Everyone, let’s keep this in mind – Eidolon909, by his own report in the “God forbid we teach our kids” thread, is a middle school teacher. Yes, it was a teacher of kids 11-14 years old who gave us the choice image of young girls the age of his oldest students “guzzling cum.”
Which yes, is trash. Straight out of the lowest varieties of porn. To describe any woman that way, regardless of her age or how often she may choose to engage in consentual oral sex, is base and degrading.
And let me reiterate, Eidolon909 is an “educator.”
That scares me and pisses me off and makes me worry about kids way, way more than a couple of kindergarteners who took playing doctor a step too far. Way, way more.
Yep. It was a joke. In response to someone’s shock that a 15 year could ever possibly do that!!
Your opinion.
I don’t agree.
I don’t care.
Careful. If your knee jerks any higher you may hit yourself in the jaw. We can only hope.
I teach a curriculum. You may have heard of that word before. Although it seems doubtful. I don’t bring my values, ethics, morals, or personal life to the classroom (Thank God they utter in Unison). I teach neutral subjects like Math and Science.
Guess what? 14 year old girls engage in oral sex. They also engage in intercourse. How frightening this world must be for you.
Now go away and clutch your Bible. Your righteous indignation is about as interesting as drying paint. How dare I shatter your fragile little world view.
Besides, a big part of the reaction to the “cum guzzling” comment is because the way it was phrased created the impression that the (original) ball-kicking incident was inappropriate, not because the level of violence were disproportional to the level of assault, but because since “plenty of 14 year olds guzzle it” then it’s not something she should have been so upset about, and she should have just laughed it off. But maybe she felt the circumstances did not allow that…
Well, at least it was an unforgettable way for young Mr. Subtle to learn that he is NOT entitled to “demand” it, and he should be careful to find out first if the girl puts out. A 15-y/o male is NOT a 6-year-old innocently “experimenting”, a 15-year old male knows exactly what he’s after, he is capable of the mens rea for sexual assault.
Which, BTW, goes back to the OP theme – I feel that sometimes we do, indeed, freak out TOO much about ocassional sexual experimentation among the little ones in pre-school/lower grade school. If it seems they are becoming obsessive about it, or aggressive either physically or mentally (as in, telling outright lies to get the other child to comply, or using blackmail), or the level of experimentation is inappropriate, by all means try to figure out how that came about. Maybe they just need a gentle guidance from the parents about the privacy of their own bodies and there being a time and place for everyting. Maybe their dad needs to be politely reminded to keep his When Ron Jeremy Attacks tape somewhere more secure. But we really should not immediately presume that “hey, I found out it feels real good when one touches down there, wanna see?” means that the CPS troops have to seize that household.
Back to the overreaction sub thread: I do NOT support nutkicking if all there is is verbal aggression or simple groping and there is a way to get the hell out. Really, automatically calling for a hit to the groin whenever even slightly threatened will one day result in a trial for assault. HOWEVER if it’s so the case that a young man of 15 had whipped out his unit and was waving it at the 14-y/o female, golly gee, maybe he gave her reason to fear that his next step would be rape in absence of a devastating preemptive strike?
Oh, and BTW, plenty of 14-y/os ARE indeed engaging in that behavior. The 15-year-old’s mistake was in assuming everyone would react the same way. I thinkEidolon meant it that way but everyone got confused by the phrasing.
Thank you, JRDelirious, for nailing it. I knew there was a reason I wasn’t against the kick to the nads, but I couldn’t put it into words. That is exactly why this was an appropriate response.
If it was a joke, which I’m not terribly convinced of, it was a terrible one. It was about as funny as an anal fistula. Color me unimpressed.
Yippee kai-yay, throw a parade. Clearly you don’t care. This is supposed to be news to anyone?
What knee jerking am I doing, exactly? I’m expressing my disbelief and distaste that someone who has shown such broad ignorance on a variety of levels and topics is also someone who teaches children. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think you’re coming across as a neanderthal – to put it mildly – and if sharing that opinion makes me a knee jerker in your eyes, I’m not sure that you know what the phrase means.
Oooh, subtle. Hey, guess what jackass, I was a teacher for two years.
If you don’t bring your values, ethics or morals into the classroom, you are the first automaton teacher in American history. Does your district know that they’ve hired a soulless creature?
Our values, ethics, morals and experiences inform every aspect of our lives – or at least they ought to, that’s their purpose. If all of your parts are functioning correctly they do, whether you recognize that fact or not. You can claim that they don’t all you want. You’re either just really stupid or a liar. Now, based on the general tenor of your posts of late, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re honest, if nothing else.
I’m well aware that 14 year old girls are having sex. I’m well aware that 11 year olds are having sex too, something you’ve denied in another thread. I don’t find this frightening, I do find it worrisome, even when these girls (and boys) are engaging in sex consentually, because they are all too often not engaging in it responsibly. I’ve seen too many kids whose lives have been up-ended by irresponsible sex to act as though it’s no big deal, or to make pornographic “jokes” about it. That’s because I give a damn about what these kids are doing to their lives, and I don’t think that it’s a laughing matter by any stretch of the imagination.
Clutch my Bible? Oh, because I object to disgusting, debasing, insulting phrases like “cum-guzzling” I must be some kind of Bible thumping bluehair, because no one else can consider it to be an inappropriate, repulsive slur? If you really believe that, and weren’t throwing out the phrase to try to add spice to your “argument” then you live in a more black and white world than Kirkland(random numbers). You’re beyond hope. You’re below efforts to engage you in anything resembling legitimate discussion.
And you teach.
I should go get my Bible. And I should pray, desperately, for kids in your classes, that you teach math and science with more skill than you’ve managed to ever demonstrate here.
I think he must have read a thread wherein I supported the right to own guns and hunt, even though I don’t do either of them. I think he assumes that because I support gun ownership, I must have such an avid interest in guns that I spend my spare time reading about them. I think he must believe that anyone who has an interest in guns has such a low intellect as to be incapable of appreciating the subtle humor to be found in a reference to 14 and 15 year old girls who “guzzle cum.” Just for the record, I find that turn of phrase to be equally insulting and degrading when applied to anyone of any age.
See this here, sweety, this is your problem. Any time there is some debatable issue tabled, here or in other threads, inane drivel starts bubbling over your flapping lips. You are so eminently convinced of the correctness and righteousness of your opinion that any dissenters are immediately pegged as ignorant, <insert numerous synonyms here>. These aren’t even factual topics, but you’re somehow never wrong. Oh, to be the paragon that you are.
Clearly dealing with knowledge on a daily basis was too tough for you.
Yes, because there are so many moral and ethical dillemas dealing with fractions, algebra and chemistry.
Whoops. There you go again.
The logical leaps you make to imply an accusation are, quite simply, astounding. See above.
No, but if I called you a vapid, cum-guzzling gutter whore. That would be insulting.
Yes, please do. At the very least it will keep you busy.
Now, my dear, I am finished with you. Like so much solied toilet paper.
Yeah, the Better Half went down the street and talked to Johnny’s Dad, only the first of many trips over the years down the street to talk to Johnny’s dad about what Johnny had just done. He came back rather tight-lipped, and didn’t really want to talk about it except to say, “The Cat can’t play down at Johnny’s house anymore.” And we were thankful that up to that point, she hadn’t really been playing down there unaccompanied–at age 4 she had just graduated from being confined to our yard and the neighbor kid’s yard next door and was finally allowed to go down the street with The Pack.
Suffice it to say that we weren’t surprised when the kid eventually grew up into a real troublemaker (dirty pictures turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg), and the entire neighborhood heaved a gigantic collective sigh of relief when he was about 16 and they finally all packed up and moved away.
However, looking back, I still think I handled it the best way for my daughter. Johnny didn’t need any “glamorizing” by Mom for being such a Terrible Bad Boy–it was better for her, and for my other kids, too, as the years went on, to have him dismissed by Mom and Dad as merely a nuisance, one of Life’s Speed Bumps.
Following that first Official Daddy Visit to Johnny’s dad, The Cat was forbidden not only to play at Johnny’s house anymore, but also even to go past “Big Emily’s House” down the street in that direction, which pretty effectively confined her to our yard and the closest yards of the kids I knew and trusted.
And this rule held for all of our subsequent kids–they weren’t allowed to go anywhere near Johnny’s house until they were 6 years old, and they weren’t allowed to go inside, only to hang around in the yard. I figured that with the usual pack of kids, there wouldn’t be much he could get up to. We had to relax the “Big Emily’s House” rule at about age 6 because that’s when they started riding a real bike and needed more room to roam up and down the sidewalk.
But his behavior got increasingly worse, mostly vandalism (and then the big blue-eyed sincere denial), and after he turned up in our yard a few years later with a huge kitchen knife, showing it off to the 6-year-old Bonzo (who was, regrettably, fascinated), and then a year later he turned up at the house next door with a sampling of his dad’s hard-core magazines, showing them off to the other kids, including the 7-year-old Bonzo (who was not as fascinated by the naked men and women as he had been by the kitchen knife), we pretty much cut Johnny out of our personal circle of acquaintances.
Although Bonzo still found him fascinating, at a distance, and it wasn’t until he was about 9 and Johnny was about 12 or 13 and deliberately pushed him down into a pile of dog turds that the glamour faded. He came home, filthy and furious. “He did that on purpose! But he said he was my friend…” There was a harder lesson there for Mom to deal with than just dirty magazines.
Have you noticed that most of us guys are bigger and stronger than most women?
Take me, for instance. I’m of pretty much average male height and weight, and with below-average upper-body strength. I’m a middle-aged guy who spends far too much time staring into a glowing screen to have much of a physique. But only a minuscule percentage of women are capable of overpowering me. Unless a woman’s threatening me with a dangerous weapon (a gun or serious knife, as opposed to a Swiss army knife or a club of some sort), the need to attack a woman pre-emptively is pretty much nonexistent, IMHO. This is why real men don’t hit women.
The other way around, it’s a bit different. The typical woman can be overpowered by enough men that it’s always in the background. If a woman is alone with a man, I would imagine it’s a little edgy if he’s not someone she can trust. Especially if, as in the incident we’re debating, he goes from someone she trusts, to someone she doesn’t, in a couple of seconds, by way of something (indecent exposure - still on the statute books) that’s still a sort of assault, especially at close quarters. It’s certainly a disproportionate reaction, in and of itself, to her liking him enough to smooch and grope with him. She’s alone with him, and now she really doesn’t know what he might try next. So yeah, I don’t have a problem with her possibly erring on the side of overreaction.
Y’know, just about all of us guys have taken it in the testicles at some point, whether it’s happened deliberately or just an accident. And we’re not scarred by the incidents. But too many young women get raped, and that stays with them years, decades, perhaps for life.
If it had been a joke, I might’ve expected you to explain that when people first had trouble with it, on the last page. Instead, you vigorously defended the position that you’re now calling a ‘joke’ until it became untenable.
I believe the term of art for this is ‘backpedalling’. :rolleyes:
I’ve been one of those ‘young women who get raped’, and I still think that a physically violent reaction to a verbal demand is wrong. Who cares if he pulled his pants down?
If he didn’t shove her head into his crotch, he never touched her, and she had no business hitting him anywhere.
Far, far too often violence put upon men from women is tolerated and it shouldn’t be.
catsix, “who cares if he pulled his pants down?” I’ll answer: The Judge would. For it would be argued in court that young Mr. Subtle did NOT stop at “a verbal demand”, he was showing credible readiness to take action toward his goal, that under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES a reasonable 14-y/o girl would see as a direct threat where waiting til he actually laid hands on her would mean waiting too late. Under the Law (at least where I live) you do not have to wait until a battery (sexual or otherwise) has been consummated against you to repel it with reasonable force: it’s up to the Court to determine if your fear of his threat and the level of force you used were reasonable, and if it was so, then “a physically violent reaction” will be judged RIGHT. Yes, Virginia, landing the first physical blow IS justified sometimes.
At least I feel that my earlier post was clear that I do not approving of people who use violence at any verbal offense, a-la-Flowerchild, but that I believe in an approach based on circumstances. As I said, the girl in the incident that has triggered this debate may have had a reasonable basis to fear an imminently threat, and left it as an open question. Why did I leave it at that? Because WE WEREN’T THERE. Maybe she did overreact? WE DON’T KNOW. Summary condemnation/congratulation is misplaced.
If any girl kicked me in the groin when I hadn’t even come remotely close to threatening her, I’d break her fucking face. End of story. That’s the kind of overreaction that deserves a response on the same level.
He came back rather tight-lipped, and didn’t really want to talk about it except to say, “The Cat can’t play down at Johnny’s house anymore.” And we were thankful that up to that point, she hadn’t really been playing down there unaccompanied–at age 4 she had just graduated from being confined to our yard and the neighbor kid’s yard next door and was finally allowed to go down the street with The Pack.