|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 02, @08:37PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
FEMINIST TRAINED
COPS AND JUDGES
BATTER MEN,
and boys!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 02, @08:57PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
That is an outrage. I notified the Dallas NCFM chapter. Hopefully someone there can protest or do a news release or something. This is just sick.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is really twisted. I want to interject a little reality into this topic.
First off we all know that little boys and little girls, even the one's today who are so much more advanced sexually than we were, are going to engage in sex play. It happens. Playing Doctor, spin the bottle, inviting someone over when the parents are out (or not out), and going to "the movies". Boys and girls are sexually curious and their little hormones are easily carbonated. Do I think 12 and 14 year olds should be engaging in sex? No. I know that when I was that age I was doing the same things, but when you get older you realized the consequences of those kinds of acts. Kids are going to try sexual things and criminalizing it is just plain absurd.
Let's also be realisitic about dating habits. Someone could say that the boy was older and therefore had more responsibility. I don't buy it. Girls tend to date boys who are older. I have heard a ton of arguments WHY, but skipping that whole debate let's just accept it. Now, since they are close in age (the guy wasn't 18 or older) we can take 1 of 2 views.
1) they are both children. Kids do this. They should both get a serious talking to both about sex, imtimicy, innapropriate behavior, and not putting on a sex act. But kids are going to do sexual things. We can raise them, guide them, educate them, and be there for them; that being said children are going to explore sex. We can only hope that when the time comes that they make the right choices.
2) we can look at them both as adults. Since boys date younger girls then if they are coaxing young girls to do things they don't want to then they should be punished as offenders. However, they have to BOTH be treated as offenders. Girls dating older guys ... doesn't that mean that every girl dating an older guy should be charged with trying to get a guy to engage in felony behavior. Their answer is: "but I love him" ok, do you love him enough to keep him out of jail? Since 12 year old girls KNOW that a man touching them is illegal then the 12 year old girl should be arrested for conspiracy.
Now I know view number 2 is silly, but it makes a salient and on-point conclusion. You can not charge a 14 year old boy with sexual assault for a concensual act. What if both children were the SAME age? Would the girl be charged too? What if the ages were reversed? Would ONLY the girl be charged. This is just another Gender Feminist thought indoctrination scenario where the only male in the scenario is somehow intrinically guilty of SOMETHING because there was a sexual act between 2 children and SOMEONE had to be held to blame. How about charging the girls and boys parents (not ONE set of parents .. BOTH SETS) for conspiracy to commit lewd acts upon a child? Or lets consider if this had been a boy/boy girl/girl situation. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that either child would be charged? This is just a blatant message that boys are guilty if there is something amiss. And trust me, the girl is being "couseled" on her 'shame, grief, use, and exploitation' at this very minute. Not so the boy. And, do we KNOW who initiated this? This is the state of our nation. If there is a problem and somewhere in the problem is a male, boy or man, there is the blame affixed.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The summary posted is misrepresenting this report (as reported via the given link).
First, the report doesn't stipulate which child was on the giving (or receiving) end of the act. That needs to be established first.
Second, the report doesn't state whether aggression was part of the equation.
I'm not making any further comments until I know more.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @01:43PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Why would it matter who is on the giving or receiving end when it comes to prosecuting only the male for sexual assault?
It's true there's not alot of facts. But there is no indication in the article that this was not consensual, and in fact the implication throughout is that it was consensual. And yet only the male is being prosecuted. That alone is enough for concern. Whether we believe there should be any prosecution at all of minors having sex with each other (I don't believe there should) is a separate issue, but the gender discrimination alone is outrageous. There have been cases in the past where two minors of nearly the same age have sex and they prosecute only the male. This is not really anything new.
The fact that the article doesn't explain why only the male is charged is also an indicator of bias.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest wait for the facts, and point out that the summary posted here misrepresents the report, and all you want to do is still claim bias? Were you there? No. Then, again, why not wait to learn more?
Of course it would matter who the aggressor was. If he OR she was grabbed by the hair and put into a position of unfavorable compromise, then there is the assault. If similarly grabbed by the hips, and skirt up or pants down (which, with today’s male youth, can be very quickly perpetrated), then unwanted mouth to genital touching is performed, that is assault. Do I really have to go on here? You can’t figure this stuff out yourself?
You state that it still proves bias, when in fact you are now spewing the same kind of lies that 'propaganda artists' spread. This report does nothing more than state what the reporter knew at the time it was filed. You can't claim what isn't there, so don't.
Marc, I would hope for more than what you've offered here. If you are not careful, you may end up no better than that which we all despise here: the femicrat.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's bizarre, to say the least, if there is indeed a lack of facts why this was published at all without the otherwise usual copious disclaimers.
Let's reverse the genders for a moment. How do you think it would play out then? Be honest - do you really think this story is going to be followed up on if it turns out the sex was mutually consensual? Or hidden, as usual, behind the lace curtain in the hope that nobody sees the blatant discrimination?
I find it hard to believe that non-consensual sex acts isn't being trumpeted. You might say, "They're both minors" but hey - that hasn't stopped them in the past.
Questions are begging to be answered, and "wait and see" is going to only insure this gets swept under the rug. Their track record alone puts the onus of an explanation on them, insofar as I am concerned.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
are part of the reason I don't post much here anymore. Both of your arguments lack a cohesive idea of what the 'bias' within this report really is.
And, what usual disclaimers? Give me a break, Gonzo. That's just misdirected poppycock. You don't have an argument with what I wrote, yet you are really trying to make something of it. For what purpose? So that you can turn a story that you know not much about into some rallying point? Femicrats do that, Gonzo. I don't. And neither should you.
The only other sound, reasonable voice in this thread is Tom's, who has at least tried to find out more. Let the facts of the case stand. Don't try to weasel something in that doesn't belong.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Gonzo and Mitchell on this, modified as follows: I agree that it's silly to "wait and see" as waiting will only result in, as Mitchell and Gonzo say, the story being swept under the rug. However, I do believe there's more to the story.
So rather than waiting, I submit that as many of us as possible ought to be contacting the prosecuting attorney's office and DEMANDING more of and explanation. If one is provided, then choose your course of action yourself. If none is provided, then the real answer is obvious: there IS bias and the "powers that be" choose not to explain themselves, in which case they ought to be lynched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where are the facts then?
You can pull out just about any other story in the "genre" and you have a two page spread, citing chapter and verse, with, as the song says, 8-by-ten color glossies with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back.
I've worked some journalism before, and if there is one things editors demand in the vanilla news is a complete story; come back with a half researched piece and you'll be damned lucky if you're sent back out to do it right. It's even money it gets yanked from you, and given to someone else.
So here's our facts - woman solicits a hit man to commit murder. Guess who gets the stiffer sentence? It's a mantra of business as usual, a ceaseless litany - male and female conspirators or accessories, woman gets a slap on the wrist, man gets hard time. Hell, they're clamoring for johns to recieve harsher sentences than hookers.
So you tell me why I should believe for a minute that it doesn't continue here. One good reason. Are you trying to tell me that suddenly the male is getting an even break? On what basis do you conclude this? The leopard has changed his spots, of a sudden, and isn't bending to PC pressure; and as well has actually considered that the female may have had a mesaure of culpability, albiet was cleared after an actual investigation?
That requires two miracles to occur - which is the usual foundation for a crackpot theory.
I'm open to hearing. They aren't open to talking. That's their problem, then, if it is concluded that they are hiding something.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @12:02AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo you are absolutely right. The John/hooker example is a very good point.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @11:35PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Were you there? No. Then, again, why not wait to learn more?"
I'm claiming bias based on the fact that the article gives a story about oral sex, says nothing about it being "forced," and then says only the boy was charged. When you give a story about two people having oral sex, but mention nothing about even the speculation of it being forced, then most readers will fairly assume it was consensual, and they're right to. If there was any speculation and evidence or even mention of it being forced, the reporter should have said something. So there is bias in the reporting (by not elaborating on why only the boy was charged, no mention whatsoever about force), and very likely bias also in the charging of the boy by the authorities/prosecutor. This has happened before, as I said, in case law where two minors have consensual sex and the boy is charged with statutory rape. It's not clear exactly what the charge is here. But it smacks of the same mentality - the boy is deemed automatically the one responsible simply because he's a boy. Obviously, if it turns out the charge is that he forced it on her and there's evidence of that, then that's a different story. But the article does not mention one hint of this. There is definitely bias lingering in the background here. Imagine if SHE was being charged. Is it likely the reporter would have never once even mentioned that the sex might not be consensual or that it might have been forced? Hardly. But since it's the boy being charged, it's business as usual, because whether it's consensual or not, he's always a little bit more at fault. He's male.
"Of course it would matter who the aggressor was. If he OR she was grabbed by the hair and put into a position of unfavorable compromise, then there is the assault. If similarly grabbed by the hips, and skirt up or pants down (which, with today’s male youth, can be very quickly perpetrated), then unwanted mouth to genital touching is performed, that is assault. Do I really have to go on here?"
No, you don't have to, since you've already mistated what I said to begin with. I did *not* say "it doesn't matter who the aggressor was." I said it doesn't matter who was on the receiving end. That is a totaly different thing.
"You can’t figure this stuff out yourself?"
You can't represent what I said accurately?
"You state that it still proves bias, when in fact you are now spewing the same kind of lies that 'propaganda artists' spread. This report does nothing more than state what the reporter knew at the time it was filed. You can't claim what isn't there, so don't."
As I explained, the reporter mentions nothing about any speculation about whether it was forced. The reporter merely says it was "oral sex" between minors and then says the boy is being charged.
"Marc, I would hope for more than what you've offered here. If you are not careful, you may end up no better than that which we all despise here: the femicrat."
And I would hope that you'd read more carefully what you attack, or you might become the reactionary you're claiming that I'm being.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also, at no point did I say that you used the term 'aggressor.' I used the term aggression, not you.
Talk about not getting your facts straight.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @02:34AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Michael, in response to my comment that it does not matter who was on the receiving end, you said "Of course it would matter who the aggressor was."
So I responded that I did not say it doesn't matter who is the aggressor, I said it doesn't matter who was on the receiving end. And now you respond with a play of words by distinguishing between "agressor" and "aggression"?
You're right to leave this post.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @11:52PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I just re-checked the article. In addition to the response I just made to you, I'd like to add some more in light of the article's language.
"School officials are investigating reports that a 12-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy engaged in oral sex during a science class at Robert T. Hill Middle School."
This says nothing about school officials investigating forced oral sex. It says they are investigating whether two young kids "engaged in oral sex." No reason, yet, to believe anything about it being "forced."
Next paragraph:
"The activity allegedly took place Tuesday in the back of a classroom while the teacher was away at a parent-teacher conference, leaving an adult security monitor in charge, Dallas school district spokesman Donald Claxton said Friday."
"The activity." Again, not a word about it being forced, or even the slightest speculation.
The article then goes on to say that other students were there in the classroom when it happend and were disciplined for it. This leaves the reader with all the less reason to think anything about forced sex.
Then it quotes Claxton saying things like "It is unclear how sexual activity could go unnoticed by an adult" and how disturbing it is that such young kids would be cognizant of "such activity."
Again, "sexual activity" and "such activity." Nothing, not an iota, about forced oral sex. The reader has every reason to think this was consensual.
The only mention of anything that could possibly (not even necessarily) lead one to think it was forced, or even that some people think it may have been forced, is that the boy was charged with "sexual assault." The entire article leaves a huge gap of information. If it was the girl charged with sexual assault, there would almost certainly be mention of who said what, or what evidence there might be, about it being forced. But with the boy being charged, who cares, after all, whether it's forced or not, he's the boy and so he is responsible, and regardless of his age.
I believe very strongly in being cautious and not reactionary to things, and I'm very willing to step back and admit it and "repent" when I've done so. Here, I don't believe I have, and in fact reading the article again confirmed to me that it is you who was reactionary here, not me.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo, Marc...
I can't believe the blather that each of you is spewing. To inject bias into that article is EXACTLY what the femicrats/spin doctors do. I'm ashamed of you both.
The subject line, and the body of the summary posted here contain an 0UTRIGHT LIE! The report says nothing of the girl going down on the boy. NOTHING! Why haven't you said anything about that yet? The behavior here disgusts me to no end. I would never, EVER willingly misrepresent anything just to make a 'bang', like what's being done in this instance.
Done with this thread, by the way. With hogwash like this being perped, all I can do is just ignore the noise.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @02:36AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"The subject line, and the body of the summary posted here contain an 0UTRIGHT LIE! The report says nothing of the girl going down on the boy. NOTHING! Why haven't you said anything about that yet?"
I haven't responded to that because I don't see the relevance of whether the boy or the girl went down on the other. It says oral sex. What difference does it make who "received" or not?
You still haven't explained that.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Done with this thread, by the way
And going to go away, not go9ing to argue anymore, and so on and so forth.
It's the usual retreat of someone who has lost all foundation in a debate, but will be damned if they will change their long held and comfortable worldview.
Though to be charitable, it's the usual squirming when a man starts realizing that the old chivalry suit is really damned uncomfortable and itchy after all.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The report says nothing of the girl going down on the boy. NOTHING! Why haven't you said anything about that yet?
In a word - who cares?
What happened here is relevant if, and only if, there was actual force involved. It doesn't matter who was giving and who was recieving - Jesus H, man, assuming she was giving and him recieving is being fucking logical! It's a thouand times easier to slide out Jake the One-eyed snake of love for a sausage slurping session than to remove jeans and all for performing oral sex on a woman - not exactly conveniently placed for easy access, know what I mean?
What if, what if - well, what if a brass band of flying moneys came out of my ass playing "The Starts and Stripes Forever?" WHO CARES? If it was consensual - which by all indications it was - they both hold equal responsibility for it, at least so saith the pheminut mantra. Well, at least when it's convenient for them, in any event.
I don't care if she was seduced, talked into it, cajoled, or paid. If she was forced, over objections, into "the act" whatever the fuck it was, she was a willing, eager, and mutually responsible participant, equally as culpable.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atthe phrase " paid. If she was forced, over objections " change "if" to "Unless."
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I talked with the reporter for this article today and was told that she doesn't know if the sex was consensual or not. Apparently there were conflicting stories and the official spokespersons are not answering that question. She continues to seek the answer and said that it would be in tomorrows paper if she can find out.
She said she has been flooded with email about this article. Surprise, surprise. The funny thing is that she said most of it is people who are blaming Clinton for the incident! LOL!!!
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed:
Fassett said the school district incorrectly reported Friday that police had filed a sexual assault charge against the boy. Claxton said Monday that school officials were initially told that the boy would be charged because the girl said she had been coerced.
But later...
Fassett said investigators could find no evidence that either student was forced to engage in oral sex.
Teaching them young to play the victim card to evade responsibility, aren't they?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and now you know more facts, unlike yesterday.
Is there bias in this story as well? You'll certainly try to find it. Although I, too, believe in an overall media bias against men, it wasn't in this story.
Amazing, what a bit of time and further investigation will bring you, isn't it?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @07:21PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Very likely this reporter wrote an unbiased 2nd story because some people took the time to email her (I know I did) and point out the bias in the first story. I'm glad some people take that initiative, even if others prefer to react and attack the person who posted this and scream about whether the boy was the receiver or not (as though that mattered).
Nice work to everyone who wrote and who saw this for what it was - total bias.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did she swallow the evidence or pull a Lewinsky and keep it on her (make me shiver in carnal exctasy) school girl outfit? Inquiring and sick minds wanna know?
Sorry guys, it was toooo good to pass up.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @02:46PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone, sorry I noticed this so late but the big question that came to my mind when reading this story was the security monitor left in charge while the teacher was away. I'll wager that the security monitor has to be a female can anyone guess why?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
