And we have just witnessed the spawning of a whole new porn fetish, Catholic School Girl's Kicking Ass.
Oh boy, where's the fetish site to see late 20's "teenagers" abusing fat, ugly balding losers? posted by fenriq at 11:30 AM on October 31, 2003
The girls came and started kicking him and punching him thereby supplying him with fantasy material for the rest of his life. posted by alms at 11:34 AM on October 31, 2003
I love this! Finally revenge for all the crap the school girls put up with. Maybe that'll keep his mind clear the next time the "urge" comes over him. posted by Red58 at 11:34 AM on October 31, 2003
Don't feel it was mob mentality, just chasing off a predator from a private area then giving him a whacking before he did the same. posted by thomcatspike at 11:38 AM on October 31, 2003
I had three nearly simultaneous reactions:
a. Awesome!
b. So were they wearing those pleated...oh never mind.
c. The turd probably enjoyed it. posted by jalexei at 11:40 AM on October 31, 2003
Don't feel it was mob mentality, just chasing off a predator from a private area then giving him a whacking before he did the same.
I think I just wanted to emphasize that one should never underestimate the potential ferocity of a pack of angry schoolgirls. posted by jennanemone at 11:44 AM on October 31, 2003
Hehe, sounds like a lost episode of Sailor Moon.
Good for them. And if anybody gets the brilliant idea that these girls should be prosecuted for beating this wanker? I'd like to remind them that according to the article he'd already done this 7 times and had yet to be caught. Is the vice squad is too busy pretending to be 13 year old girls on the internet? posted by ilsa at 11:46 AM on October 31, 2003
For extra fun, picture them dressed as Japanese school girls. And armed with katanas or big long chains with spikey balls at the end. posted by Joey Michaels at 11:46 AM on October 31, 2003
I think I just wanted to emphasize that one should never underestimate the potential ferocity of a pack of angry schoolgirls.
Truer words were never spoken. posted by jokeefe at 11:54 AM on October 31, 2003
Sorry to interfere with anyone's internal pictures - but here's a fuller story (before suspect was named) with photo. posted by soyjoy at 11:56 AM on October 31, 2003
Soyjoy,
So that photo taken before they made themselves up for crash's photo, right? posted by smcniven at 12:01 PM on October 31, 2003
I think I just wanted to emphasize that one should never underestimate the potential ferocity of a pack of angry schoolgirls.
Damn soyjoy, they're not anywhere near as hot as the other pic above. Now the whole fantasy's been ruined. posted by fenriq at 12:27 PM on October 31, 2003
Lunch Money, the card game of school girls kicking the crap out of each other at recess.
(no, seriously, it's fun!) posted by mkultra at 12:30 PM on October 31, 2003
Having lived in Philthy for a few years, it is very easy for me to see this happening. posted by adampsyche at 12:32 PM on October 31, 2003
soyjoy, anyone photoshopped that pic yet? ;-P posted by mischief at 12:50 PM on October 31, 2003
Aw, leave 'em alone, you pervs. You don't want 'em coming after you, believe me. posted by soyjoy at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2003
Wow, I thought the ultra-violent schoolgirl assassins in Kill Bill were a little far fetched, but I'm not so sure now. posted by bobo123 at 1:20 PM on October 31, 2003
Apparently the Saint that these girls' school was named after, Maria Goretti (warning: annoying music) was a young girl who fought off a rapist, forgave him and was eventually made the patron saint of modern youth. From this site:
"Maria quickly matured in grace and holiness in the eyes of friends and other acquaintances. After losing her father to malaria, she developed great strength and maturity. Her charming modesty, cheerful obedience and the serious, but free acceptance of a hundred thankless home chores distinguished her from the other children who would play in the dusty streets of Ferriere. Perhaps the highlight of her life was her First Holy Communion, which she dutifully prepared for and awaited with great anticipation. She truly seemed to be advancing "in wisdom, and age and grace before God and men."
Lured by the passions of his day and nurturing the dark side of his soul with impious reading and thoughts, Alessandro Serenelli had been a thorn in lovely Maria's side. He propositioned her on several occasions and harassed her with impure suggestions. On July 5, 1902, he would be denied no longer. As she once again rebuffed his sexual advance, shouting, "No! It is a sin! God does not want it!", Alexander lunged to the deed, stabbing Maria 14 times.
Doctors in Nettuno tried to save Maria's life to no avail. After 20 painful hours of suffering during which she forgave and prayed for Alessandro, Maria entered Heaven fortified with the Last Sacraments. Her last earthly gaze rested upon a picture of the Blessed Mother. It was July 6, 1902.
Almost fifty years later on June 24, 1950, Pope Pius XII stood on the steps of St. Peter's in Rome and pronounced Maria Goretti a Saint and Martyr of the Universal Church to half a million people. He proposed her as the Patroness of Modern Youth and set July 6th as her feast Day. Her mother, and her murderer, attended the canonization ceremony together." posted by Joey Michaels at 1:47 PM on October 31, 2003
Apparently the Saint that these girls' school was named after, Maria Goretti, was a young girl who fought off a rapist, forgave him and was eventually made the patron saint of modern youth.
Oh, wow. That's a really bizarre, neat coincidence. Cool. posted by jennanemone at 2:31 PM on October 31, 2003
What I want to know is why people tend to refer to highschool aged boys as "youths" and highschool aged girls as "schoolgirls". posted by kayjay at 2:44 PM on October 31, 2003
woo hoo! philly represent! posted by RubiX^3 at 3:04 PM on October 31, 2003
I refer to high school aged boys as "morons," but I'm an embittered teacher, so what can I say? /wink posted by Joey Michaels at 3:04 PM on October 31, 2003
So, if twenty boys from an all-boys school beat up a woman, it would, I assume, get a similar reaction from all of you? posted by Hildago at 4:34 PM on October 31, 2003
Hildago: assuming said woman had been repeatedly exposing herself to the boys? posted by biscotti at 4:48 PM on October 31, 2003
Yes, and that the boys didn't love it. posted by Hildago at 4:55 PM on October 31, 2003
Whatever happened to just laughing at such a sad twat (and calling the police?)
I hope he gets his time in jail, and the girls get prosecuted too. posted by Blue Stone at 6:11 PM on October 31, 2003
Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten.
How is this a society that oppress women? posted by spazzm at 8:06 PM on October 31, 2003
Ooops - sorry about the "z" dropout. posted by troutfishing at 9:17 PM on October 31, 2003
Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten.
Riiiiiiight... because the women who are regularly paid to expose themselves never get beaten... posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2003
The problem with Iraq right now is not tha... oh, wait. posted by namespan at 9:31 PM on October 31, 2003
Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten. How is this a society that oppress women? --spazzm
Yeah, because females are the leading predators of young men. Because women hold down young men and force themselves upon them. Because of all those young pregnant men.
Go pick a fucking real fight...cause you got no ammunition in this one, sparky.
Many girls from this school nickname themselves the Goretti Gorrilas. I don't know what this guy was thinking. posted by romanb at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2003
"Yeah, because females are the leading predators of young men. Because women hold down young men and force themselves upon them."
You're confusing the issue - I was talking about oppression by society, not oppression by men.
And there's no need to be rude just because you don't agree with me. posted by spazzm at 4:42 AM on November 1, 2003
Soyjoy: True, but they don't get beaten because of exposing themselves.
And, as I said in my previous comment, there is a difference between an oppressive society and male violence.
And why is it one can never have a discussion about equality of the sexes without someone saying "well yeah, but men are rapists"? posted by spazzm at 5:09 AM on November 1, 2003
Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten. How is this a society that oppress women?
Troutfishing said it, but I'll expand just to clarify. Because the men to whom those women are exposing themselves want the women to expose themselves. They seek it out and control the event. They choose which women and under what circumstances. The women are young and hot and part of their fantasy.
Conversely, the women to whom the men you're speaking of expose themselves are out in their real life, often very young, and not interested in seeing some ugly 40 year old guy's dick. They are repulsed, not turned on. They are caught off guard, unprepared and uninterested in the sight.
Occasionally women do go out to see guys naked, in the same kind of context as the men (at a strip club) and under those conditions it's a positive thing. But being flashed is obviously not; the guy doing the flashing is implying a threat, one which is very real to many women.
Also, see Dan Savage's column this week (scroll down). posted by mdn at 6:37 AM on November 1, 2003
The word you are seeking, spazzm, is "profiling". posted by mischief at 6:44 AM on November 1, 2003
mdn: So exposing oneself is ok if one is young and hot, but not if one is old and wrinkled?
I don't know if ageism is a good thing, and I certainly am uncomfortable about laws that only apply to people who are deemed insufficiently hot. posted by spazzm at 8:24 AM on November 1, 2003
Yay, girls.
And ... the women ... often very young...not interested in seeing some ugly 40 year old guy's dick.
... the guy doing the flashing is implying a threat, one which is very real to many women.
And yay to mdn for explaining the difference in terms that even somebody with the IQ of this guy's dick could understand. posted by NorthernLite at 8:31 AM on November 1, 2003
Dalin said she kicked the suspect with her Eastland black school shoes.
Why did I think this line was so funny? Ahha. posted by wobh at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2003
spazzm, I know you're being willfully obtuse just to rile people up, but it really makes you look dumb.
Can you comprehend the difference between doing something because you want to, and doing something because someone else makes you? Can you, for instance, see that choosing to go out for food you enjoy is quite different from being forced to ingest food you don't like? Do you understand the difference between sex and rape? This is based on the same distinction; flashers are obviously not concerned about the consent of those they reveal themselves to. posted by mdn at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2003
So exposing oneself is ok if one is young and hot, but not if one is old and wrinkled?
It's not about age, it's about context. Young, hot, old, wrinkled, doesn't matter, what matters is whether you're stripping/erotic dancing/whatever (taking one's clothes off under some form of contract in a venue where people are there for the purpose of seeing people take their clothes off), or exposing oneself (showing random people, who haven't contracted to see them, your naughty bits). But I suspect you knew that. posted by biscotti at 9:09 AM on November 1, 2003
I'm actually not asking these questions to rile people up - this is something that's been on my mind for some time.
Female violence against men is seen as entertaining and 'good' - we all know the cartoon stereotype of the wife waiting for the husband with a rolling-pin in her hand - while male violence against females are (rightfully) considered very, very bad. Yet it turns out domestic violence by women against men is common, and for some actually a problem.
Can we have a just society as long as any form of violence is cheered on? posted by spazzm at 9:41 AM on November 1, 2003
While we're on the subject of nudity - when a man is nude, he's implicitly threatening women. When a woman is nude, she's being repressed by men.
In fact, no matter who is nude, it's the man's fault and he should feel bad about it because he's obviously doing it to hurt women.
It's puritanism all over again. posted by spazzm at 9:51 AM on November 1, 2003
Since when is mob rule suddenly OK as long as it's girls vs. "dirty old men"? posted by dagnyscott at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2003
Female violence against men is seen as entertaining and 'good'
Not by me, it's not.
I don't agree that a man is threatening a woman merely by being nude, it's dependent on context. Exposing oneself to someone who hasn't contracted you for it can be construed as threatening, regardless of the gender of who's doing it.
And for the record, I don't approve of what these girls did. Vigilanteism isn't okay just because it's chock full of ironic goodness. posted by biscotti at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2003
While we're on the subject of nudity - when a man is nude, he's implicitly threatening women. When a woman is nude, she's being repressed by men.
No. When a person imposes his or her nudity on others, it is fundamentally different from when a person agrees to fulfill someone's fantasy by being nude. Women who check out a show at chippendale's don't file police reports. Again, do you understand the difference between rape and sex? Consent is vital to sexual matters. Flashing is different from stripping because the flasher does not have consent.
Female violence against men is seen as entertaining and 'good'
What?
- we all know the cartoon stereotype of the wife waiting for the husband with a rolling-pin in her hand -
I guess child abuse is 'good' too, since we all know the stereotype of homer wringing bart's neck...
while male violence against females are (rightfully) considered very, very bad.
This has only been the case for about 30 years or so. Before that it was perhaps, rather uncouth, or something, but certainly not the business of courts.
Yet it turns out domestic violence by women against men is common, and for some actually a problem.
And just like female domestic abuse, this issue is getting more attention and being taken more seriously as more victims come forward. A recent thread got into this topic... posted by mdn at 10:26 AM on November 1, 2003
"I guess child abuse is 'good' too, since we all know the stereotype of homer wringing bart's neck..."
When there is a thread on child abuse, you don't see comments like " I love this!" and "Awesome" (see previously in this thread).
While the perp certainly deserved it, it seems to be a trend that violence by women is ok, because when women do it it's, you know, cool. posted by spazzm at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2003
While the perp certainly deserved it,
maybe this has more to do with the "awesome" comments...
it seems to be a trend that violence by women is ok, because when women do it it's, you know, cool.
than this unsupported supposition. When women commit child abuse, people don't say it's "awesome", do they? posted by mdn at 10:50 AM on November 1, 2003
mdn:
My apologies - should have specified that I meant violence by women against men, as relating to violence by men against women. posted by spazzm at 10:55 AM on November 1, 2003
Catholic, school girls rule...
...violent mobs of same, more so. posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:23 PM on November 1, 2003
could someone please tell me why taking off clothes is a crime? and why beating him up is not?
he surely is sick. but he did no bodily harm to anyone. i remember vacationing in a town in italy (a catholic country i hear) when i saw a guy doing just that in front of a girls school. i took a picture, with one old woman shaking her head in the background. A nun waved to him saying 'go away'. the girls, from what i saw, laughed.
and, also, "corrupting the morals of a minor" as a crime charge? welcome to the land of the saudi... posted by bokononito at 3:47 PM on November 1, 2003
You know, the thread actually began with a whole bunch of comments about how 'cute' or 'sexy' it was - not, yeah beat those evil men, but, isn't it adorable when girlies try to stand up for themselves... There were a few comments basically saying this was a fantasy - and the reason for that is that generally speaking, 14 year old girls do not pose a threat to grown men. Grown men, on the other hand, have the capacity, should they choose to exercise it, of harming 14 year old girls, or forcing them to do things they don't want to do. Because they have that power, exposing themselves is a reference to that - it says, I can make you see something you didn't want to see, and if I wanted to, I could make you do something you don't want to do.
The reverse is simply not the case - women in general do not pose a threat to men in general. A man walking alone at night is not generally made nervous by a woman walking in the vicinity. I do martial arts, where we do sparring without weight classes. I can tell you from personal experience how massively different it feels to fight someone significantly smaller than you, who simply doesn't seem capable of really hurting you, versus someone significantly larger than you, who you are viscerally aware could cause physical harm. Skill makes up for some of that, but it's interesting to note that that feeling exists, especially when you start out. I think people who are naturally larger/stronger don't have much conception of how frightening other people can feel to individuals who are particularly on the smaller/weaker side of things. Even height makes a lot of difference - I've long thought that some kind of force-field height equalizer would be a really interesting invention - so that when you walk into the office, eg, everyone's at eye level with each other (I know it would be a massive energy drain for no good reason, even if someone could figure out how to do it, but I still think it would be really interesting to see how behaviour and attitudes were affected.)
where was I? Yeah, look, I don't support vigilante justice, and don't think what these girls did was "awesome", but I think it's completely different for someone to support a weaker victim who strikes back than it is to support a stronger aggressor who strikes first. And I'm pretty sure you appreciate that difference too. posted by mdn at 4:11 PM on November 1, 2003
i speak not the english good. so too kind you will be prior to i am wonder is why 'predator' call to name weenie wagger and mr. kenneth lay given to name 'former ceo'? america crazy and wild of place. posted by quonsar at 4:17 PM on November 1, 2003
mdn: While your generalizations about size are, well, generally true - the fact remains that numbers matter more than size if fisticuffs. This single man posed no physical threat to a group of 3 girls.
Try the old genders-juxtaposition:
What if three teenage boys decided that a street prostitute was 'exposing' herself in an 'indecent' manner, and proceeded to beat her up and handle her over to the police, who happily jailed the hooker. Then the boys received words of praise in the local press. posted by spazzm at 7:00 PM on November 1, 2003
Doh. "matter more than size in fisticuffs". posted by spazzm at 7:01 PM on November 1, 2003
and proceeded to beat her up and handle her over to the police
Heh. Nice phraseology.
But if you really are not just trolling, spazzm, look: Your analogies are poor. For one thing, if you wanna "just switch genders" in an example, you have to switch all the social constructs, assumptions and history that goes with them. But even if you did, you're also working with faulty premises, with hyperbole, as with your declaration that "violence by women against men" is just generally considered "cool." Get real. posted by soyjoy at 7:46 PM on November 1, 2003
"[...] you have to switch all the social constructs, assumptions and history that goes with them."
What do you mean? Is differential treatment of people based on what they where born as ok if it's somehow caused by "social constructs, assumptions and history"?
And do you not agree that some of the comments in this thread, as well as the tone of the linked article, seems to laud the violent actions of these young women? posted by spazzm at 8:31 PM on November 1, 2003
Face it, you guys, profiling based on gender is just plain okey-dokey! posted by mischief at 9:11 PM on November 1, 2003
mischief: Apparently. posted by spazzm at 10:30 PM on November 1, 2003
What do you mean? Is differential treatment of people based on what they where born as ok if it's somehow caused by "social constructs, assumptions and history"?
There's no time where it's not caused by that. That's why you can't just switch one person for another. A man repeatedly, compulsively exposing his genitals to schoolchildren is not equivalent to a prostitute in scanty clothes waiting for a john. Teenage boys chasing down someone and beating them up, as teenage boys are wont to do and have done throughout modern history, is a different phenomenon from one trio of girls fighting back against one flasher. If you have some other more cogent news stories to support your "trend" theory, let's hear 'em, cause this one don't fit it. People giggling about the irony and cultural resonance of this man-bites-dog story does not, to my eyes, signify a trend. posted by soyjoy at 10:42 PM on November 1, 2003
I acknowledge that what the girls did was illegal. I am not a big fan of violence. That being said, I still think that this is pretty awesome. posted by Joey Michaels at 12:02 AM on November 2, 2003
"Teenage boys chasing down someone and beating them up, as teenage boys are wont to do and have done throughout modern history, is a different phenomenon from one trio of girls fighting back against one flasher."
So you keep saying. But you do not explain why.
Why is it ok to beat flashers, and not prostitutes?
After all, it's only a question of degrees of exposure.
Note that I'm not advocating violence about sex workers, I'd just like to have an explanation. posted by spazzm at 12:48 AM on November 2, 2003
"violence against sex workers"...sorry. posted by spazzm at 12:49 AM on November 2, 2003
After all, it's only a question of degrees of exposure.
No, it's a question of threat. The hooker would not pose any threat to the boys. She wouldn't have the capacity to rape them, and she very likely wouldn't have the size to be a physical threat to them. Again, I don't support the actions of these girls, but they were responding to his actions. Boys beating a hooker wouldn't be.
My point about the size thing was that this guy probably felt more threatening to the girls than reason would necessarily entail. In reality, men have a pretty accessible achille's heel, but plenty of women pay hundreds of dollars to take self-defense workshops that basically teach them what seems obvious - yell no & kick him in the balls. It's a little befuddling, but I think the basic reason is that the sense of disparity is visceral, and your body feels fear. It's not a cognitive thing. Those workshops let those women habituate something that wouldn't have occurred to many of them, because the instinct is not to fight when someone's bigger than you.
The attackers know this, too, or feel it too; this guy didn't feel wary of three girls. When the victims strike back, it makes it seem like maybe other aggressors will think twice next time, which is why I think people were cheering the girls on.
But like I said, the thread started with a bunch of jokes about how cute and sexy this was! What do you make of that? Can you imagine similar reactions to boys standing up to an aggressor? posted by mdn at 5:10 AM on November 2, 2003
I say good on the girls for defending themselves. posted by dabitch at 6:29 AM on November 2, 2003
mdn: As I pointed out above, it was not a question of threat - even a grown man can be defeated by three girls. Relative body size is simply not a factor when the numbers are 3 to 1. Besides, you're assuming that this guy was huge and the hooker in my thought experiment was petite - this may not necessarily be the case.
And the boys would be responding to her actions if she exposed herself.
Your attempt at an answer leaves my curiosity unsatisfied - why is it (all other things like body size and degree of nudeness being equal) okay to beat flashers who are exposing themselves, an not hookers who are exposing themselves?
"Can you imagine similar reactions to boys standing up to an aggressor?"
If by 'aggressor' you mean 'naked person' - I can quite easily imagine the reaction in the media to three young boys beating a hooker for acting 'indecent', yes. I'm pretty sure no-one would consider it cute. Why is it laudable when girls do something which, apart from them being girls, is essentially the same thing? posted by spazzm at 7:07 AM on November 2, 2003
spazzm, I still find it hard to believe you're not just trolling, because your analogies are so absurd.
Let's put aside the fact that you like to talk in generalities about a 'trend,' then when we explain the general state of social status/physical size/sexual history intersections between males and females, you rush back to this one exceptional incident (again, if you have others to cite, let's see 'em) as if it's the defining example. That's just sloppy debating.
But specifically, you've put forward a scenario you say is analogous and then wondered if and why people's reaction would be different. When disparities have been pointed out, you've claimed that there may be specifics in the situation that you didn't mention previously. So let's hear it - what is this analogous situation you want us to parse? Is the prostitute repeatedly going to a schoolyard, picking out particular boys, and positioning herself (with flashlight?) so they have to gaze at her fully exposed genitals? Is she wearing some kind of trenchcoat or other overwear that can disguise what she was just doing, so the boys would not have other recourse in trying to stop/apprehend her after she does this (e.g. "officer, you know that prostitute that dresses like so? She's been repeatedly exposing herself to the kids")? What exactly is the size/weight relationship between her and each of the boys as you see it? Are the boys somehow part of a subset of teenagers not known for vigilantism or violent acting-out, so that their now-violent reaction would be fundamentally ironic?
Spill it. What's the story you're proposing? I posit that if you somehow came up with a true analogy on all terms, then yeah, the reaction might be similar. (Again, that reaction is bemusement at the irony, the turning-the-tables dynamic, not mischief's lame "profiling based on gender.") But if significant portions of the situation are non-analogous, then don't be surprised if the reactions are also different. posted by soyjoy at 9:05 AM on November 2, 2003
Men can be victims of sexism too.... posted by SpaceCadet at 9:48 AM on November 2, 2003
soyjoy: Take the scenario you provided, if you like. Would it be laudable for the boys to "kick her ass" under the circumstances you describe? Yes, I know it's unlikely, but why is this thought experiment so unpalatable? Is it because male violence towards women is so strictly sanctioned by society, while female violence towards men is all but condoned?
It's astonishing how few are even willing to admit that females perpetrate violence against males, and the strength of the emotions that are stirred up by implying that all men might not be rapists and all women might not be saints.
"[...] a subset of teenagers not known for vigilantism or violent acting-out [...]"
The article mentions nothing about the reputations of the kicking girls. Unless you mean to imply that they have good reputations and are non-violent simply because they are girls. posted by spazzm at 10:13 AM on November 2, 2003
"They'd had 'a mock fight', they both giggled, in which she'd broken his finger. Hilarious."
Interesting read, SpaceCadet. posted by spazzm at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2003
spazzm, we live in the age of gender McCarthyism where you can't hold any possible view that might be considered anti-feminist without being thought of as some kind of outsider or general threat to society (the way McCarthy called you a "commie" if you didn't agree to very specific ideology).
Modern feminism has perverted the original ideology of feminism (which by dictionary definition is "equality amongst the genders") and co-opted the movement as a way to seek privilige and advantage for women. This is why we're at the point where it's hilarious to mock men who've been battered, or generally hold the view in marketing and advertising that men are idiots, unsophisticated, clumsy, slow etc and it's all good humour. Men have become not only the bogeymen (potential rapists/abusers), but also the clowns too, when it suits the situation. posted by SpaceCadet at 1:15 PM on November 2, 2003
will someone please tell me what possible threat a man who "repeatedly, compulsively expos[es] his genitals to schoolchildren" represents? all our lives we have read accounts of the arrests of men who "repeatedly, compulsively expos[e] [the] genitals to schoolchildren". that's what the fuckers DO - THEY WAG THEIR WEENIES. DO YOU SUPPOSE WAGGING A WEENIE AT A CHILD INCITES A CHILD TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY? perhaps that is the fantasy of the chronic weenie wagger, perhaps it's even YOUR fear or fantasy, but in reality this is so doubtful as to be ludicrous. why not just ask your kid about that, for christ's sake? how about asking an expert? this kind of behavior is no mystery, and far from unfamiliar to authorities of every stripe from medical to religious to military to law enforcement. it is the act of exposure and the reaction to it which serial waggers seek. please delineate the precise manner in which the 'victims' are or were harmed? tell me, does the pattern of optical impulses formed by the image of a penis, traveling along the nerves to the cortex of a pre-teen somehow scar the vision, OR the psyche, in ANY demonstrable manner? do the optical nerves acheive some resistance to this dreaded imagery prior to the age of consent? this whole sequence of events is frosted with bullshit right out of the gate - driven by media 'predator' mythology, and a dark, sick fear of our own (and especially, our childrens) genitalia. 'predator'. [here, q issues a snort of derision.] what would you call that sick fucking beast in the white house? those schoolgirls are, unlike thier victim, violent and unrepentant criminals bathing in the laudatory noise of a nation of sex-crazed morons. posted by quonsar at 1:23 PM on November 2, 2003
there was a real picture posted of these girls. They aren't little girls. They're big Philly girls who do pose a serious threat, I think, to anyone who upsets them.... and that should be considered cause for legal action against them.
That said, there should also be legal action against the man. What he did was very wrong. But the key term is legal action, not violent vigelante-ism. posted by dagnyscott at 2:18 PM on November 2, 2003
SpaceCadet & Spazzm, as I've said on this thread and the other one, I think the fundamental pharse in that article was "since the 1970's" we've seen domestic abuse of women as a monstrous crime. For thousands of years before that, it was simply part of the deal. I think now the reverse abuse, which is far less common, is getting the proper attention it absolutely does deserve.
will someone please tell me what possible threat a man who "repeatedly, compulsively expos[es] his genitals to schoolchildren" represents?
I addressed this above: he has the capacity to rape; he is specifically taking pleasure in his ability to override the consent of those he exposes himself to (since he's exposing himself to people who specifically do not want to see what he's showing), and so implicitly referencing that capacity.
Would it be laudable for the boys to "kick her ass" under the circumstances you describe? Yes, I know it's unlikely, but why is this thought experiment so unpalatable?
she can't sexually assault them, though. Again, I don't condone what these girls did, and I appreciate the need to take seriously the female on male violence, but there is a fundamental dynamic at work that simply can't be reversed. posted by mdn at 4:58 PM on November 2, 2003
I think now the reverse abuse, which is far less common, is getting the proper attention it absolutely does deserve
You are wrong about the bit where you say it's far less common:-
mdn, I know your views are very extreme when it comes to feminism, but to argue for it at the expense of accuracy is futile. We are all privy to the truth now the spread of information has reached every corner. You can't pass such general stereotypes anymore ("far less common for a woman to be violent towards a man"). Your view is an anachronism. Do you feel your view dying out? I do.
Let's hear it for the truth! posted by SpaceCadet at 5:57 PM on November 2, 2003
she can't sexually assault them, though
I normally agree with you, mdn, but not here. Of course she can sexually assault them, you don't need a penis to do that. posted by biscotti at 6:41 PM on November 2, 2003
"I addressed this above: he has the capacity to rape [...]"
Almost any male has the physical capacity for rape - but in a just society one is generally judged by what one has done or intend to do, not what one could do.
And that "overriding that consent of" line just doesn't ring true - that would mean anyone who dabbles in bondage is a potential rapist.
"she can't sexually assault them, though."
So it's her lack of a penis that absolves her? I have to point out that, while I don't defend his particular choice of perversion, the flasher didn't rape anyone either. He might have had the capacity to do so, but so does any man.
That's the problem with a lot of modern day debate on gender equality - it's ok to freely exchange the words "male" and "potential rapist". posted by spazzm at 6:46 PM on November 2, 2003
And that "overriding that consent of" line just doesn't ring true - that would mean anyone who dabbles in bondage is a potential rapist.
what do you mean? Bondage is consensual, or if it's not, it's some kind of torture...
Of course she can sexually assault them, you don't need a penis to do that.
yeah, I dunno, it's a cloudy area, I guess. I mean, I hesitated with that statement... Maybe it isn't about capacity but likelihood? You don't hear of females raping males. Of course, perhaps that's another underreported area, like the domestic violence thing.
mdn, I know your views are very extreme when it comes to feminism, but to argue for it at the expense of accuracy is futile.
I don't think my views are extreme. In any case, I am completely open to revising them, and do not insist on things if I am shown evidence that refutes them. Please do not be an asshole. Just present the counter-information respectfully, and I will correct my mistaken assumptions. I appreciate the link you provided. I think it is worth pointing out that perhaps part of the reason things like that get underreported is due to a kind of anti-feminist macho man attitude, where it is considered embarassing to be physically hurt by a woman. In other words, perhaps you & I have more common ground than you think.
the flasher didn't rape anyone either. He might have had the capacity to do so, but so does any man.
But why does he want to show his dick to people who don't want to see it? There's a power dynamic thing going on that's not totally unrelated, don't you think? Most men don't engage sexually with people who aren't interested. This guy's level of sexual engagement is far more limited than a rapist's, but the difference between sex / rape is analogous to the difference between strip club / flasher. posted by mdn at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2003
Spazzm - Hate to break it to you but in some cases, men who start off with relatively mild forms of criminal sexual behavior, such as voyeurism and exhibitionism, do escalate into more serious crimes such as rape. Not all, some.
I can understand the girl's rage. You don't go about your daily activities expecting someone to show you their genitalia, rub his crotch up against you/fondle you while you are on public transportation - do you? When it happens, you feel enraged and helpless. Helpless because this is not something you're prepared to deal with - you didn't do anything to encourage the behavior. Enraged because by this act, the individual is, in effect, saying you don't have the right to your own body - they can take it from you. They can MAKE you see them naked. They can put their hand under your skirt or rub their erect penis against your hip, whether you want it or not. The implied threat is that they would do worse if they got a chance.
In moments when this has happened to me I momentarily wish that I had the body mass of a man so I could kick his ass, then I realize that he wouldn't even be bothering me if he believed I posed a real physical threat to him. Then I get more angry and feel even more impotent, which is the exactly what the sick fuck is looking for.
I could definitely see how a mob of young women who had put up with this asshole's weenie-wagging for a month would lash out when the tables were turned. It's not pretty, but it's human.
Spazzm, if it was a group of 10 year old boys who did the asskicking in this case, would you be crying foul quite as loudly as you are now? posted by echolalia67 at 8:29 PM on November 2, 2003
"what do you mean? Bondage is consensual, or if it's not, it's some kind of torture..."
Yes, it's consensual, but restraining someone's movement is a form of overriding their consent - even if it's just a game. So by the rationale that flashers are potential rapists (because they enjoy overriding the consent of others) then the same must be true for the BDSM crowd.
"But why does he want to show his dick to people who don't want to see it?"
I have no idea, but the fact that he did does not make him a rapist. The comparison between flashing and rape is, as I've shown above, based on flawed logic.
"Hate to break it to you but in some cases, men who start off with relatively mild forms of criminal sexual behavior, such as voyeurism and exhibitionism, do escalate into more serious crimes such as rape. Not all, some"
Of course you have lots of psychological literature to support this claim so I'm not even going to bother asking. But the key word here is "some". Flashing is not rape, irregardless of wether it (allegedly) leads to it in some cases.
"You don't go about your daily activities expecting someone to show you their genitalia, rub his crotch up against you/fondle you while you are on public transportation - do you?"
Of course not. But if I happened to see some naked genitalia, I wouldn't react with violence. I only use violence for defense - and I don't mean defense of my "moral purity".
"They can put their hand under your skirt or rub their erect penis against your hip, [...]"
That all sounds fun, but that's not what we're discussing here - the man in the article exposed himself, but he did not molest the girls physically, nor was there any indication that he intended to do so.
"Spazzm, if it was a group of 10 year old boys who did the asskicking in this case, would you be crying foul quite as loudly as you are now?"
I probably wouldn't have to - male violence is already heavily sanctioned by society. The boys would be far more likely to face consequences for their vigilantism. And I must point out that I did not intend to cry foul - I'm just asking questions.
Which brings us back to the original question - why is female-on-male violence ok, but male-on-female violence isn't?
All the explanations I've received so far seem initially plausible, but on closer inspection they are shown to be flawed. posted by spazzm at 11:15 PM on November 2, 2003
mdn :she can't sexually assault them, though
mdn, sexual assault does not only equate to only a man pentrating a woman (rape). Sexual assault is about power and control (I think even most modern feminists agree here). A child is most like to be abused (physically/sexually/through neglect) by their mother than anyone else, for example. Please read that link. The mother is never seen as a "bogeyman" though in society. Why is that? These are the questions being asked on this thread as to why modern society shrugs it's shoulders to female violence and sexual abuse.
I think it is worth pointing out that perhaps part of the reason things like that get underreported is due to a kind of anti-feminist macho man attitude, where it is considered embarassing to be physically hurt by a woman
Or perhaps it's down to stereotypes we are talking about, where a man can expect ridicule when he reports that he's been beaten by his wife? (Never mind if it's something like having hot water poured onto him while he was asleep). Or perhaps it's due to the fact that domestic violence laws are heavily in favour of women, from 40 years of modern feminism? If a man calls the police regarding a domestic violence incident, he will be the one removed from his home, whether he's victim of perpetrator.
Spazzm, if it was a group of 10 year old boys who did the asskicking in this case, would you be crying foul quite as loudly as you are now?
They would be questioned by the police and referred to their GP who would no doubt put each one on a course of Ritalin. They would be seen as "unruly" and "delinquent", not "empowered" and a "potent force" (mentioned above) as kicking girls would be seen. See the difference? Isn't feminism for equality? How about equality here! Treat perpetrators of violence the same, and not give female perpetrators "mitigating circumstances". There should be none, except in physical self-defence. posted by SpaceCadet at 3:46 AM on November 3, 2003
I would like to vent a personal frustration at this point: the fact that male genitalia are still considered taboo in most contexts.
In Europe you will regularly see nude women in all forms of advertising and in regular television programming, but it is still rare to see a penis. Anyone who has spent any time at a nude beach will certainly agree that, even to the most puritanical westerner, after a couple of hours of viewing various and sundry, the big, bad horrible penis becomes pretty bland stuff. Whenever there is such a mindless censorship of nature, strange things are likely to happen.
That said, I've been the target of flashers more than once, and I always knew that the intent was aggressive. I reacted as I usually do when when someone is aggressive towards me, which is to (when possible) deflate their balloon, so I laughed and pointed. But I was a lot older than these girls, and, travelling back in time, I think I would have simply been terrified if it had happened to me when I was 15 and alone, but, maybe, if I were with my girls, I would have done the same thing these girls did. Maybe the question to be addressed here is not so much a male/female thing, but an age thing; if I tease a young child, I shouldn't be surprised if they just throw a ABC block at my head instead of simply marvelling at how ridiculous I am. posted by taz at 5:13 AM on November 3, 2003
and... another thing occurs to me: the difference between a flasher (aggressive behaviour) and someone just walking around with their dick out. The flasher is intently focusing on your face to see your reaction (and get their kicks) the other guy is usually drooling and staring nowhere in particular. Even at 15 I wouldn't have been scared by the second guy. posted by taz at 5:33 AM on November 3, 2003
taz I agree with you regarding nudism. I see nothing wrong with showing off the human body in it's full form, male or female. From a male perspective, the novelty value of nudity wears of on a nudist beach after about 5 minutes.
Clothes do the damage: they titilate and it's interesting that "sexiness" is equated with revealing as much of the body as possible, but not quite all. It plays with the idea of showing (or almost showing) that which should not be shown - in the same way, the flasher mind-set is the same - revealing that which should not be shown. Nudism bypasses this titilation altogether.
On the same side of the coin as male-flashing, isn't it hypocritical to say it's OK for women to wear provocative clothing (provocative to the male eye), yet complain when a man provokes a reaction from a women (albeit rather clumsily) by flashing? Both provoke. Neither provocation was asked for. posted by SpaceCadet at 6:16 AM on November 3, 2003
I wouldn't say so. Most provocative female clothing is used (however clumsily) to attract, whereas most flashers aren't motivated by the desire to "attract", and, in fact, would probably be repelled or discouraged if someone were actually attracted by their bad, bad behaviour. posted by taz at 6:32 AM on November 3, 2003
but taz, neither provocation was asked for. You're legitimising one simply because the provocoteur wants to attract whereas the other (you assume) doesn't want to attract. What's the difference to the person provoked? Is it the assumption that men always want to be sexually stimulated (they always want to be provoked into thinking sexual thoughts)? Actually we don't! So there's your conundrum. I guess you'll tell men not to look, but it's the same as telling the school-girls not to look. They not only looked, but got incensed enough to chase the guy and kick the living daylights out of him. posted by SpaceCadet at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2003
From the article soyjoy linked: "He just starts walking real slow with it just out," the ninth- grader said.
"He walked real slow like it was OK."
"he was like 'what did I do? I did not do anything,' " Kopicko recalled.
You know what would be funny?
If this guy was really just absent-minded and forgot to zip his fly. :D
Imagine the shock and trauma of walking along, thinking about what you're going to have for dinner, when suddenly you're attacked by a mob of screaming teenagers.
Ha-ha. posted by spazzm at 7:17 AM on November 3, 2003
SpaceCadet: The difference between something intended to attract me and something intended to shock and frighten me are, indeed, very different things; I think I already made a point of saying that a clear view of a penis is not something that, in itself, would send me off screaming - even at a tender age.
spazzm: This is a funny thought, especially when you imagine that he was absent-minded in exactly the same place so many times before. posted by taz at 7:38 AM on November 3, 2003
"They can put their hand under your skirt or rub their erect penis against your hip, [...]"
That all sounds fun, but that's not what we're discussing here - the man in the article exposed himself, but he did not molest the girls physically, nor was there any indication that he intended to do so.
spazzm: I hope you're joking, really. What I described has everything to do with the topic at hand, in that it's about someone imposing their sexual desires on someone who doesn't want anything to do with it.
We had a "dirty old man" living in my neighborhood when I was a kid. All of my playmates were scared of him, he was the neighborhood boogeyman. The adults dismissed him as a "funny uncle" and told us to ignore him. We had no idea what he wanted to do to any of us, all we knew was that he exposed his penis to us and he was interested in doing something "bad". It's easy as an adult to dismiss a guy like him as a harmless loser, but to a child a guy like that can be percieved as a genuine threat. I remember that we used to fantasize about having our dads beat the guy up - anger and agression are natural reactions to someone imposing themselves on you in such an intimate and unwelcome way.
As for the question about the 10 year old boy, instead of going on an anti-feminist rant, why don't you put yourself in the place of one of those children and then judge. I'd be no less sympathetic if the kids in question were boys or girls. I'd understand if I had a child and he/she reacted this way to an unwanted sexual act - I'd advise them not to take the law into their own hands and let authorities handle it. Inside, however, I'd feel as I do in this situation, that the bastard had it coming, if for nothing else, assuming that his unwilling audience would just sit back and take it. posted by echolalia67 at 12:14 PM on November 3, 2003
All being said, the best reaction I heard of was when a guy walked up to a friend with his penis out, thrust it in her face, and said "Suck it, bitch". She just happened to have a megaphone in her hands so she directed it right at him and said "that looks just like a penis, only smaller" at top volume. posted by echolalia67 at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2003
"What I described has everything to do with the topic at hand, in that it's about someone imposing their sexual desires on someone who doesn't want anything to do with it."
No, it does not, as pointed out above. If you can't see the difference between raping someone and being naked, I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.
"[...] instead of going on an anti-feminist rant [...]"
Where did I say anything about feminism or feminists?
"This is a funny thought, especially when you imagine that he was absent-minded in exactly the same place so many times before."
According to, you must admit, the testimony of teenagers with a bent for vigilantism. I'm not saying he didn't - I don't know - I'm saying we all have already judged him because he's male and his accusers are girls. posted by spazzm at 2:34 PM on November 3, 2003
Classic defense, spazzm - "she made it all up" - only here it's times three. Well, sorry, but
D'oh! So much for that "testimony of teenagers with a bent for vigilantism" angle. Unless the fact that the school president is also female makes her suspect as well.
D'oh! So much for the "we always cheer girls beating up on men" angle.
So to sum up, yet again -
* People "cheering on" the "schoolgirls" are doing so in reaction to the irony, rather than literally condoning anti-male violence
* Any "trend" of mainstream culture celebrating women attacking men must await its secondfirst example, as this one fails miserably. posted by soyjoy at 2:54 PM on November 3, 2003
No, it does not, as pointed out above. If you can't see the difference between raping someone and being naked, I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.
Taking your clothes off at a nude beach/ at a resort where most people expect nudity and don't consider it to be a big deal - being naked. Hanging out at home with no clothes on - being naked. Taking your clothes off at a sex club - being naked. Taking out your genitals and waving them at someone in an environment where no one expects/wants to see a naked person, like a high school for example, for your personal gratification - imposing your sexual desires on someone who is not a willing participant.
I'm not saying it's rape, but it's still unexpected and/or unwelcome on the part of the flashee and therefore an agressive act on the part of the flasher. It's not about it being men or women, or boys or girls - if it was a woman mastrubating in front of a boys high school or a couple "doing it" for the thrill of being discovered/seen, it's the same thing. The reaction of the flashee might be different, but it's still an imposition of the flasher's sexuality on an unwary/unwilling audience. posted by echolalia67 at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2003
soyjoy: Yes, all very impressive - but still no explanation of why female violence and nudity is more tolerated than male violence and nudity. posted by spazzm at 3:30 PM on November 3, 2003
"It's not about it being men or women, or boys or girls - if it was a woman mastrubating in front of a boys high school [...]"
And the question I've asked (and still have not received a satisfactory response to) is: If what you describe above was the case (woman masturbating outside of boys high school) and the boys beat her up, would we still see the kind of comments we've seen in this thread? Would the parents express their pride in the local paper?
Now, someone pointed out above that the woman does not have the capacity of raping the boys, to which the response is :
1. There is no proof that the flasher intended to rape anyone.
2. Does that mean anyone without a penis can act in any way she/he pleases, no matter how offensive?
3. (This is the most important one) women are perfectly capable of committing sexual abuse - most child sex abuse is done by the mother, as previously pointed out.
"People "cheering on" the "schoolgirls" are doing so in reaction to the irony, rather than literally condoning anti-male violence"
And you have of course read the mind of every person who's posted in this thread, so I can see no point in doubting your assertion regarding their reactions and what caused them.
"Any "trend" of mainstream culture celebrating women attacking men must await its second first example, as this one fails miserably."
Oh, come now. Male-on-female violence is almost completely absent from the repertoire of mainstream movie heroes (when did James Bond beat up a chick? Once or twice, perhaps.) while female heroes (Charlie's Angles, for example) kick male ass left right and center. Are you seriously telling me that if the roles were reversed people would not bat an eyelid? posted by spazzm at 3:48 PM on November 3, 2003
So by the rationale that flashers are potential rapists (because they enjoy overriding the consent of others) then the same must be true for the BDSM crowd.
no, because the difference between a game and not a game is a big fucking difference! The difference between consensual bondage and non-consensual bondage would be huge. If people want to consent to playing a "flasher" game with each other, that's their business; non-consensual exposure is something different.
No, it does not, as pointed out above. If you can't see the difference between raping someone and being naked, I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.
Obviously they're different, just like going to a strip club is different from having sex. But they're not completely unrelated. posted by mdn at 6:55 PM on November 3, 2003
I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.
You've hit the nail on the head. We already dispensed with your agressive, serial, flashlight-wielding prostitute who somehow poses an implicit rape threat to the boys (with the flashlight, perhaps? Because otherwise, again, the analogy fails in its relevant details), but here she is dragged back in. I've knocked down your blase suppositions with facts and you shrug it off and continue asking the same rhetorical questions without addressing the facts at all, instead just claiming that you still have the question. So, yeah, given that, I don't see any point in going further with this. I'll leave it to mdn with her "extreme views of feminism" (chortle) to carry on if she wants.
Before I go, though, I can't leave this bullshit about "most child sex abuse is done by the mother" sitting here to stink up the thread. Patently absurd, hideously offensive, and it's a clear indication of spazzm's mindset that this would make sense to him, and he would call it a "most important" point. Well, surprise, surprise, if you look at the actual data that was linked, it says exactly the opposite.
First and foremost, there are five times as many single mothers as single fathers, so it would be a surprise if any data based on raw numbers did not put them in a higher percentile in every category (e.g. if individual behavior were exactly equivalent, we should see womens' percentages all at five times mens'). Then comes the fact that the overall "maltreatment" data includes the abuse of "neglect," which we're not discussing here, and yes, mothers have a higher percentile in that category (we won't get into how many of these mothers got into a situation where "they" were neglecting their children). If we look, however, at what spazzm so casually claimed, "most child sex abuse is done by the mother," we see that, no, within the maltreatment subcategory "Sexual Abuse," a MALE parent acting alone is the perpetrator more than five times as often as a FEMALE parent acting alone - the only categories in which mothers are measured against fathers. So in ONE-FIFTH of the total number of situations, fathers are sexually abusing children FIVE TIMES as often as mothers - in other words, a full TWENTY-FIVE TIMES AS OFTEN. For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so. And spazzm has the gall to say "most child sex abuse is done by the mother."
When men are so desperate to hold onto their privileged position, to hold back the inevitable cultural shift that is empowering women, that they stoop to despicable lies like this - or just as bad, believe them without examination - when they malign and defame mothers for a crime so thoroughly, historically and currently owned by men, there's no point in trying to have an honest argument. It may, in fact, provide the answer, spazzm, to the question you keep asking.
Hope that's useful to ya, cause it's all you're getting out of me. G'night. posted by soyjoy at 8:04 PM on November 3, 2003
"because the difference between a game and not a game is a big fucking difference!"
Yes, but you have to admit that there's also a difference between being nude without asking the permission of people in your immediate vicinity, and tying someone up.
While the first one is illegal, the second one isn't (assuming consent of course) - but the point is that both create a feeling of overriding someone else consent. Someone earlier made the case that the fantasy of overriding consent was what made flashing a precursor to rape. But while there is no real overriding of consent in BDSM, there's no real physical restraint or rape in flashing, either.
"We already dispensed with your aggressive, serial, flashlight-wielding prostitute [...]"
No, we haven't. I tried to provide a thought example analogous to the linked story, but you added the "aggressive, flashlight-wielding" part. And you have not dispensed with it - my point still stands that if the sexes where reversed and the boys beat up the prostitute, there would have been far less praise.
"And spazzm has the gall to say "most child sex abuse is done by the mother."
From the link you posted: "A "Mother Only" was reported as the perpetrator for 40.0 percent of child victims (figure 4-2). A "Father Only" accounted for 16.6 percent of victims, and "Both Parents" accounted for 18.7 percent."
I looks like the data is actually supporting my claim, but that's not the issue - the issue is that females are capable and frequently carry out sexual abuse. This was also the context in which the factoid was originally brought to your attention.
The point was made that the non-flashlight-wielding naked prostitute would not be deserving a beating because she couldn't sexually abuse the boys, to which some helpful soul pointed out that females are, in fact, not only capable but frequently guilty of doing just that.
If have "gall" for pointing out the facts to you, then I sincerely apologize - but I continue to be amazed at the level of ferocity this debate can inspire in otherwise sane individuals. posted by spazzm at 8:50 PM on November 3, 2003
"are capable of and frequently carry out". Sorry. posted by spazzm at 9:26 PM on November 3, 2003
"For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so."
I don't know how you arrived at that figure, but it can not be supported by the data you linked. Which I think you'll have to admit if you calm down, take a deep breath, read a statistics textbook and re-read the deduction that lead you that statement. :) posted by spazzm at 9:34 PM on November 3, 2003
"For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so."
There are lies, damned lies, and fabricated soyjoy statistics.
My original link was to highlight that mothers are the most likely to abuse their children. Not the strange paedophile lurking outside the playground. Not the father. Not the uncle. Not the brother. The mother. Child abuse in any form (physical/sexual/neglect) is dispicable, yet we profile the wrong people as dangers to our children. Why do we do that? Could it be modern feminist brainwashing that tries to send the subliminal message that women are morally superior to men?
Question to mdn, echolalia67 and soyjoy:-
Do you believe women are morally superior to men?
Lastly, I wish we could lose our hangups with the naked male body. If we lost the hangups, flashers would lose all their "shock" power by showing us something that has an everyday context. Was the flasher going to jump on one of the girls in broad daylight? How many flashers have flashed, then raped their victim(s)? Shouldn't we just laugh at flashers or ignore them? Also nobody has answered my previous question:-
"On the same side of the coin as male-flashing, isn't it hypocritical to say it's OK for women to wear provocative clothing (provocative to the male eye), yet complain when a man provokes a reaction from a women (albeit rather clumsily) by flashing? Both provoke. Neither provocation was asked for."
Is this too awkward to answer? As pointed out:-
The reaction of the flashee might be different, but it's still an imposition of the flasher's sexuality on an unwary/unwilling audience
Men don't want female sexuality thrust in their faces 24/7 (stereotypes aside), yet we can't complain about it to the police (imagine the laughter). Isn't this hypocritical? posted by SpaceCadet at 2:14 AM on November 4, 2003
....and the pre-empt answers, it doesn't have to be a physical threat to be harrassment. posted by SpaceCadet at 2:17 AM on November 4, 2003
....and to pre-empt answers.....sigh posted by SpaceCadet at 2:20 AM on November 4, 2003
Do you believe women are morally superior to men?
No, of course not. Morality is not based on gender. What we're arguing here is much more a question of big dog/ underdog.
Lastly, I wish we could lose our hangups with the naked male body. If we lost the hangups, flashers would lose all their "shock" power by showing us something that has an everyday context.
I completely agree. I have even upset people around here by suggesting that rape is made worse by social stigma and the exaggerated power of male sexuality.
Was the flasher going to jump on one of the girls in broad daylight? How many flashers have flashed, then raped their victim(s)? Shouldn't we just laugh at flashers or ignore them?
My point earlier about the size thing was that this guy probably felt more threatening to the girls than reason would necessarily entail. In reality, men have a pretty accessible achille's heel, but plenty of women pay hundreds of dollars to take self-defense workshops that basically teach them what seems obvious - yell no & kick him in the balls. It's a little befuddling, but I think the basic reason is that the sense of disparity is visceral, and your body feels fear. It's not a cognitive thing. Those workshops let those women habituate something that wouldn't have occurred to many of them, because the instinct is not to fight when someone's bigger than you.
The attackers know this, too, or feel it too. The flasher probably gets a rush knowing he's freaking out these girls. A few weeks ago, I was walking in a hallway and a guy walking toward me stood in front of me and wouldn't let me pass - he thought it was funny, just kept moving to block the way, but he was a complete stranger and bigger than me and standing too close and obviously the one with power. It was no big deal, but it did make me feel kind of small and impotent. I mean, I said something like, "dude, what's your problem?" but of course he made that into a joke too - and there was no cause for actually physically doing anything, which I'm prepared to do if I'm threatened. The point is, women deal with this kind of stuff on a regular basis. Men are bigger and generally have control. It's not about morality; if women were bigger I'm sure we'd have developed the same sense of power (wasn't that a star trek episode?)
When the victims strike back, it makes it seem like maybe other aggressors will think twice next time, which is why I think people were cheering the girls on. But like I said, the thread started with a bunch of jokes about how cute and sexy it was, which would never have happened if boys had fought back against a flasher. If boys had fought back against a male flasher, they would probably have been generally supported. If they had fought against a female flasher, probably less so - but they certainly wouldn't have been belittled as cute and harmless.
"On the same side of the coin as male-flashing, isn't it hypocritical to say it's OK for women to wear provocative clothing (provocative to the male eye), yet complain when a man provokes a reaction from a women (albeit rather clumsily) by flashing? Both provoke. Neither provocation was asked for."
Men are perfectly welcome to wear revealing, provocative clothing. And women are equally barred from flashing. This is a false analogy. posted by mdn at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2003
spazzm & space - look at the table, the "sexual abuse column." Look at the chart, the "sexual abuse" bars - the medium-purple for mothers and fathers, respectively.
If you still can't see this, it's further evidence of how distorted your vision is. One more time:
"Most child sex abuse is done by the mother" is a pathetic, outright lie.
I'm not going to answer further rhetorical questions. Just wanted to make sure y'all could actually see the data. posted by soyjoy at 7:15 AM on November 4, 2003
soyjoy, please don't misrepresent my post which is:-
"A child is most likely to be abused (physically/sexually/through neglect) by their mother than anyone else, for example. "
(and your table actually confirms my quote)
And further:-
My original link was to highlight that mothers are the most likely to abuse their children. Not the strange paedophile lurking outside the playground. Not the father. Not the uncle. Not the brother. The mother. Child abuse in any form (physical/sexual/neglect) is dispicable, yet we profile the wrong people as dangers to our children. Why do we do that? Could it be modern feminist brainwashing that tries to send the subliminal message that women are morally superior to men?
I did not say:- "Most child sex abuse is done by the mother".
Please do not misrepresent my posts!!
mdn:Men are perfectly welcome to wear revealing, provocative clothing. And women are equally barred from flashing. This is a false analogy.
Says who? Oh, says you! Thanks for representing the whole of the male population there, but some of us do find certain female clothing....a.....hm, distraction at times. Sometimes it's welcome, sometimes it's just an unwelcome distraction. Isn't distraction in the eye of the beholder? Since the distraction is unprovoked, isn't it a form of harrassment? Personally, I couldn't care less......my point of this argument is that it's similar to flashing.....wanting to get a reaction, be it explicit or implicit. I don't care for flashers, nor scantily clad women.....in fact, I prefer to go the whole way and accept nudism as it by-passes the titilation of the human form (which I think is a perversion in itself - the titilation that is). posted by SpaceCadet at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2003
"A child is most likely to be abused (physically/sexually/through neglect) by their mother than anyone else, for example." (and your table actually confirms my quote)
*Scratches head* posted by dgaicun at 9:14 AM on November 4, 2003
Duh, space cadet, as I said repeatedly, the quote "Most child sex abuse is done by the mother" is from spazzm, who was specifically addressing sexual abuse (remember, the subject of the thread?). Your points about "neglect" abuse and any statistics thereof are irrelevant to this discussion. However, it's worth noting that even counting "neglect," your overall claim that "mothers are the most likely to abuse their children" is wrong because the numbers are determined by the total number of victims rather than the number of mothers and fathers, so the fivefold difference in raw numbers must be factored in. posted by soyjoy at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2003
Duh soy joy:-
spazzm & space (my emphasis) - look at the table, the "sexual abuse column." Look at the chart, the "sexual abuse" bars - the medium-purple for mothers and fathers, respectively.
soyjoy, my point is relevant. I was stating that we wrongly profile "stranger danger" as the main risk to children, when in fact, it's their very own mothers. Why is that? Nobody has yet answered this.
However, it's worth noting that even counting "neglect," your overall claim that "mothers are the most likely to abuse their children" is wrong because the numbers are determined by the total number of victims rather than the number of mothers and fathers, so the fivefold difference in raw numbers must be factored in
It's still a fact that the majority of victims are abused by their mothers. That is a fact. I never stated anything else. My point is to ask why we don't acknowledge the elephant standing in the living room.
dgaicun, it's a real head-scratcher ain't it! And look at the table provided by soyjoy for confirmation of this fact. posted by SpaceCadet at 10:27 AM on November 4, 2003
It's still a fact that the majority of victims are abused by their mothers. That is a fact. I never stated anything else.
Sorry, but you did. Even if we ignore spazzm's scurrilous lie about sexual abuse, and broaden "abuse" to include "neglect"...
My original link was to highlight that mothers are the most likely to abuse their children.*
This sentence, which is false, is not equivalent to the following true sentence:
"A child is most likely to be abused ... by their mother than anyone else."
If you can't see why they're different, there's not much more I can do. To make the latter claim, you need only consider the number of victims. For the latter, you have to include the ratio of single mothers v. single fathers (as caretakers) or it's invalid. Simple as that.
OK, like I said, read the data. Walking you through it is getting as tedious as the previous discussion, but now it's there in the table for anyone to see, so you guys can go on spinning it all day long. posted by soyjoy at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2003
Says who? Oh, says you! Thanks for representing the whole of the male population there, but some of us do find certain female clothing....a.....hm, distraction at times.
? I don't think you read my post. I said men are perfectly welcome to wear provocative clothing, just as women are likewise not allowed to flash strangers. The analogy is false because it's the actions which are differentiated, not the gender of the person. Both men and women are allowed to walk around scantily clad, and neither men nor women are allowed to flash people. If you want to get into a discussion about why nearly naked is different from naked, or why active confrontation is different from being seen as arousing, that's one thing, but don't couch it in gender terms. Again, men are not arrested for wearing tight tank tops and short shorts (just go get a coffee in chelsea or the west village...). They may do it less often, but they have just as much right to it as women. posted by mdn at 11:30 AM on November 4, 2003
A child is most likely to be [sexually] abused ... by their mother than anyone else . . . [to make this claim] you have to include the ratio of single mothers v. single fathers (as caretakers) or it's invalid. Simple as that.
SoyJoy, you're not using "acting alone" as a proxy for "raising alone" are you? posted by dgaicun at 12:36 PM on November 4, 2003
mdn: Both men and women are allowed to walk around scantily clad, and neither men nor women are allowed to flash people.
Well.....that's just it! I'm asking, why is that so? I'm aware that men and women are allowed to dress in a sexually provocative way. It's even de rigeur for women to make exhibitionist galleries on the internet, prancing around in their body length coat and nothing else underneath. Can I call them "dirty old women"? Or are they suddenly "empowered"? Where do people draw the lines? Is a flasher not an exhibitionist? Is one wrong, but one right? I'm confused, truly.......let's turn to nudism....seriously, I'm sick of clothes...... posted by SpaceCadet at 1:50 PM on November 4, 2003
SoyJoy, you're not using "acting alone" as a proxy for "raising alone" are you?
I think soyjoy is.
"Acting alone" does not equal "raising alone" soyjoy. A mother can abuse her child while father goes to work, or vice versa. Your whole argument crumbles with your massive oversight of assuming "acting alone" equating to "raising alone". posted by SpaceCadet at 1:56 PM on November 4, 2003
Well.....that's just it! I'm asking, why is that so?
I addressed this above. It's an issue of intent.
I'm aware that men and women are allowed to dress in a sexually provocative way. It's even de rigeur for women to make exhibitionist galleries on the internet, prancing around in their body length coat and nothing else underneath. Can I call them "dirty old women"?
you have a choice of whether you want to visit that website.
.......let's turn to nudism....seriously, I'm sick of clothes......
I'm all for that. I grew up with hippies; in the summertime, especially when swimming, my family & our friends were commonly nude and it was totally fine. I have no problem with nudity.
Flashers are not nudists. They are specifically trying to play a power game and confronting people with their sexuality. Like in that above example I gave of the guy stopping me in the hallway: I have no problem when I'm walking down a hall and someone accidently tries to pass on the same side I do and we end up doing that little back and forth thingy - but it's different when the person is actively trying to confront and control... posted by mdn at 3:02 PM on November 4, 2003
soyjoy:
I'd like to know how you arrived at "For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so."
No, actually I would not. It's a strawman and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic we're discussing:
While Charlie's Angels kick male miscreants left and right, you hardly ever see James Bond beating up a woman. Would it be perfectly OK if the roles were reversed?
You're trying to take a debate about gender differences in society's limits on violence and nudity, and turn it into "all men are rapists"-demagoging by using child sex abuse.
But, against better knowledge, I'm going to explain why your assertion I quoted above is incorrect:
You claim that there are 5 times as many children abused by fathers as by mothers. You also claim that there are 5 times as many single female parents as male parents.
Somehow, you multiply these two and arrive at for every 1 mother who abuses her child, there's 25 fathers who abuse his child.
This is clearly not so - the statistics you yourself linked shows that 9,057 where abused by the father alone, while 1,659 where abused by the mother alone. You get (9,057/1,659) = 5.46 children molested by the father for every one molested by the mother. This is a far cry from the 25:1 ratio you claim in your little tirade.
And all while you're accusing others for being liars - nice touch.
(Others have correctly pointed out the "acting alone/raising alone" fallacy, so I won't repeat that)
Still, abuse (not limited to sexual) is far more often done by the mother than the father.
So, back to my original (non-rethorical) question:
Why is society much more tolerant of female violence and nudity than male violence and nudity?
If you can't answer this question without breaking your rigid pre-supposed mental model of how society works, I suggest it's time to reconsider your stance.
"[...] who was specifically addressing sexual abuse (remember, the subject of the thread?)."
And here I thought the subject of the thread was vigilantism and the differences in what's considered acceptable for different genders.
Whenever there's a debate about the gender roles in society and someone points out that females are, in fact, getting a rather free reign compared to males, somebody shouts "all men are rapists/child sex offenders!" (or words to that effect) and the debate is effectively over. Thanks, soyjoy. posted by spazzm at 5:28 PM on November 4, 2003
"Flashers are not nudists."
While this is certainly true, I feel there's something inherently wrong about judging someone by his/her intentions.
Don't get me wrong, if someone with a 5x5 meter back yard has 3.5 tonnes of fertilizer, I'd certainly say he's intending to hurt someone - but the punishment for that is certainly less severe than the punishment of actually blowing someone up.
In the case of nudism/flashers it is less clear cut - there's no physical harm involved - and we can only guess at the flasher's motivations since (I assume) none of us are flashers, and there's no clear advantage (monetary, access to sex) to flashing someone.
In any case, the difference between flashers and nudists is a matter of definitions.
If, for example, while a nudist is prancing around in his home, with the curtains drawn, he realizes that the morning paper just arrived. He peeks out of his window to see if anybody's out there but sees no-one, so he thinks "ah, screw it, I won't need to put on clothes to walk 3 meters to pick up a paper". So, thinking that there's no-one around, he walks out to pick up his "Morning Herald" or whatever, and (just as he's bending over to pick up the paper) the neighbor's wife happens to see him.
Is he a flasher? Or is she a voyeur?
I know it's unlikely, but before making absolute moral statements, one should consider the less clear-cut possible cases. posted by spazzm at 6:36 PM on November 4, 2003
somebody shouts "all men are rapists/child sex offenders!"
And who, pray tell, has shouted that? Citation, please?
No, actually I would not. It's a strawman and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic we're discussing:
While Charlie's Angels kick male miscreants left and right...
Oh, gosh, I didn't realize anybody other than you was discussing Charlie's Angels. Maybe that's where I went astray.
the statistics you yourself linked shows that 9,057 where abused by the father alone, while 1,659 where abused by the mother alone. You get (9,057/1,659) = 5.46 children molested by the father for every one molested by the mother.
Oh, OK, so in other words, your statement that "Most child sex abuse is done by the mother" was absolutely wrong, is that what you're saying? Once you admit that, we can haggle over how you want to figure the obviously disproportionate ratio of mothers to fathers as caretakers for children. But we don't even need that factor to see that the disparity is wildly and completely on the side of fathers.
And no, this doesn't mean (yawn) "all men are rapists." It means we should not blame women for the damage men do, have done, and are, by all indications, continuing to do. posted by soyjoy at 7:01 PM on November 4, 2003
It means we should not blame women for the damage men do, have done, and are, by all indications, continuing to do.
Finally soyjoy crawls out of her shell to reveal her militant, radical feminist beliefs. And yes, I do discredit people who have such extreme views, and I certainly discredit the above quote as hyperbole.
I state a fact that the majority of child abuse cases are ones in which the mother is the offender, and you turn it on it's head!
you have a choice of whether you want to visit that website. (re : exhibitionist websites)
I guess I should have provided links to such sites (will later as I'm at work now!), but there are plenty of exhibitionists who are......exhibitionists....photos of them clearly "flashing" in front of public - and yes, they're women! Is this different from men f
Subscribe
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:19 AM on October 31, 2003