Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they should have tried the parents of the DRUNK 16 YEAR OLD GIRL. What in the hell do you expect is going to happen when children are animals, they behave like animals.
I am not justifying the bad behavior of the boys in question, but the girl IS complicitory by being drunk. Her parents (and she) should be held accountable for her bad behavior as well.
I think they should have tried the parents of the DRUNK 16 YEAR OLD GIRL. What in the hell do you expect is going to happen when children are animals, they behave like animals.
I am not justifying the bad behavior of the boys in question, but the girl IS complicitory by being drunk. Her parents (and she) should be held accountable for her bad behavior as well.
20yrsinBranson
Yeah, you tell 'em. She was asking for it!!! I mean, those poor little boys had no control over their willies once she got drunk.
maybe we should put teenage girls in Burqas and never let them leave the house without a male family member as an escort.
Well, again, it wasn't really that long ago that teenage girls in Western countries were expected to cover their legs and arms - if not exactly in burqas then certainly more modestly than a t-shirt and shorts. And young people were generally not allowed to be together, even at home, out of earshot of chaperones, just a century ago. It's hardly a solution most people - especially Western girls now used to much more liberty - would be willing to accept today, but it was a kind of solution.
Yeah - interesting point. I think this anomaly may come from different things.
On the one hand, there is some discomfort especially on the Right with the way criminal law around rape has been changed in favor of the accuser, out of a sense that it is merely another way that our laws have been shaped for "minorities" (women, in this case). The grievance comes from (approximately) the conservative belief in strictly equal laws and against the use of the law to favor special categories.
On the other hand, there is probably some sense - conscious or otherwise - that making rape convictions easier undermines the old familial order. Not that conservatives for the most part think that men (and boys) should be allowed to rape, but that in some ill-defined way, strong prosecution of rape suggest that girls no longer have any need of their parents' protection, and therefore one of the basic roles which give family purpose is eroded. I doubt this chain of thought is expressed explicitly, but it may underlie the reaction.
And on the third hand, there may simply be a nostalgic desire for an older sort of community, where social norm played a greater role than judicial punishment in regulating behavior, and on occasions when that failed, self-help in the form of a fatherly beating back behind the barn was enough to correct the wayward.
Of course, as simple statements, not many of us would disagree. It would be best if the law treated everyone equal. It's not a bad idea if dads and moms kept a closer eye on their children, supervising their boys and girls at tea socials and limiting dating to holding hands on the porch swing. And it is an attractive if remote idea to live in a Mayberry world where peer pressure supplemented by some rough informal justice kept everyone on the straight and narrow.
I see what you're saying, but girls still got raped in Mayberry--it was just shushed up and the victim was shamed. Some women got the living crap beat out of them at home too, and it was treated as a family matter vs. a violent crime. Rape is a violent crime, and it needs to be treated like one. No one back then thought fatherly beatings behind the barn for other types of violent crime, like murder, was appropriate, but for some reason if it was a crime targeting primarily females, it was all a family matter vs. a legal one. I think we have lots of nostalgic views about the way the world used to work for women, and the truth is that it was pretty brutal. Dragging some of these neanderthals into this century, or even the last one, is a challenge.
Well, again, it wasn't really that long ago that teenage girls in Western countries were expected to cover their legs and arms - if not exactly in burqas then certainly more modestly than a t-shirt and shorts. And young people were generally not allowed to be together, even at home, out of earshot of chaperones, just a century ago. It's hardly a solution most people - especially Western girls now used to much more liberty - would be willing to accept today, but it was a kind of solution.
There are parts of India right now where women are not allowed to leave their homes unless they are accompanied by a male.
I see what you're saying, but girls still got raped in Mayberry--it was just shushed up and the victim was shamed. Some women got the living crap beat out of them at home too, and it was treated as a family matter vs. a violent crime. Rape is a violent crime, and it needs to be treated like one. No one back then thought fatherly beatings behind the barn for other types of violent crime, like murder, was appropriate. I think we have lots of nostalgic views about the way the world used to work for women, and the truth is that it was pretty brutal. Dragging some of these neanderthals into this century, or even the last one, is a challenge.
Absolutely - it wasn't a perfect, happy world at all. For one thing, it was very, very class-biased. A girl from a "good" Mayberry family could bank on vengeance - especially if the boy wasn't. A boy from a "good" family might well get away with it, or at the most have to leave town for awhile. And a girl from the "wrong side of the tracks" probably just had it coming to her.
I'm not suggesting that this old world was in any way better, just speculating about the source of these conservatives' mental reservations which you noticed. And it is in the nature of conservatism to be nostalgic for the past.
There are parts of India right now where women are not allowed to leave their homes unless they are accompanied by a male.
Oh, yes! Parts of Toronto, for that matter, where south-Asian immigration is significant. And as a way to avoid the sort of situation in Steubenville it leaves much to be desired - but as I said above, it is a sort of solution. Hard for a girl to be raped if she's never allowed to leave the house without a male family member.
(Unless of course, she's raped by a male family member)
Well, again, it wasn't really that long ago that teenage girls in Western countries were expected to cover their legs and arms - if not exactly in burqas then certainly more modestly than a t-shirt and shorts. And young people were generally not allowed to be together, even at home, out of earshot of chaperones, just a century ago. It's hardly a solution most people - especially Western girls now used to much more liberty - would be willing to accept today, but it was a kind of solution.
And women still got raped. When we lived in Missouri years ago, there was an incident where an 80+ year old woman was sexually assaulted and left for dead in her home by a group of teenage boys. Do you think she should have covered her arms and legs? We need to get off this notion that rape happens because men are so overcome with passion that they can't control themselves. It's a violent crime, and it's about wanting to hurt someone and have power over them vs. just wanting to have sex. Rapists go looking for opportunities where victims are vulnerable. You can make yourself less likely to be a victim by being aware of your surroundings, but if you're not the one attacked, they're still going to look for someone else to attack. Rapists are predators.
Well, again, it wasn't really that long ago that teenage girls in Western countries were expected to cover their legs and arms - if not exactly in burqas then certainly more modestly than a t-shirt and shorts. And young people were generally not allowed to be together, even at home, out of earshot of chaperones, just a century ago. It's hardly a solution most people - especially Western girls now used to much more liberty - would be willing to accept today, but it was a kind of solution.
And again -- this was just a young girl -- where were her parents -- what kind of parents would allow a skantily-clad girl to go out like that and to attend a drinking party dressed that way? And the parents of the boys -- where was the party held? Who were the adult chaperones? We don't have mandatory burkas obviously -- but that still doesn't mean parents have to dress their daughters like skanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
