Three Middle School Girls Assault Boy and Nothing Happens.

Posted on by Pastabagel and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Here’s the story:

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.

Here’s where you say, “If the story was about three boys tackling and stripping the clothes off a girl, they’d be arrested for sexual assault.”

Here’s where you say, “How come it’s okay for the media to air footage of the sexual assault of a minor?”

Those are the obvious things to say, and they are not wrong things to say. But be aware that the media is presenting the story to provoke exactly this reaction. Because that reaction, decrying the double standard is a “safe” reaction.

Here’s the official police reaction: 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.

So you read that, and you go ballistic, right? Stupid mother, how could she be so complacent when her son was assaulted, etc. Again, these are all legitimate reactions, because from a purely clinical standpoint the mother is a horrible non-human monster whose oatmeal brain has malfunctioned beyond all hope of repair. That diagnosis is verbatim from the DSM.

But again, keep in mind that these reactions are all entirely predictable and were expected by the media who packaged the story.

Now read the story again, very carefully, and notice what is missing.

Did the boy fight back?

That’s the question that is begging to be answered. The standard is not “What if it was three boys assaulting a girl,” the standard is “What if it was three boys assaulting this boy.” The law is gender blind, so this is not a sexual assault, not sex as act of violence, it’s a fight among middle schoolers. It’s bullying. That’s what the law sees. That’s why it’s only a misdemeanor.

So I ask the question again, another way: If this was a fight, why didn’t the boy fight back? He certainly would have if it he was being attacked by boys. He would have been kicking, punching biting, etc. He clearly doesn’t want them doing this, in the video he’s fighting their grip and when an arm breaks free he tries to get his clothes back on. So it isn’t like he’s in on the fun (and if you think he is, that’s when you cue the gender reversal. Was he asking for it? Was he dressed provocatively, etc.).

So why didn’t he fight back?

Because boys can’t hit girls. That’s programmed so deeply, so early on, from everywhere, that he doesn’t even hit them when they are trying to strip his clothes off. And on some subconscious level, the girls have received exactly that same programming–that boys cannot hit girls–and it informed their actions. They never thought for a second that attacking the boy would place them at risk of a broken nose, black eye, or worse.

Now let’s ask the hypothetical? What if the boy did fight back? What if he started fighting back and put one of the girls in the hospital? What would the story be then? And what would your reaction be?

Related posts:

  1. J.Crew Ad Tells Obsessive Moms that Obsessiveness is Okay
  2. Why the “Storm” of criticism?
  3. Shooting suspect surrenders, and then it gets interesting
  4. Born Which Way?
  5. Nameless: Industry Standard

43 Responses to Three Middle School Girls Assault Boy and Nothing Happens.

  1. JohnJ says:

    If the story was about three boys tackling and stripping the clothes off a girl, they’d be…

    Oh. You already dealt with that. Well, umm… okay. That kind of takes the wind right out of my sails.

    But I have to say, your other insights are brilliant. I wouldn’t have gotten that far reading the article myself.

  2. JohnJ says:

    Whoa. I just watched the video. That poor kid.

    Why is the mom making the decision not to charge the girls? Where’s this boy’s father? There’s no way in hell I would let that happen to my son without serious consequences for those thugs.

  3. thr33to16 says:

    “So why didn’t he fight back?”

    “He clearly doesn’t want them doing this, in the video he’s fighting their grip [as they hold him down]…”

    Great job asshole.

  4. chitowntech says:

    The video to this is awful! I feel sorry for that kid.

    I kind of think there’s more going on here. The girls were in 8th grade and went to school with this kid’s older brother. The kid is in 5th grade. When I was in junior high, I went through a growth spirt so I would have been a lot bigger physically than a 5th grade boy. Which is why if this kid fought back, I don’t think I’d blame him after seeing that video.

    As for the mother’s actions, I think there’s more going on here. The girls went to school with this kid’s older brother. Did his older brother do something to these girls and they decided to go after him? I would go after the girls too if they harmed my child that way.

  5. Dan Dravot says:

    I’m inclined to agree with the boy’s mother: There ought to be a pretty high bar for dragging a child into the for-God’s-sake criminal justice system at that age. The girls’ parents should deal with it. If they don’t… Well, hell. The prospect of uniformed police officers arresting eleven-year-olds when nobody was seriously physically harmed, that just seems insane. But if the parents are so far out to lunch that they don’t wallop their stupid kids over this, maybe it’s the lesser evil.

    An online video shows a prank some would say went too far.

    “Some”, yeah, the ones with opposable thumbs. Christ.

    • Methossa says:

      The ‘some would say’ is the frustrating thing about traditional American news and its desire to cast the broadest net possible. Make sure you don’t drive away a potential user. Throw in a question to give an illusion of choice, and ad revenue is up. That’s why the deconstructions are possible at all, the constraints of their market force them to peddle narratives less openly. And if we argue about bias, all the better, because they are still the focus and thus their traffic is still up.

      Also, nice post PB.

  6. eqv says:

    The ‘Mens’ Rights’ crowd are frothing at the mouth over this already. But they don’t seem to have moved past OMGZORZ ‘MAGINE IF IT WAS 3 BOYS DOING IT TO A GIRL, which I find pretty funny, since I think they’d agree with your point that males are conditioned to never hit females.

    • AnonymousAtLarge says:

      I liked how you slipped “Mens rights” in there as if we for granted took “mens activists” as a legitimate label. Nice.

      • eqv says:

        What… are you talking about?

        I think (I hope) my post made it clear that I in no way support that particular ‘movement’. If I’m honest, I made that post because I wanted someone here to share insight on “mens’ rights”. Personally I find the ‘movement’ to be a very scary, messed-up, angry bunch of people, but that’s just me.

        • JohnJ says:

          Most movements are filled with people outside the mainstream. There are precious few movements that are filled with average people because if most people already support it, it’s not a movement; it’s already mainstream.

      • philtrum says:

        eqv said they were “frothing at the mouth” — that’s hardly an admiring statement.

        They are “legitimate” in that they exist and some of them have had some success influencing policy. I don’t think eqv meant to convey anything more than that.

  7. stiffbreeze says:

    Great post PB!

    However, I disagree with your comment that the mother is being complacent; I think she’s playing the best (and only) card available.

    These three girls are minors – the likely result of a legal charge will be an ineffective 5-minute lecture from a police officer they’ve never met, combined with disappointed parents who still nonetheless come to the defense of their own. The criminal charge would defuse a portion of the full wrath of mom/dad and re-direct some of it into defending/supporting the child. If no charges are pressed, the girls must face the full wrath of publicly-embarrassed parents. When I was in the 8th grade, the latter option would have scared me considerably more.

  8. Comus says:

    While I completely agree with your views on this, I’d like to steer it back to the sexual assault side of things. If these were adults, gender in whichever permutation, it would be sexual harrassment. If these were three boys, it would be sexual harrasment. Now, suddenly the parallax view shifts: these are school children, not sexual beings. Children to a worryingly large extent are perceived as asexual, which of course is utterly false, even from toddlerhood.

    I don’t know whether this is the result of the sexual revolution or just an counter-freudian attack, but it is blinding ones one eye, not to observe at possible sexual motives. In the beginning of the century children were seen as sexual beings, a notion which shook the victorian view. There is solid data on this miles high. And yet, we appear to dismiss this notion. I think it might be due to the sexual revolution, where everything was permitted, and sex was a freedom -thing. This had to be crowbarred not to include children, cause that would be seriously not cool.

    Now, whether this truly was sexual harrasment, a vendetta or just stupidity, I have no view on. We only see the video and here the mothers view. This definitely is bullying, but is it something more? Even if it weren’t, from which date onwards has bullying been “okay”?

  9. It is a sexual assault, well, sexual battery, it’s unlawful touching with a sexual element. Right? The point was to get his penis out to laugh at it.

    But it’s not a sexual assault, it’s not a misdemeanor, it’s a felony, child pornography. They put it on youtube. Any lawyers on this site? It’s not “boy vs. girls” it’s “Commonwealth of Florida versus the defendant.” I’m not sure the mom gets to decide whether she wants to press charges, though I admit I’m out of my element here; it’s been a while since I refused to press charges.

    What makes it porn? The boy gets naked? Yes, but what makes it worse is that they’re 8th grade girls. If you need me to spell it out for you then you should go to now.

    Youtube took it down, the press put it back up. So?

    I get pastabagel’s angle here, however, the kid seems scared, so I’m going to defer that the kid didn’t fight back because he was scared, not because they were girls. Most bullied kids don’t fight back, sometimes afraid the teacher will get them in trouble, other times because they’re afraid of worse beatings.

    But if you want to play the feminist game, here you go: sexual assaults are the mechanism by which the dominant sexual force intimidates the other. The ones who hold the power engage in behaviors which dominate the other. So the passive sex is taught to be submissive, and the dominant sex is taught to be aggressive. The dominant sex is taught to devalue the other and find domination sexually arousing.

    Also, a cornerstone of feminist interpretation of sexual violence is the role of porn: porn promotes sexual violence because it typically involves a dominant sexual force utilizing the other merely as a commodified and exploited sexual outlet.

    Think of all the girls you know, think of all the guys you know. Who averages more sexual partners and experiences? If you’re a guy, how many people have you punched? Ok, if you’re a girl, how many people have you punched? I’m betting fifty years ago, all domestic violence flowed one way. I’m telling you that it is nearly

    Remember the Eminem song?

    My point here is that sexual roles are reversing (not reversed yet) and this video supports that. When you look at this video and say, “poor boy” or “why didn’t he fight back?”you are already admitting that the girls are the dominant ones, and the boy doesn’t stand a chance. And you’d be right. At no point in this kid’s life did he ever think he’d be attacked by 8th grade girls. Yet, given this history, that’s actually the most likely attacker he’d ever face.

    • JohnJ says:

      They won’t be prosecuted for child porn. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion, and no prosecutor would charge them with child porn for this. I imagine that everyone’s just hoping this goes away. Too many ways to get to a wrong (i.e. unpopular) answer.

  10. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    When I see the video, I see a bunch of snot nosed little girls picking on a younger boy … it’s not an assault, it’s not sexual, it’s not violent. They are picking on the boy and it went too far.

    The “sexual assault” tag is there to sensationalize this event and make it worse than what it really was. The girls were picking on him, in a relatively harmless way. They pulled down his pants. BIG DEAL. That happens all the time in grade school, especially when kids are wearing bathing suits. You’ve never heard of a kid getting pants’ed at the pool? OH PLZ.

    The only reason it is so sensational is because its on camera, and its on the internet, and a bunch of perverted adults are calling it a sexual assault.

    There is no comparison to this video, and real sexual assault. THe pants’ing of the boy was done simply to embarrass him, and the girls never once hit or touch him. This happens all the time in school. The boy did not hit the girls because they weren’t attacking him, only embarrassing him. If they were hitting him, or sodomizing him, I assure you he would be flailing and hitting and scratching for all his might. These are a bunch of gradeschool kids being mean jerks, sure, but to call it an assault is a perverts fantasy and nothing more.

    • JohnJ says:

      “The only reason it is so sensational is because its on camera, and its on the internet…”

      You know, that’s actually a really good point.

    • cat says:

      “The point was to get his penis out to laugh at it.”

      Yes. And to video that event so that it could be sent around to everyone at school. There was a spate of this sort of bullying in the UK (don’t know if it’s still happening) called “happy slapping”, where kids humiliated or beat up another kid on cellphone camera and mailed it everywhere/ Facebook/ etc.

      Of course the newspaper has made the sexual element the hook on which to hang the story, because that’s what makes the best headline.

      Kids being bullied usually don’t fight back, whether the bullies are girls or boys. The boy in this case was probably scared, not being a gentleman who doesn’t hit ladies.

  11. inarticulateinthecity says:

    “They pulled down his pants. BIG DEAL. That happens all the time in grade school, especially when kids are wearing bathing suits. You’ve never heard of a kid getting pants’ed at the pool? OH PLZ.”

    “The boy did not hit the girls because they weren’t attacking him, only embarrassing him.”

    Aw, phew! They were only EMBARASSING HIM by removing his clothes in broad daylight and filming it. I guess that makes it OK.

  12. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    Here, I’ll help you all:

    This is a common prank kids play. ITS CALLED PANTSING in the US but it has names all over the world (“debagging” In the uk). Young children often get pants’ed at the pool, because it invites the prank (swim trunks are begging to be pulled off, much like fat kids are begging to be pushed into the pool, skinny small children are picked up and thrown into the water, etc etc etc). It’s called being a child, it’s called life. Get over it.

    I never said it was OKAY, it’s clear the girls are taking the pantsing way too far. Typical pantsing involves a quick tug of the trousers at an opportune moment… these girls are ganging up on him and completely taking the pants. That’s kinda wrong, especially since he is such a little boy. They are punks and should be punshed, no doubt. They were probably raised by wolves to do such a thing to a smaller child…

    But all this talk of felony charges and locking them up and SEXUAL ASSAULT… get over it.

    Yes, I would feel the same way if it were 11 year old boys and an 8 year old girl. Chilrden that age are not sexual. They are primordially sexual, but an 11 year old child does not view this the same way a perverted adult views pulling off someone’s clothes. If adults were pulling off each others clothes at the pool, you might be able to argue sexual assault – adults are very sexual and are fully cognizent of the sexual implications of forcibly removing ones clothing.

    The question is, are girls this young even aware what it means when you remove someones clothes against their will? I think of myself at 11, and no, I don’t think I would at all have had the capacity to sexualize this act as much as you adults are sexualizing it. At 11, I barely understood the mechanics of sex. I had an idea about it of course and I knew anatomy differences between men and women… I did not look at people in a sexual way, at all. I didn’t even recognize what sexual feelings were. It wasn’t until I was a teenager that I fully UNDERSTOOD sex and how it works.

    Kids don’t think this way, unless you were raped or molested or abnormally sexualized (no, MTV doesn’t count – kids watch MTV and can’t fully get the sex, they get the idea of it, but they don’t fully understand like an adult does).

    These are beings who have barely even begun puberty, if they have at all. They are not sexual and you are all pervs for calling it sexual assault.

    Now, is it OKAY? No way. They are bullying this little boy to the extreme and the event was probably traumatic and embarrassing for him. They should be punished by their parents and school systems, but NOT by the police. This is not a police matter, it’s a parenting one.

    • philtrum says:

      The victim was 11. The girls are in middle school, i.e. 12-14. At that age, girls are entering or well into puberty. I think they knew quite well the implications of what they were doing.

      • AnonymousAtLarge says:

        I don’t know how i misinterpreted their ages… but if the girls are 12-14 and the boy is 11, that makes things way worse IMO.

        I still think it is too far to call this a sexual assault… it’s not sexual, sorry. It’s mean and shitty but they’re not assaulting him sexually. They’re trying to embarrass him.

        • AnonymousAtLarge says:

          Do you really think these girls should be labeled sexual offenders for life, for this?

          Of course not because deep down you all know this isn’t a real sexual assault, and they are not a risk to society or others. They are jerk kids who are being jerks. This is more of a case of extreme bullying than it is a felony that deserves your name on a list from now and forever.

          • sunshinefiasco says:

            No, I don’t think that kids under the age of 18 should be labeled anything for life.

            But by saying it wasn’t sexual assault, the chance of that aspect of their crime being made very real for them becomes miniscule. There’s no counseling with an eye toward sexual assault, there’s no preventative measures put in place. If they behave for a few years, it becomes a “childish prank that they were involved in when they were really just kids, it just got out of hand”. While that characterization might be valid, it ignores the fact that there were deeper, darker influences involved. Ignoring the involvement/existence of those influences isn’t the way to make sure that they don’t inspire another incident.

        • sunshinefiasco says:

          Haha, all right. You got, like, reasons and stuff? Or you’re just real sure?

          • AnonymousAtLarge says:

            Because when I imagine these girls being labeled sexual offenders and being put on a megans law list, that seems SUPER NOT COOL. Because we all know they really arent predators, we all know they were just playing a prank that went too far.

            Its not right to destroy their lives over a trivial act of meanness. They will be 35 and unable to get certain jobs because of some stupid crap they did as a thoughtless child, with no true harm meant, and no true harm done?

            The boy will get over it, as I got over all the extreme bullying I went through.

          • sunshinefiasco says:

            Forcing them to take some responsibility for their actions and to acknowledgw/better understand what they’ve done is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. And I don’t see where a meagan’s law list comes into it.

            While the boy may get over it, (people get over all kinds of horrible shit), I can’t help but play the “would you be so sure about that if the genders were switched” card. It’s really likely that the boy will grow up and deal with it… but that’s absolutely no reason not to punish the offenders/take measures to prevent this sort of shit.

    • sunshinefiasco says:

      Also, the main reason pantsing is a common prank is because the aim is typically to embarrass someone in front of a group of people– quite different from holding them down and stripping them. There’s no audience– only accomplices.

      Not only are 12-14 year old girls beginning puberty (average onset is 10-11), but many children and even babies, can experience and seek out sexual pleasure. (I knew I had read something on this before, but when I looked it up for this post, I saw that kids can start masturbating as young as 18 months, though it usually drops off after age 5 (until puberty)). This is not considered to be a sign of abuse/inappropriate stuff (public masturbation is a big red flag though).)

      So, even if the girls haven’t had the birds and the bees (which was taught in my catholic grade school in 6th grade, at 12-14 they probably know), it’s still quite likely that they understand the sexual implications of their actions, at least on a subconscious level.

      • Comus says:

        I agree with you. Also what caught my eye on AAL:s reply was the overemphasis on understanding and cognizing. Surely one can have sexual feelings, needs, urges, even without being in explicit rational control of the logic behind it? As sunshinefiasco here (and I earlier) pointed out, children are sexual beings, and onset of puberty isn’t a magic point where sexuality suddenly emerges from nowhere into children’s thereuntil innocent lives.

        Acknowledging that children are sexual beings doesn’t make you a fantasizing pervert any more than believing in the theory of gravity makes you fat. You might be fat and believe in the theory of gravity, but there is no causation.

  13. sunshinefiasco says:

    Also, I’m not sure where you’re pulling the ages 11 and 8 from, but if 11-year old boys were stripping down 8-year olds and filming it, you better believe those kids should be in counseling, with an eye toward future sexual misconduct. If we adjust the ages to those used in this example (attackers are 12-14, victim is 11), there’s no way it’s not called sexual assault with the genders reversed.

  14. williamgarland says:

    I am writing from England, and I must say how appalled I am at seeing this video. It is nothing short of sexual assault and should be punished by the law of the land. I always thought you Americans prided yourself on your toughness on law and order, particularly in the southern states, you have I understand a very low age of criminal responsibility in some states (as young as eight years of age). So how the Fort Myers Police could regard this as a prank, is beyond me.

    I suspect one of the problems, and it is true here, as much as in America, is the notion prevailing in society, that girls cannot by nature commit sex offences, but are always only victims. In Great Britain there are very few that are on the sex offenders register, I don’t know whether the same is true in America. We must get out of this mindset andrecognise, that they can commit sexual offences just as much as boys can, and should be dealt with in just the same way. We all know that if this had been three tennage boy commiting this act, they would most likely be punished very severly by the law of the land (not just by the internal disciplinary measures of the school they attended).

    Also, I hear ridiculous comments, one I think was made by the woman chief attorney of Fort Myers, who commented, that although the girls had technically transgressed the law, they should somehow only receive a mild slap on the wrist and certainly their lives should’nt be ruined as a result of their actions. Poppycock!, what about the future life of the eleven year old boy, for many victims of sexual assault, it takes years to recover from the experience. I comapare this case, with a case in England of an eleven year old who raped an eight year old, alright, you might say rape is a considerably more serious felony than sexual assault, and so it is, but not massively so. The boy in England I am writing about received 30 months juvinile detention and was put on the sexual offenders register for life. He recently was successful in appealing to the High court in having his inclusion on this register, periodically reviewed, which caused an outrage in the English House of Commons, with the Prime Minister joining in, condeming the High Court ruling and promising the H0use it was unlikely that anybody who was on this register for life, would be successful in any appeal in the future. I think hear, I have made my point, nobody in authority here is the slightest bit concerned that his life maybe ruied by being on this register, meaning he will have little chance to travel abroad, everytime he moves house he will have to inform the police, and almost certainly little future career prospects. Here, is my recommended punishment for the three girls in the video, 6 months detention and put on the sex offenders register for 10 years.

    • Sfon says:

      The problem is not the concern for girls but the lack thereof for boys and perhaps adults. We should be hesitant to put anyone, especially children, on such a list for an indefinite/ long time. Putting the girls on the list for ten years will put them on it for the rest of their childhoods, and won’t really protect anyone past the first few months if even that. Recalling my own childhood and how quickly it changed, any more than a year on the list seems very extreme.

      As a male child I was often been told I was inferior, dirtier, and more inherently evil. If I so much as asked for sympathy when dealing with abuse I was dismissed coldly, if not chewed out for daring to suggest I was important at all. Girls were praised for openly thinking they were superior.

      I don’t know how much of that sort of thing still goes on, how common it is, how many females have similar stories, or how much the children in this story have experienced it. Whatever the case, the answer is humanizing, not dehumanizing. I do think some punishment is appropriate, but it must see them as human instead of simply as abusers/victims regardless of their gender.

      Unfortunately there is a strong sense of punishment for children being wrong, that it is better to shove them through the system or do nothing. But that is another issue and labeling more of them as sex offenders won’t fix it.

  15. sunshinefiasco says:

    I can’t take anyone who says “Poppycock!” and “I think hear” seriously, even when I agree with their attacks on things no one supported.

  16. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    Do you really think these girls should be labeled sexual offenders for life, for this?

    Of course not because deep down you all know this isn’t a real sexual assault, and they are not a risk to society or others. They are jerk kids who are being jerks. This is more of a case of extreme bullying than it is a felony that deserves your name on a list from now and forever.

  17. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    What if it were girls stealing the clothes of another little girl?

    Would you still say it is a sexual assault? Or would it look more like a bunch of bitches being bitches? Pretty much the latter.

    I think we are just so eager to call this a sexual assault because deep down we want it to be a sexual assault. All the angry white men want to say SEE, WOMEN CAN ASSAULT PEOPLE TOO THOSE FUCKING BITCHES… and all the women are too happy to comply. Even though its OBVIOUS this is just a case of kids being assholes and bullies and its only on the news because someone filmed it and put it on the internet.

    If no one filmed it, it would just be bullying.

    • AnonymousAtLarge says:

      The men are also pissed because it is every man’s deep seated fear of being laughed at and sexually ridiculed by a woman.

      I remember there was this thread on some doctor blog… this male doctor linked a blog entry written by a female doctor where she made a joke about her patient who had priaprasm. It was very benign, harmless no names were used. But oh my GOD were all the male doctors furious. OMG HOW DARE SHE.

      Yea, sure buddy. I’m a nurse, don’t pull that shit, i overhear male doctors ridicule / objectify their patients. But suddenly the rules are different when its a female laughing a sexual vulnerability of a male? Then all of a sudden omg we must be professionalz!!!11

    • sunshinefiasco says:

      First off, they didn’t pants someone, and they didn’t “steal his clothes”. They held him down, and stripped him. There isn’t really a way to remove the sexual content of that act, unless we’re talking about a parent trying to change a diaper/get a kid into a bath.

      I think that if 12-14 year olds of any gender hold people down and strip them, there is probably a sexual component.12-14 year olds are a surging with hormones– there’s sexual tension and awkwardness all over the place. Engaging in an act with such deliberate sexual connotations is not gonna be lost on them.

      What if it were a girl that they attacked? Well, it’s far more unlikely, considering that for early teens, sex is still situated heteronormatively and kids can torture each other a million different ways, but I would still say there’s a sexual component.

      Also, 12-14 year olds have no shortage of ways to embarrass and bully one another without anyone getting naked. They didn’t choose those ways. They chose a sexually charged way. To argue that that’s normal bullying is nutty– pantsing someone in front of a room full of people is one thing (also, pantsing is usually same gender, and lasts about a second. tug, pants go down, someone pulls them back up), holding them down and stripping them naked without an audience is something else completely.

      Finally, you seem to have more of an issue with the possible consequences of the girls being labeled predators than the real, actual consequences of what they did, and what they might do if no one acknowledges the sexual aspect of what they did. What’s that about? It would suck if their whole lives were over because of something they did when they were 13, but it’s way suckier if what made this possible doesn’t get addressed, and they continue victimizing people.

      • AnonymousAtLarge says:

        I think it should be punished… I’m not against punishment. However the logical conclusion of the police being involved is that these kids will face charges which are pretty big.

        It’s like an 18 year old boy with a 15 year old girlfriend. If the cops find out, it’s the slammer for you you child raping BASTARD. Except, wait, that’ s only a technicality… it’s teenage love and isn’t it cute… I just hope no one is angry with you, kid, because you’re a statutory rapist FYI.

        Laws aren’t perfect, sometimes things which have heavy penalties are actually not that serious. An 18 yr old kid with a 15 yr old girlfriend isn’t a child rapist, and a bunch of little girls who did something mean and stupid are not child predators either.

        Should the kids be punished? Yes. Just not legally. I am not to say how they should be disciplined, but bringing this to the law will only fuck their futures up. I DO NOT think they meant to cause serious harm to this person, and I DO NOT THINK they caused serious harm. No harm intended, very minimal harm done… why again should they be punished for a sexually charged assault?

        IF THEY HAD touched his genitals, IF THEY HAD sodomized him, if they did anything remotely assaulting, I would agree, punish them legally. But it seemed like their real goal was to embarrass him publically and it seems like this has much more in common with pantsing than it does sexual assault. They took his clothes and laughed at his nakedness. It’s mean as hell but … it’s not assault.

  18. AnonymousAtLarge says:


  19. Pingback: Partian girls | Bestsellerster

  20. Warm Heart says:

    Hi all:

    I think these girls deserve to be burnt alive for misusing their power. Any man who supports these girls deserves likewise.

    I’m extremely feminist even though I am male.

    I’m against ‘pro-girl sexism’ and believe children should not be treated worse or better based alone on their gender. Most women and feminists agree with me. It’s the non-feminist macho men who disagree.

    ‘Pro-girl sexism’ = society forces males of all ages to treat a girl-child “better” than boy-child of the same age and provide this treatment solely on the basis on gender.

    “Better” = the following:

    1. More compassion
    2. More sympathy
    3. More respect
    4. More gentleness
    5. More easiness
    6. More empathy
    7. More cleanliness
    8. More protection
    9. More luxury
    10. More personal space
    11. More privacy
    12. More security
    13. More freedom
    14. More modesty
    15. More decency
    16. More leniency
    17. Less discipline
    18. Less strictness
    19. Less physical contact
    20. More politeness
    21. More courtesy
    22. Lower expectations

    On average, the adult woman:

    1. Is physically weaker than the adult man
    2. Is more emotional than the adult man
    3. Is better behaved than the adult man
    4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man
    5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can’t
    6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man
    7. Is less likely to mistreat children

    Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man — this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals — such as bison –, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

    Due to this, I believe males of all ages should treat adult women “better” than adult men. However, NO male — of any age — should *ever* be socially-mandated to treat girl-children better than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for young girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and it’s irrational norms. In addition, it is *not* innate/instinctive for a male — of any age — to treat girls “better” than boys.

    In addition, science has already proven that average girl-child is NOT *innately*:

    1. Weaker
    2. More sensitive
    3. More delicate
    4. Lower-IQed
    5. Slower
    6. Less energetic
    7. Less aggresive
    8. Less violent
    9. Less cold-hearted [or more hot-hearted]
    10. Less openly abusive to members of the opposite gender
    11. Less openly sexist against members of the opposite gender
    12. More tense
    13. More emotional
    14. Less emotionally-stable
    15. More compassionate
    16. More mature in personality
    17. Less mischievous
    18. Less naughty
    19. Less resilient

    … than the average boy-child of the same age. In addition, she is not more likely to be mistreated by males [of any age] than he is.

    Boy = male under 18 years of age = child

    Girl = female under 18 years of age = child

    Woman = female who is 18 years of age or older = adult

    Man = male who is 18 years of age or older = adult

    If a boy-child is more naughty than a girl-child, it is because of the psychological trauma he experiences by being subjected to society’s evil gender roles. *Innately*, a boy is no more mischievous than a girl of the same age.

    Gender stereotypes are detrimental to children. Kids need to be protected against them.

    This ‘pro-girl sexism’ I speak off has been there in all cultures ever since humans formed a society. From ancient times, the men of society have usually — at least in public — treated girl-children “better” than boy-children. This ‘pro-girl sexism’ is [and always was] *far* more intense in non-western cultures than in western cultures.

    Here is my list of examples of non-western cultures:

    1. Natives American “Indian” cultures
    2. Latino cultures — such as that of Spain and Mexico
    3. Russia
    4. All of Asia
    5. Turkey
    6. Kazakstan
    7. Nations run by Islamic fundamentalists
    8. All of Africa
    9. Eastern Europe
    10. All of what used to be in the Soviet Union location
    11. Romania
    12. South and Central Americas

    Here is how ‘pro-girl sexism’ started:

    It most likely started more than thousands of years ago with a small gang of strong macho men [the only male homo-sapien humans existing at the time] who decided that they would treat girls “better” than boys. The gang singled out male individuals and forced them to follow and enforce this rule — they left the females alone. These male individuals joined the gang and — out of extreme fear — began following and enforcing the gang’s pro-girl, anti-boy rules. More and more male individuals began joining this gang — out of fear for their own safety — and submitting to their oppressive anti-boy regime. This is how the anti-boy, pro-girl gang got bigger. Members of this gang began teaching their boy-children — likely through extreme corporal punishments — to follow these sexist rules and pass these rules onto the next generation of children. Fathers who didn’t teach their boy-children to follow this sexism were singled out by the gang [which was now big enough to be considered a society] and horrifyingly mistreated along with their helpless sons.

    This is my theory as to why ‘pro-girl sexism’ exists. It exists for the same reason many other irrational, un-natural societal norms exists — they are followed and enforced out of fear of facing social condemnation.

    This historical gang of humans I describe pretty much had similar rules of most of today’s street gangs. If they want you, they force you to join, and if you try to leave, they torture and kill you. If they see you and don’t want you, they torture and kill you regardless of your actions.

    Once again, ‘pro-girl sexism’ is not at all innate or instinctive. It is an example of learned behavior that is practiced out of fear and shame.

    Due to society’s ‘pro-girl sexism’ I don’t *ever* want to have children. I don’t want my potential son suffering the horrors of society’s gender roles nor do I want my potential daughter to turn into spoiled-rotten monster.

    Best regards,

    Warm Heart