8th grade Girls Attack/Strip 11-Year-Old Boy

[Shio]

I don't know what's more disturbing, the attack itself, or our willingness to create sexism of it.

The sexism is there, fabrication unnecessary

I disagree. A mother chose not to act, there is no legal dispute here. If the girls got off scot free because they are girls and they attacked a boy, then it would be sexism. As it stands, however, it is simply a mother's wish to avoid further dragging out an embarrassing attack -- being stripped isn't something I'd want to parade about announcing.

 

[chach_face]

I don't know what's more disturbing, the attack itself, or our willingness to create sexism of it.

The sexism is there, fabrication unnecessary

I disagree. A mother chose not to act, there is no legal dispute here. If the girls got off scot free because they are girls and they attacked a boy, then it would be sexism. As it stands, however, it is simply a mother's wish to avoid further dragging out an embarrassing attack -- being stripped isn't something I'd want to parade about announcing.

If it were the other way around, boys on a younger girl, the parent wouldn't even be required to press charges, It'd happen anyways

 

[zeldagirl]

For those blaming the mother outright for not pressing sexual assault charges... in the other thread, the police officer said it was 'misdemeanor battery' at best. I can't fault her as much as I fault the police for NOT taking the charges seriously and actually presenting what the charges should be - sexual assault.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

They'll get out of it by saying it was harmless fun.

Besides, Charges arent being pressed (god knows why, I'd charge all three of them and their families) so nothing really will come out of this if the parents of the victim decide not to do anything.

... eh, at least its happening older, and not younger.

I don't get it though ... I mean it's bullying, and bullying should be discouraged, but charged?

They're kids ... when I was in high school me and 13 other kids picked up a teacher's VW during break and manhandled it to another car parking lot.

Technically theft of a motor vehicle and illegal operations of said vehicle on State roads. I don't see why you have to throw the book at people when kids are merely being kids.

The problem isn't that '...if they were boys...', the problem is '...if they were adults...'

Do you really think that it was a maliciously induced crime? Do you think the girls derived any sexual gratification from the act? Please... Bullies are bullies. I think the parents were right not to press charges, because there's other avenues of discipline and punishment that are more suited to the act.

Frivolous charges are frivolous.

[sek-siz-uhm]

On a lighter note, I've always pronounced it seks-Iz-uhm ... that 'siz' sound right after the 'ex' sound kinda sounds off.

 

[chach_face]

[sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
?noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex

 

[Kais86]

I hate things like this, "can't rape a man".... way to set our society back 50 years, jerks. On a quasi-tangentially-sorta-related note: this is also why I don't like most harem anime, the male lead is always getting abused, and if he defended himself, he would be the bad guy.

 

[Shio]

I don't know what's more disturbing, the attack itself, or our willingness to create sexism of it.

The sexism is there, fabrication unnecessary

I disagree. A mother chose not to act, there is no legal dispute here. If the girls got off scot free because they are girls and they attacked a boy, then it would be sexism. As it stands, however, it is simply a mother's wish to avoid further dragging out an embarrassing attack -- being stripped isn't something I'd want to parade about announcing.

If it were the other way around, boys on a younger girl, the parent wouldn't even be required to press charges, It'd happen anyways

If it was a girl, it would still be up to the parents to press charges.

For those blaming the mother outright for not pressing sexual assault charges... in the other thread, the police officer said it was 'misdemeanor battery' at best. I can't fault her as much as I fault the police for NOT taking the charges seriously and actually presenting what the charges should be - sexual assault.

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

 

[Jumplion]

They'll get out of it by saying it was harmless fun.

Besides, Charges arent being pressed (god knows why, I'd charge all three of them and their families) so nothing really will come out of this if the parents of the victim decide not to do anything.

... eh, at least its happening older, and not younger.

I don't get it though ... I mean it's bullying, and bullying should be discouraged, but charged?

They're kids ... when I was in high school me and 13 other kids picked up a teacher's VW during break and manhandled it to another car parking lot.

Technically theft of a motor vehicle and illegal operations of said vehicle on State roads. I don't see why you have to throw the book at people when kids are merely being kids.

The problem isn't that '...if they were boys...', the problem is '...if they were adults...'

Do you really think that it was a maliciously induced crime? Do you think the girls derived any sexual gratification from the act? Please... Bullies are bullies. I think the parents were right not to press charges, because there's other avenues of discipline and punishment that are more suited to the act.

Frivolous charges are frivolous.

Switch around "boys" and "girls" and you'd have them charged with sexual assault even if the boys' had no "intention" of deriving sexual pleasure from it. They'd play them up as sickos, rapists, and would quickly charge them as adults, whereas this is said to be a "prank gone too far". This was clearly a maliciously induced crime as they laughed and posted it on YouTube. You don't need to gain any sexual gratification to be motivated.

This is not "kids will be kids". Since when the hell do three 15-year olds randomly walked up to a young 11-year old and start stripping him stark naked in public, beat him and knee his throat, while recording the whole ordeal and placing it on YouTube?

Your prank involved one teacher being inconvenienced and having a silly story to tell at this office. This "prank" involves the mental scarring of a kid who probably just discovered that girls don't have cooties.

 

[zeldagirl]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

 

[zeldagirl]

Fuck you, Moron. No seriously, fuck you and all your kind. At the age of 11 you would be smiling so much whilst being caused great physical pain (EVER HAD A WEIGHT ON YOUR THROAT?), being humiliated like that.

Every single one of you fucking morons that think someone pre-puberty could do anything about this and would gain any enjoyment out of it should fucking die.

You know what? You say this, you young adults with all the empathy of dog shit. Every single one of you.

I hope you get assaulted like this. You go on about how enjoyable it is. I hope you get attacked in a fucking bar or on your way home from fucking school by three older, stronger females who have no interest in you. You wont get home and go "HEY GUYS! I WAS ATTACKED BY THREE FULLY CLOTHED FEMALES! THEY CAUSED ME PAIN, FILMED IT AND PUT THE VIDEO ONLINE. GO WATCH IT IT WAS SO AWESOME" You would go home and fucking cry.

It would be fucking weeks till you recovered, months before you regained every little bit of who you are.

You people jokily saying that sexual assault is good and fun? You make me fucking sick.

I say this with all the venom I can contain as someone who once fought off an attacker.

I hope you get raped.

This strikes me as fucking absurd. Were the reverse of this to happen, with three boys and a girl, you could guarantee that they'd be going away for a long time. The whole mindset that "He's a boy: he should be enjoying it". or that because he's a boy, he would have been able to stop this unless he really did want it, it absolutely fucking crazy.

I can't put into words how fucking annoyed this makes me.

This is going to be the last thing I say following my outburst.

You and me both. The world is a horrible, twisted place. The fact that these little shits are going to get away with anything makes me sick. Some of the reactions to this make me sick.

These girls deserve to go to Juvi. To Prison. To have their education fucked up, their job potential fucked up, their lives fucked up.

They do not deserve to be sexually assaulted or raped.

Nobody deserves that.

Wiki out.

Okay, I was with you until you said "I hope you get raped." To top it off, you followed it up with "no one deserves that." And I agree with the latter, and I am appalled you even said the former. Because no one deserves rape, and no one deserves it to be wished upon them either.

 

[Shio]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

I'll have to disagree there. Something being perceived by yourself as sexual doesn't make it a sexual assault. For example: I have a foot fetish. If my feet were groped without my consent, that would be an assault on a sexual part of my body. Of course that sounds outrageous and I wouldn't charge them, but I hope it helps demonstrate my point. If someone was stabbed and the knife happened to hit their genitals, I would also not call it a sexual assault. Myself and the law as I understand it defines sexual assault as an assault of an intended sexual nature, where the malicious intent is that of sexual conduct. The removal of clothes could be sexual, but I don't think it is here.

 

[Jumplion]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

I'll have to disagree there. Something being perceived by yourself as sexual doesn't make it a sexual assault. For example: I have a foot fetish. If my feet were groped without my consent, that would be an assault on a sexual part of my body. Of course that sounds outrageous and I wouldn't charge them, but I hope it helps demonstrate my point. If someone was stabbed and the knife happened to hit their genitals, I would also not call it a sexual assault. Myself and the law as I understand it defines sexual assault as an assault of an intended sexual nature, where the malicious intent is that of sexual conduct. The removal of clothes could be sexual, but I don't think it is here.

The genitals are inherently sexual, which is what I think separates your foot fetish scenario. If someone took off a shoe in public, nobody would bat an eye because it's a foot. Someone takes off their pants in public, you're going to get some looks.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

If that happened to me, i wouldn't be crying, actually i'd be happy....

When I was eleven years old, I was scared of fifteen year old girls.

Please, stop with the jokes trying to prove your masculinity. This is a serious matter.

Being a guy, I'm for equal rights for both genders. This also includes both genders getting the same sentences for crimes. As many others had pointed out, if it was three fifteen year old boys, this would've been an absolute outrage and people would want life sentences for them or something.

But when girls do something like this, it was just a prank that "went to far". Honestly, we are just regressing from any kind of progress here if this is how instances like this will be treated.

The mother is also a fucking idiot. If I was the parent of this boy, you could bet I would be laying down some serious charges on those shits. The police should've done something as well, and the bystanders that just sat and watch. Gah...what has happened to our country?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Let me post the quote I put on the other thread about this:

How about sexual assault and child pornography charges? That mother should be ashamed of herself for not pressing charges.
EDIT: Sexism works both ways. Misdemeanor charges? Please.

Yep, I still feel the same way. The state should step in and dish out some kind of punishment.

 

[Shio]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

I'll have to disagree there. Something being perceived by yourself as sexual doesn't make it a sexual assault. For example: I have a foot fetish. If my feet were groped without my consent, that would be an assault on a sexual part of my body. Of course that sounds outrageous and I wouldn't charge them, but I hope it helps demonstrate my point. If someone was stabbed and the knife happened to hit their genitals, I would also not call it a sexual assault. Myself and the law as I understand it defines sexual assault as an assault of an intended sexual nature, where the malicious intent is that of sexual conduct. The removal of clothes could be sexual, but I don't think it is here.

The genitals are inherently sexual, which is what I think separates your foot fetish scenario. If someone took off a shoe in public, nobody would bat an eye because it's a foot. Someone takes off their pants in public, you're going to get some looks.

But if one wishes to define any event that comes into contact with or otherwise involves the genitals as sexual, then all murderers that glance upon their victim's body are guilty of sexual crimes. I agree with the police here; the act wasn't sexual in nature.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

Most of my sentiments of this event have already been expressed. The mother's refusal to press charges against the three girls may not be the right thing to do "legally", but let us remind ourselves that she is doing this in the best interests of her son. Right now, her main priority as a mother is to comfort her child and provide emotional support.

It's not uncommon for sexual assault or rape victims to decline pressing charges against the assailants or even to actually report the incident, and I don't expect any different in this situation. But, with the amount of press coverage this has received (as well as the actual evidence), I have no doubt that the girls will be charged with the sexual assault of a minor. Just not at this time.

As for the boy himself... I hope he gets whatever help he needs.

Now, with this having been said, I wonder two things.

a) What will feminists have to say of this?

and b) How long it will be before we see an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit based on this incident?

 

[chach_face]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

I'll have to disagree there. Something being perceived by yourself as sexual doesn't make it a sexual assault. For example: I have a foot fetish. If my feet were groped without my consent, that would be an assault on a sexual part of my body. Of course that sounds outrageous and I wouldn't charge them, but I hope it helps demonstrate my point. If someone was stabbed and the knife happened to hit their genitals, I would also not call it a sexual assault. Myself and the law as I understand it defines sexual assault as an assault of an intended sexual nature, where the malicious intent is that of sexual conduct. The removal of clothes could be sexual, but I don't think it is here.

Nope. They stripped him, which is a sexual act.