"Boys will be boys!"

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@dracoi

Awesome. Non-sexual playground prank

@AK84

Oh for fucks sake, no one is saying its “sweet innocent fun”. But, amazingly, there is more of a choice than merely “sweet innocent fun” or a “sex crime”.

Look at dracoi’s post. He’s putting it far more on the “sweet innocent fun” end of the spectrum. A lot of us are saying it’s a lot more serious.

When one of my third graders steals a book from the book fair, I don’t call the cops. But I do explain that she’s committed a crime, and that if she does that from a store, the police will be called, and that adults go to jail for that sort of behavior. I don’t treat it like a prank; I want the kid to be taken aback by how serious I’m treating it and to think, “holy shit, I’m not doing THAT again.”

That’s how pantsing should be treated.

[Acsenray]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Look at dracoi’s post. He’s putting it far more on the “sweet innocent fun” end of the spectrum. A lot of us are saying it’s a lot more serious.

When one of my third graders steals a book from the book fair, I don’t call the cops. But I do explain that she’s committed a crime, and that if she does that from a store, the police will be called, and that adults go to jail for that sort of behavior. I don’t treat it like a prank; I want the kid to be taken aback by how serious I’m treating it and to think, “holy shit, I’m not doing THAT again.”

That’s how pantsing should be treated.

Exactly. Pulling someone else’s clothes off for a “prank” is never an innocent, harmless bit of fun. Whether or not it is sexual is irrelevant. It should be made clear to anyone who does this that it is not acceptable behavior in society, regardless of whether your intent was to just joke around with someone.

[dropzone]

@Thudlow_Boink

In the case of a boy doing it to a girl as old as eleven, though, it’s hard to see it as non-sexual.

Did nobody here start in on puberty at eleven? That’s the age boys start getting extra curious and may need a knee to the face to teach them some manners.

I’ve long suspected that pantsing someone, male or female, mate or not, always has a sexual component, even if the pantser won’t admit that he wanted to see his best friend’s underwear or more.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@lilihob

As for the rest–do people still unironically use the phrase to excuse sexual assault? Where?
Today 04:27 PM

London, England 2012.

I was called in to see my eleven year-old daughter’s teacher. She had kneed a classmate in the face.
Why? He was attempting to pull her trousers down.
The teacher expected me to talk to her about violence not being the answer.
The boy? Oh, he was just playing, boys will be boys.
I then explained to teacher, that my daughter had the right to do anything and everything to someone who was attempting to undress her against her will. If teacher had a problem with that, we could involve the head, the governors, and the police.
The boy had his gold stars! removed, as did my daughter.
He then had a healthy fear of my daughter, I told all the other mums, he was roundly rejected by all the class til school ended.
I hope that he learned something, since his mum was mortified, I believe he did.

You are an awesome parent. If only more parents would defend their daughters right not to be molested instead of expecting them to “be nice” the world would be a much better place for women.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@monstro

If “boys will be boys”, then it is logical to say “girls will be girls”. Let’s say a boy pulls down the pants of a pubescent 11-year-old girl. If she were to react by grabbing a pencil and stabbing him in the face, wouldn’t she be reacting only out of the primal fear of rape?

Implicit in the “boys will be boys” notion is that girls shouldn’t react according to their own impulses.

I think that’s at the heart of the problem. “Boys will be boys” is frequently used to give boys free reign to terrorize girls, but if the girls even attempt to defend themselves they get punished. Seriously, given the relative size of most pre-adolescent girls to pre-adolescent boys, if the girls are encouraged to defend themselves (like me and my female cousins were) stupid, disgusting boy behavior rapidly ends. It’s only when boys know they can get away with it, without punishment (whether by authority figures or by the girls in retaliation) that boy behavior becomes a problem.

[nearwildheaven]

@Thudlow_Boink

First and least, 11 years old isn’t quite 7th grade.

It was for me. And I was 5’5".

[nearwildheaven]

@ZPG_Zealot

I think that’s at the heart of the problem. “Boys will be boys” is frequently used to give boys free reign to terrorize girls, but if the girls even attempt to defend themselves they get punished. Seriously, given the relative size of most pre-adolescent girls to pre-adolescent boys, if the girls are encouraged to defend themselves (like me and my female cousins were) stupid, disgusting boy behavior rapidly ends. It’s only when boys know they can get away with it, without punishment (whether by authority figures or by the girls in retaliation) that boy behavior becomes a problem.

On top of it, the kids (of both sexes) need to know that it’s wrong in the first place, and who to talk to if it happens. Sometimes, they don’t.

[YogSothoth]

@Gatopescado

“Haters gonna hate”

I think that was Socrates.

No I think he said “Does this hemlock taste a little funny to you?”

[Pantastic]

@Thudlow_Boink

Even if the pants-ee were completely em-bare-assed, this needn’t be any more sexually charged than mooning, wherein a person drops his own trousers in an “inappropriate” place. Do you consider mooning someone to be a sexual act?

Mooning doesn’t involve forcibly removing someone else’s clothing. It’s really disturbing how invested some people here are in the idea that forcibly stripping someone’s clothes is ‘just a prank’ and absolutely non sexual, and how much energy they put into trying to paint a blatant sexual assault as ‘just harmless fun’.

[raventhief]

@Thudlow_Boink

Interesting username/topic combo.

I don’t want to defend the practice, but I can’t resist pointing out a few inaccuracies.

First and least, 11 years old isn’t quite 7th grade.

More importantly, pulling down someone’s pants usually reveals their underwear (which can be done for embarrassment comedic value), not their genitals. (Though I don’t know the details of the specific incidents being discussed in this thread. Could there be some confusion over the US vs. UK usage of “pants”?)

Even if the pants-ee were completely em-bare-assed, this needn’t be any more sexually charged than mooning, wherein a person drops his own trousers in an “inappropriate” place. Do you consider mooning someone to be a sexual act?

There’s a world of difference between deciding to drop one’s own trousers and having someone yank them down without your consent.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Pantastic

Mooning doesn’t involve forcibly removing someone else’s clothing. It’s really disturbing how invested some people here are in the idea that forcibly stripping someone’s clothes is ‘just a prank’ and absolutely non sexual, and how much energy they put into trying to paint a blatant sexual assault as ‘just harmless fun’.

@raventhief

There’s a world of difference between deciding to drop one’s own trousers and having someone yank them down without your consent.

:rolleyes: Yes. Yes, I know that. My point in bringing up mooning was as evidence that the removal of a person’s pants (their own or someone else’s) need not necessarily be a sexual act.

Look. No one in this thread, with the possible exception of dracoi (who has gotten plenty of flak for it) has been “invested in the idea that forcibly stripping someone’s clothes is ‘just a prank’ and absolutely non sexual,” or “trying to paint a blatant sexual assault as ‘just harmless fun’.” All that I, and some others, have been saying is that pulling down someone’s pants is not always, necessarily a sexual act.

If you do in fact claim that every single instance—not just some, not most, but all—of a person pulling down another person’s pants is a sexual assault—not just a violation or a Bad Thing To Do but a specifically sexual assault—then please, explain why you think so and respond directly to the reasons some of us have given for not thinking so. If this is not what you claim, then we don’t have an argument.

[raventhief]

No, i wouldn’t say that every single instance must be sexual, but there is likely to be a sexual componnent if an eleven year boy is pantsing an eleven year old girl. I wouldn’t consider it all that similar to mooning someone either. Choosing to do something is not similar to having something done to you. And yes, i feel it is a violation and yes, it may be sexual in nature.

[bengangmo]

@ZPG_Zealot

I think that’s at the heart of the problem. “Boys will be boys” is frequently used to give boys free reign to terrorize girls, but if the girls even attempt to defend themselves they get punished. Seriously, given the relative size of most pre-adolescent girls to pre-adolescent boys, if the girls are encouraged to defend themselves (like me and my female cousins were) stupid, disgusting boy behavior rapidly ends. It’s only when boys know they can get away with it, without punishment (whether by authority figures or by the girls in retaliation) that boy behavior becomes a problem.

this doesn’t follow my experience - yes, sometimes it was used to excuse bad behaviour towards girls,

BUT

Far more often “boys will be boys” was used to explain why we were playing footy on a muddy field in our school uniform, or why the penis was drawn on the passed out drunk boy’s forehead, or why we were loud and boisterous in class and got in trouble with the teacher…

[bengangmo]

@Martini_Enfield

It was more out of the idea drummed into our heads that It Was Not OK To Hit Girls. Nothing sexual about it, just the idea that girls were the Fairer Sex and all that. What can I say? It was the South Island of New Zealand in the late 1980s, basically.

Also: 11 year old boys in my social circle didn’t have Good Mates who were girls. It didn’t work like that back then.

Besides which -
Girls wore skirts, it’s pretty hard to pants someone in a skirt…

You and I are the same generation - and our experiences are pretty close,
the down trou was a big thing when I was in 1st / 2nd form - ('87 / 88 around 13 or 14 years old) …
We never saw it as sexual at all, and I only remember one time where anything more than underwear was exposed - what actually happened more often was the girls spying on the boys getting changed for swimming…

[Broomstick]

@Martini_Enfield

I’m not saying someone on the wrong end of a pantsing shouldn’t feel embarrassed or humiliated, but stretching it from “immature prank” to “sex crime” seems to be drawing an incredibly long bow to me, absent any other pertinent circumstances.

Thank you :rolleyes: for mansplaining that a female person should not object or feel threatened by having clothing forcibly removed by a male person. After all, there’s no way that could be construed as threatening, right? Nevermind that we tell children (of both genders, one hopes) about inappropriate touching and that they have to wear clothes in public and how their body belongs to them, etc. - touching/disrobing is not allowed, unless it’s a “boy” pulling a “prank”, and then she is supposed to go along no matter how humiliated, embarrassed, abused or threatened she feels.

And really, it doesn’t matter what the respective genders of the two parties are, it’s not acceptable.

Nope sorry - you’re wrong. Yours is the attitude that needs changing. No, I don’t think an 11 year old doing such a thing should be put on a sex offender list or dragged into court but punishment should ensue and it should be made clear that it is not acceptable behavior. Nor should a girl be punished for defending herself (provided she doesn’t maim him, there are limits on both sides and response needs to be proportional) by “kneeing” him in the face or the like. If you touch someone in an unacceptable manner they have a right to “touch” you back to stop you from doing that.

[T.M]

It is a saying that should only be used concerning young children, Generally girls will dance around the puddles boys will plough straight through them. Girls tend to think things through, boys just do it and say oops, sorry, pardon afterwards, a good parent will teach a child to think before they act and decent standards of behaviour. In the early years a good teacher will recognise the different behaviour between girls and boys and channel a boys exuberance for life, as they progress through school they will hopefully be taught to learn and encouraged to use there natural curiosity. In the UK one of the problems in primary and junior schools is a lack of male teachers this linked to a growing number of single mothers means that boys do not have good male roll models to follow.
Men and woman are equal BUT they are very different and the one size fits all culture does not work and leads to the application of the dreadful boys will be boys attitude towards unacceptable adult male behaviour.

[Aspidistra]

AFAICR, the era of “pantsing is no big deal” was ALSO the era of “deal with bullies with a quick round of fisticuffs behind the bikeshed”

If you’re going to let the pantser off with 1970’s standards, the least you can do is let the pantsee go old school on their face too…

[Acsenray]

@T.M

Men and woman are equal BUT they are very different and the one size fits all culture does not work and leads to the application of the dreadful boys will be boys attitude towards unacceptable adult male behaviour.

Treating men and women as equals leads to the “boys will will be boys” attitude?

How exactly does that work?

[Martini_Enfield]

@Broomstick

Thank you :rolleyes: for mansplaining that a female person should not object or feel threatened by having clothing forcibly removed by a male person.

Did… did you actually read the bit of my post which you quoted? The one where I agree that people on the receiving end of a dacking are allowed to be embarrassed by it? And how about the bit where I also explicitly said it wasn’t OK to downtrou a girl? I don’t think, in this thread that, I’ve even been in the same time zone as the suggestion that dacking a girl would be OK - either Back In The Day or now.

I didn’t know any better I’d suggest you might deliberately be looking for something to be outraged about, frankly.

Nope sorry - you’re wrong. Yours is the attitude that needs changing.

Nope, sorry, you’re wrong. Yours is the attitude which needs changing. See how this works?

[AK84]

Let it go Martini Enfield, once “mansplaining” is raised, the argument is as good as lost.