put some effort into it.

Vegosiux:

Kaulen Fuhs:

I notice you aren't employing the same standard to those us this to cry "double standard!" Why is that?

Doesn't this boy deserve better than to be ammunition by the "men have it so haaard!" crowd

Oh, I will employ this standard the moment we have a thread about female rape and some member of that "crowd" brings up this particular incident in order to downplay the subject of that thread (female rape) and shut down the discussion.

Until then, please try to find other things to ad hominem me with, and put some effort into it.

Your logic is that using tragedies as ammunition to make politicized statements is wrong, yes? Then it applies to those people too, whether they made the thread specifically to do that or not.

There's no need to ad hominem here. You are painfully transparent.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Your logic is that using tragedies as ammunition to make politicized statements is wrong, yes?

Could you kindly direct me to where I established such logic as mine?[1]

Actually, until I got to the end of your post I was inclined to believe that you actually weren't sure what I meant, and were trying to get me to clarify my position. But then came this:

There's no need to ad hominem here. You are painfully transparent.

See, this left me baffled. Why would you be calling me "transparent" if you're not even sure what I'm going on about yet? Or was that just the Let-me-get-this-straight strawman[2] and trying to put words in my mouth?

I mean, if you indeed were unclear on what I was actually saying, the reasonable course of action would have been to withhold the personal remarks until after I've clarified. So I can only conclude you were not trying to get me to clarify, you were indeed trying to put words in my mouth.

Is asserting personal superiority really that important?

Actually, at this point I'm not going to request that you find other stuff to ad hominem me with, I'm going to request that you find someone else to ad hominem. You're barking up the wrong tree, really.

[1] You couldn't, because what I asserted was that using tragedies as ammunition to shut down discussion and "win" internet arguments is wrong. Not a peep about "politicized statements"
[2] I thought I was rid of that one when I put a few people I really can't stand on ignore

You guys, this is OLD.

Like, I don't mind discussing, but I literally saw this video months if not years ago... O_O

If I recall, there was a petition and the girls got punished.

Vegosiux:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Your logic is that using tragedies as ammunition to make politicized statements is wrong, yes?

Could you kindly direct me to where I established such logic as mine?[1]

Actually, until I got to the end of your post I was inclined to believe that you actually weren't sure what I meant, and were trying to get me to clarify my position. But then came this:

There's no need to ad hominem here. You are painfully transparent.

See, this left me baffled. Why would you be calling me "transparent" if you're not even sure what I'm going on about yet? Or was that just the Let-me-get-this-straight strawman[2] and trying to put words in my mouth?

I mean, if you indeed were unclear on what I was actually saying, the reasonable course of action would have been to withhold the personal remarks until after I've clarified. So I can only conclude you were not trying to get me to clarify, you were indeed trying to put words in my mouth.

Is asserting personal superiority really that important?

Actually, at this point I'm not going to request that you find other stuff to ad hominem me with, I'm going to request that you find someone else to ad hominem. You're barking up the wrong tree, really.

This is what you said. "It's not the act that objectifies said victims, it's the intent. Or in other words, if you're discussing the subject and trying to look how to improve lives for people who got through this, you're not objectifying these past victims."

Do you honestly believe for a second that the person who said "fuckin' double standards" had better intentions than the person who tried to show them why they might be wrong? Do you think they cared about the victim any more?

Whether it was "politicized statements" or something equally loaded, like an established position in an internet debate, the result is the same; a victim is used as a bludgeon. And what you are doing in this thread is pursuing the comments coming from only one side of the fence for the "crimes" committed by both sides.

You keep bringing up ad hominems. Do you have evidence of personal attacks used to undermine your position? I feel my argument is substantiated, if not by reality, than by my reading of it.

[1] You couldn't, because what I asserted was that using tragedies as ammunition to shut down discussion and "win" internet arguments is wrong. Not a peep about "politicized statements"
[2] I thought I was rid of that one when I put a few people I really can't stand on ignore

Ryotknife:
Well, the Steubenville boys got their treatment because of their status as town celebrities (the "pride of the town" so to speak), if it was members of the Steubenville marching band its suspect if they would have been treated the same. If so, all that proves is that gender, race, and other aspects takes a backseat compared to money, power, and status.

While Steubenville was an extreme example, VIP members of important/popular sports teams get to play fast and loose with the rules. We see this all the time with American football stars. ditto to my college's mens hockey team, and my high schools womens tennis team.

Indeed, lots of reasons people turn a blind eye to bad things. And gender doesn't have to be one of them. Including in this dang video (I mean, no one in the report even said it was because they were female, where's everyone getting that from? The two people condemning them the most were the mother and the female lawyer). I would have thought the main reason the girl's didn't get charged (and Qwurty2.0 says actually they did in the end, but I can't find a source) is because they were young. After all, the mother didn't press charges because she thought it was more fitting that their parents punished them - http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-06-01/Online-video-shows-Fort-Myers-boy-being-bullied#.UjalC9K1Fac

I mean, heck, boys were pulling up my skirt all the time when I was little, trying to pull down my knickers, and one boy stuck his hand down my underwear when I was six and when I tried to get away he chased after me, grabbed me and said if I told anyone he'd beat me up. Running to adults crying just gets you a 'Well, I'm sure he was just playing around... I'll tell him not to do it again.'

Vegosiux:
It was a case of the appeal to worse problems fallacy. Just because appealing to a specific worse problem seems progressive and politically correct doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

thaluikhain:
Why would be a flawed argument if it was being used, yes.

The point isn't that "something worse has happened". It's that this bad thing which only happens to men and boys because society is PC gone mad or whatever actually happens all the time to women and girls.

Vegosiux:
The point isn't that "something worse has happened". It's that this bad thing which only happens to men and boys because society is PC gone mad or whatever actually happens all the time to women and girls.

Can you point me to where that argument was used? I can wait.[/quote]

Er...the second post, about how things would be "100% different if the genders were reversed"? In response to which Steubenville was first mentioned to show that that isn't true?

This is...kind of a difficult one.

At first I have to question why the OP would call it a sexual assault. There was nothing sexual about it. They just wanted to humilate him as standard bully protocol(that was their story anyway).

Then I thought, "Wait! Some people get sexual satisfaction from humiliating others! I Know this because I looked up fetishes on wikipedia"

But yeah. At first glance, this doesn't really look like a thing. Hope those girls got their ass beat though.

Here's my opinion:

Firstly I think this issue is being blown out of proportion. This is "just" really bad bullying and should be treated accordingly. We're talking about young teenagers doing what stupid young teenagers do. What they deserve is some firm parenting and maybe some counseling to make them realize that what they do is all but ok.

And when it comes to the double standard the issue is that the reactions are usually way too heavy if the genders are reversed. The whole "sexual assault" flick would have been thrown around everywhere if the two assaulters were men and the victim a girl. Male teenagers pinning down a girl and stripping her down? Can you imagine the arson this would cause?

Kaulen Fuhs:

This is what you said. "It's not the act that objectifies said victims, it's the intent. Or in other words, if you're discussing the subject and trying to look how to improve lives for people who got through this, you're not objectifying these past victims."

Do you honestly believe for a second that the person who said "fuckin' double standards" had better intentions than the person who tried to show them why they might be wrong? Do you think they cared about the victim any more?

I don't know, why don't you go ask them?

Whether it was "politicized statements" or something equally loaded, like an established position in an internet debate, the result is the same; a victim is used as a bludgeon. And what you are doing in this thread is pursuing the comments coming from only one side of the fence for the "crimes" committed by both sides.

So, my argument is wrong because...not because there's something wrong with my argument, but because I, in your opinion, did not take the time to apply it consistently?

You keep bringing up ad hominems. Do you have evidence of personal attacks used to undermine your position?

I really shouldn't have to do this, unless we're suddenly in the middle of Memento, which I am pretty sure we are not. But here we go: One, taking issue with my argument not because of what it was, but because of something you considered wrong with me; two, calling me "painfully transparent", three, again taking issue with my point not because you had an issue with my point, but because you had an issue with me?

I feel my argument is substantiated, if not by reality, than by my reading of it.

Yeah well, that's what they all say.

And I feel I've been on the internet long enough to not be used as a punching bag for everyone who feels like it. As I told you, you're barking up the wrong tree. If you have a personal bone to pick with me, there are places where we can discuss that, and this thread is not such a place. If you have a problem with my point, then press my point instead of my behavior and integrity.

So far you've only "proved" that I might be a scumbag, but that says nothing about points I'm making. So either address my points for what they are, or tone it down on the smug and send me a private message with whatever you think is wrong with me, if my personal integrity is what you want to discuss. Or I don't know, make a thread in which you discuss how I'm a terrible person and why.

thaluikhain:

Er...the second post, about how things would be "100% different if the genders were reversed"? In response to which Steubenville was first mentioned to show that that isn't true?

Huh, I don't see how "only boys and men ever have to deal with this" follows from "if this was two boys undressing a girl who's screaming and trying to fight, we'd 100% see more outrage over it". Looks a bit like a stretch. Remotely makes sense what your line of thought was, but a stretch.

Vegosiux:
Huh, I don't see how "only boys and men ever have to deal with this" follows from "if this was two boys undressing a girl who's screaming and trying to fight, we'd 100% see more outrage over it". Looks a bit like a stretch. Remotely makes sense what your line of thought was, but a stretch.

If things are "100% different" for people who aren't them, then obviously they are the only ones who have to deal with that.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked