-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/50998/california-high-school-student-15-years-old-gang-raped-for-two-hours-while-a-crowd-watched/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"What is becoming of the American soul?"
"What have we become"
Those are exactly the right reactions. What have we become? Those who imagine themselves to be disconnected from this, who react with denial and dismissal have their heads (and hearts) deep in the sand. As if we don't already have enough sociopaths in society without breeding a new generation to take their place. This story makes me absolutely sick.
We've become a lot less violent than we used to be. It's worth keeping in mind in reading about such an appalling event that we're deep down still a bunch of animals who have by some miracle succeeded in making violence like this much rarer than ever before in our million year history. We haven't become anything, because we used to be much worse.
It's dangerous to forget that. Start looking around for reasons--that is, people other than the perpetrators to blame--and you'll find some. "It's MTV," you'll say. "Those Viacom executives. Some of them make *millions* a year! Causing violence like this! Kill them!" Talk about mob mentality. That's another historical legacy we're gradually overcoming, but it takes perseverance and forbearance.
Dr J, I'm sorry, but this is a "blinders-on" point of view. I agree that blaming something like this on a single factor, like video games, is foolish, but to suggest that a gang rape egged on by mob violence has no larger cultural, political, or sociological implications, beyond the individual acts involved, is just abject nonsense.
Life is full of outliers. So, too, is society. Sometimes, those outliers work for the betterment of humanity; others work specifically against. Luckily, the bell curve of applied ethics agrees with those of us who are angered by the latter. Perhaps, then, it is not the outlier that speaks for an entire culture, but instead the reaction it creates.
I agree Kathy. I just said it's important to keep perspective.
I think it's natural to try to make sense out of a senseless act like this. Reminding ourselves of where humanity came from and the primitive instincts we overcome on our better days is a good way to do so. Not least because it makes us a little less hasty to convict the wrong suspect, such as video games or rap videos or adventure novels.
The glass was never full. It may be half-empty now, but it's fuller than it has ever been.
I agree that we need to keep perspective and remind ourselves of how much barbarity we have overcome as a species. Having said that, I think that today is not the day for that. I think there is a time for saying "Let's put this in perspective," and there is a time for saying, "This is a nightmare, an atrocity beyond words, and it has me reeling and wanting to cry and just raging at the suffering, which feels unbearable to me."
You can fill in your own words, there, but I hope you get my point -- that it's appropriate to feel horror and grief with no equivocation for a certain amount of time before trying to be philosophical.
I have so much anger at this statement that I think I need to leave this thread now.
You said in reply to DLS's comment of "'There is no collective "we" here. Those of us to whom this is alien are in no way implicated.' I have so much anger at this statement that I think I need to leave this thread now."
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was offline for several hours. When I returned and read DLS's remark (in reply to my comment of all things) I was furious. Your comment couldn't have been more appropriate.
DLS, if you read this, you are wrong, dead wrong. How dare you excuse anyone as being "in no way implicated"? We are all implicated in what has become of our culture. Next time you go into one of your ad hominems about how those who disagree with you are "low IQ" morons, I'm throwing this one back at you. This may be the most offensive remark you have ever made here...and you've made a few. My suggestion: stop insulting other commenters and buy a f**king mirror.
But, for a moment, let us walk that path. The young girl who had the misfortune of being targeted in this atrocity: is she also to be implicated of the crime committed against her? Perhaps the person that called the police should be brought in for trial. Maybe the police themselves. After all, they are a part of the society which allowed for the environment of her attack to exist.
No, of course not. I feel sorrow for the victim, and much anger at the attackers. But I do not feel guilt at something to which I not only had no idea was going to occur, but would have tried to stop to the best of my ability. And no amount of reasoning nor hypothesizing will achieve that.
DLS and I may be cold-hearted bastards, to you, for thinking along those lines... but, you know. Too bad :).
What I said is that we are all responsible for what has become of our culture. I did not say, as you attempt to falsely misrepresent, that we are individually responsible for the specificl criminal act.
Here is the exact quote from my comment, copied and pasted to avoid any typos, "We are all implicated in what has become of our culture."
Read it!! Do I anywhere say that we are responsible for the individual criminal act?
You are, however, correct about one thing. The insensitive attitude displayed by you and DLS is , to quote you, "cold hearted" and, I would add, inexcuseable.
In the future, if you wish to reply to one of my comments, begin by representing accurately what I said. If you are unable to do that much, you lose credibility...at least with me...and I suspect with others.
I will, no doubt in utter futility, await your apology.
However, please do not read this as anger, but simple emphasis. My culture is not in line with mainstream America. My culture is not willing to accept blame for something it did not create nor condone. My culture has nothing to do with the culture of those that attacked that young girl. I was not raised to be like them. I do not associate with people like them. I will not raise others to be like them. Therefore, I will not be associated with them in any shape or form.
This is, unfortunately yet understandably, a heated topic for conversation. In the realm of letters, it's easy to assume one's tone in speech - even when such a tone doesn't exist at all. When there comes time for me to apologize for something that I have done in error, I shall. However, even in re-reading my response to you, I find it still holds its own weight to your original statement.
Perhaps the best course of action is to agree to disagree on each other's notion of culture. After all, if we take out that aspect, we both agree that the act was an atrocity, that the police should do all that they can, that we hope the victim can heal in some way in the future, and that we would never wish something like this on anyone. I would hope, in the future, that we focus on all those agreements rather than that one disagreement, eh? :)
You misrepresented what I said. Period. That has nothing to do with your position on any underlying issue. When you misrepresent what someone said, take responsibility for having done so.
Your reply included the implication that I believe the girl should be held criminally responsible for her own rape. In your words, "The young girl who had the misfortune of being targeted in this atrocity: is she also to be implicated of (sic) the crime committed against her?" That is deeply and personally offensive! An apology is in order. I regret that you haven't the honor to offer one.
If you take responbsibility for having misrepresented my position, we can have a discussion about the underlying issues. Until then, you do not warrant the respect necessary for discussion of those issues. In my opinion, you are not only cold hearted and insensitive vis-a-vis the incident reported in the article, you are equally insensitive to your own faults and the offense you visit upon others with that insensitivity.
As an aside, what you have quoted from me is, in fact, a question that I posed to you. Were I to have implied, I wouldn't have asked in such a way. I didn't write anything that was misrepresenting you; you read it as if I were. You demand an apology for something I did not do, holding further healthy debates as ransom. It's a rather unfortunate turn of events.
if one cannot feel the "we" in this, then i would gently suggest one is living in too small box. . .
The point of view expressed by this reader is not at all unusual. It's commonplace. This is why it is SO wrong, both morally and factually, to say that "we" -- all of us, as a society -- are not implicated in what was done to this girl.
I found a blog post about this that spoke to me:
http://cbslocalblogs.prospero.com/n/blogs/blog....
As to the bystanders, shades of Kitty Genovese all over again.
Another way of putting this is that the witnesses in the Kitty Genovese case were separate and distinct from the crime itself. In what happened in California, the crowd was actually part of the crime.
Exactly, yes. Thanks for clarifying.
There is no collective "we" here. Those of us to whom this is alien are in no way implicated.
Yes, there is (as conservatives complained about in particular during the last decade) a decline overall and "vulgarization" of society, but this is distinct, an underclass situation similar to that in Chicago metro which involved a worse crime (murder). Note the location: Richmond. (Well, if you have lived in or paid attention while visiting, to the Bay Area, you'd understand -- it's a violent place like nearby Oakland.)
Don't wonder where people get twisted ideas from. You know damn well it's monkey see, monkey do..
But we *do* feel something. Your statement, "Sad story, but I honestly don't have a take beyond that," makes me wonder whether that's true of you. This is not a "sad story." This is a horror story.
do you ever watch 'premium' cable channels? we have one of those three-free-month deals w/dish network right now. we're enjoying things like HBO[s] and showtime[s] ... i hadn't realized just how bad things had gotten. i mean, i knew they were working on the 54th SAW movie and the 18th HOSTEL movie ... but those are just the headliners. these channels are flooded with things that are every bit as bad, if not nearly so 'elegantly' produced. its a never-ending parade of hurt-them-and-make-them-bleed-and-watch-their-heads-fall-off-as-fake-blood-spurts-acroos-the-room festivities.
we flood the markets with video games that are literally simulators training kids to do all manner of vile things to other people and then we move onto motion pictures [or direct to video/DVD] with trash like this.
and we're surprised? news flash: there wouldn't be so many of these titles if there wasn't a highly lucrative market for them. think about that and what it says for our culture. but fear not ... the producers like rob zombie who churn out all of this garbage are handed awards and money to churn out even more of it because, hey, they're making money on it and that after all is what matters.
DLS,
These kinds of incidents don't generally happen in bad neighborhoods in America - not to mention not-bad neighborhoods. The Africa example is apt - but that's amidst an atrocious guerrilla war. It happened in Bosnia and in countless other wars before that (I've heard horrid tales of Sudeten German women gang-raped by Czech and Soviet soldiers while being expelled from Czechoslovakia after WWII).
That's the point -- that this is not an "outlier." Rape occurs all the time. Every single day. Probably multiple times every single day. Gang rape is not at all uncommon, either. The gang rape that happened in California stands out for its particularly horrible details, but rape itself is common.
If I remember correctly from when I took Meyers-Briggs (it wasn't the official complete one; I took one of the versions online) I came out an IFNJ. So your hunch was right. :-)
I *am* an IFNJ, though. Gotta give Dr J credit for getting that right. :-)
Those who stood by and did nothing are a product of the success of sanitizing the schools of moral values. No prayer, no patriotism, no literature or thought than anyone finds offensive -- secular and sterile values surround the young who are taught they are victims and it is ok to lash out at those 'clinging' to God and quaint morality. Both fall short of perfection but society adorns the Polanskis with rewards and reviles and ridicules the religious values of the Palins. A generation of secular humanism is bearing fruit.
When a young man sees a violent act toward a woman occurring before his eyes, what motivates him to action? Or to indifference? Where is your God now? Busy ensuring political correctness, non-offending speech codes, enjoining those condemning quaint notions of immorality -- if it feels good, do it -- so why get involved? Call the cops? The cops are the enemy, isn't that what the Free Mumia crowd teaches us? Pull a gun and make them stop the rape? The sophisticates don't cling to guns, they seek to outlaw them. What to do? Maybe remind them to wear condoms.
So this is nothing new. As to why this happens. Too many reasons. But the only way to really stop this type of crime is to be deadly serious about stopping this. I'm no Rambo. I'm no soldier. And I'm a "peacenik" many times. But if I had my gun and I came upon this scene..... Well... Nevermind.
In that same spirit, one of my all-time favorite movie scenes is the one in Thelma and Louise..... If you've seen the film, I probably don't have to finish that sentence.
Personally, I think that this is an extreme example of what is happening to teen girls every single day in this country. I'm sure the victim in this case has more extensive, deeper scars than most of the girls I'm referring to, but over time and repeated incidents, I am seeing dozens of cases of girls emotional health being completely wrecked by our societal attitudes toward sex and the exploitation that it enables. Raising a teenaged daughter right now is like walking through landmines, and I've already witnessed a few damaged souls among my daughter's friends (such as one who recently was hospitalized for a suicide attempt related to her deep depression over a boyfriend who used her sexually and then dumped her. The girl is 15 and I'm fairly sure she's been sexually active since the age of 12, with boys who were high school seniors or older.)
And that's where I have a problem with the sentiment expressed here about how we're all at fault- because for some of us, we've long seen the deep roots of problems of sexual exploitation, hypersexualization of kids, and gratuitous violence in our culture and entertainment industry. We've done our best to opt out of it and fight for a healthier moral environment in which to raise our kids, but are often called prudes or religious zealots for doing so. We've at times pointed out the hazards of sex ed in schools which teaches a value neutral view of sexuality, giving power to boys to exploit girls who just want to feel love and acceptance, without realizing that the sexual relationships that result can give them that feeling temporarily but are often extremely emotionally damaging when the relationship is exposed for what it really is.
Before anyone argues this point with me, of course I don't see all teen sexual relationships as being this black and white, and it's not always a case of males desiring sexual relationships and girls 'giving in'. But witnessing what is going on in high schools now vs. when I was a teen, I'm convinced that the exploitative sexuality has skyrocketed and I do believe that the attitudes reinforced strongly by our popular culture and by authorities in the schools, along with weakened parental involvement, contribute greatly.
Now back to the rape incident. Part of the reason I relate all of this to teen sexuality in general is that I have to wonder, given the circumstances that have been reported, how many of the bystanders really saw it as a violent attack or did it appear as a consensual sex party incident? And no, I'm not at all making the argument that Kathy criticized from that blog post, and I completely agree with that criticism (the girl was not at fault or 'asking for it'.) But I do think a huge problem with rape today is that the greater assumption seems to always be that everyone wants to have sex, and unless obvious violence is involved, the presumption of coercion isn't there even in a situation with a group of males and one female, in a public venue. Years ago, NO ONE would have stumbled on such a situation and thought twice about whether or not the girl was participating consensually, yet today I don't think it's at all uncommon for people to think that way.
Without more details and facts of the case, I don't know if my suspicion in that regard is true- but still, I have a feeling that if there was a more overtly violent situation (and one that was not sexual in nature) was taking place on campus during a school dance, that the kids who witnessed it would have reacted differently.
I am seeing dozens of cases of girls emotional health being completely wrecked by our societal attitudes toward sex and the exploitation that it enables.
Those attitudes have always been there. Before birth control made it possible for women to have at least some level of increased control over their reproductive systems, there was still teenage sex. There was still premarital sex, or non-marital sex. And there was still rape. And exploitative sex is not the same thing as rape. The two are different. Sex is exploitative when one person in some way manipulates the emotional needs of another in order to gain consent to have sex. Rape is a crime of violence and both physical and psychological domination that by definition happens when consent is not present. Rape is no different in kind from stabbing or shooting or beating someone -- the only difference is that the weapon of choice is a penis rather than a knife or a bullet or fists. Whether a girl or a woman is sexually active or not has no bearing on her chances of being raped. None.Although clearly if a woman *is* sexually active and is raped, the sexual experience will almost always be used to explain and justify the rape. In truth, the two are not connected. The risk factors for being raped are being in the physical vicinity of a rapist.
The girl is 15 and I'm fairly sure she's been sexually active since the age of 12, with boys who were high school seniors or older.
If the girl has been sexually active since the age of 12, there is a good chance she was sexually abused and/or raped by a family member or by an adult known to the family, before she became sexually active. If that is the case with this girl, then the societal permissibility of casual sex has nothing to do with the girl's sexual activity (or at least it's not the primary factor). Instead of turning teenage sex into an exclusively moral issue, banning scientifically accurate sex education from schools, and teaching the lesson that good girls who respect themselves and are deserving of respect from boys do not have sex until they are married and thus should not even have a need to know about the biology of heterosexual sex and the female and male reproductive systems, I think it would be much better to consider the possibility of incest and/or other serious family dysfunction as a cause for very early sexual activity.
Part of the reason I relate all of this to teen sexuality in general is that I have to wonder, given the circumstances that have been reported, how many of the bystanders really saw it as a violent attack or did it appear as a consensual sex party incident? And no, I'm not at all making the argument that Kathy criticized from that blog post, and I completely agree with that criticism (the girl was not at fault or 'asking for it'.) But I do think a huge problem with rape today is that the greater assumption seems to always be that everyone wants to have sex, and unless obvious violence is involved, the presumption of coercion isn't there even in a situation with a group of males and one female, in a public venue. Years ago, NO ONE would have stumbled on such a situation and thought twice about whether or not the girl was participating consensually, yet today I don't think it's at all uncommon for people to think that way.
I take you at your word when you say that you do not intend the above to imply the victim is to blame for being raped, but in effect, that's what you are suggesting. A contemporary assumption that "everyone always wants to have sex" may make it easier for rapists and their enablers (and that term does not refer to you, Christine) to avoid personal responsibility for the rape, but it's not what caused the rape, or led to the rape, or allowed the rape to continue. I am stating here, categorically, that those high school boys who gang-raped their female classmate, knew quite clearly what they were doing. They knew it was not consensual sex, and the onlookers who found out about the ongoing attack because boys went in to the school building and urged them to come out and join the fun also knew it was not consensual sex. As well, the passerby who happened to overhear one of the rapists boasting about what he and his buddies had done, knew they were talking about rape and not consensual sex. The difference with the passerby, of course, is that the passerby understood that a mob of boys gang-raping a girl into unconsciousness is not something that should be ignored, and called the police. Any one of the boys who was watching the rape during the two and a half hours it went on could have done the same thing as that passerby did, and the fact none of them did does not in any way indicate that they thought the girl was consenting to be sexually penetrated by up to 20 boys over and over and over again for two and a half hours.
I was the age of those students a good many more years ago than you were the age of those students, and back then rape and gang rape were treated with the same attitudes of victim-blaming -- or permissive sexual morals-blaming, if you prefer -- that they are now. If there is a difference between then and now, it's not that bystanders were more likely to intervene, or that strangers hearing about a rape after the fact were more likely to condemn it. If there is a difference between then and now, it's that rape was condemned and punished in relation to who the victim was. If the victim belonged to a societally protected class ("good" girls, virgins, middle-class housewives, women not viewed in sexual terms like elderly women or children), then rape was a serious crime. If the victim belonged to an unprotected class (loose women, sluts, prostitutes, women in bars, women who lived independent lives outside of a husband's or parent's supervision) then the general response to rape was like that newspaper blog reader I quoted.
Your conviction that the normalization of consensual sex, sex education, birth control, etc., are behind societal attitudes toward rape, and that rape would not be tolerated as it is now if girls were taught to abstain from sex and not given information about contraception, etc., is well-intended I have no doubt, but in my view it is completely wrong (in the sense of mistaken). Just to be clear, this is NOT to say that high school students (and younger) should not be taught to postpone sex until they are in a committed relationship -- they should. They should also be given the knowledge to understand how, when, and why pregnancy happens and how to prevent it (not to mention STDs).
It's not the concept of discouraging early sex, sex in the absence of emotional maturity and mutual commitment, that I object to. It's the linkage between that kind of education, and "morality" I find counterproductive at best and repugnant at worst. DE-link moral issues from fact-based conversations about reproduction, birth control, and the emotional/psychological/maturational component of sexual activity.
First, you seem to think that if or when I express discontent with current policies or trends, that this means that I want to return to the status quo ante. In this discussion, you made several comments here indicating why we shouldn't return to the old ways and attitudes, and I mostly agree with you. The trouble is, you seem to think there are only two choices and I think that we need to evaluate critically the way we're currently educating our kids, and the cultural environment they're growing up in, without meaning that we should go back to the 1950s.
The second area leading to some disagreement, I believe, is our age difference (I'm not younger by that much, but I believe your child is grown and mine is in the trenches of this right now, plus I'm very immersed in this stuff out of concern for where it's leading for my younger kids when they reach adolescence.) I honestly think that you are a bit out of touch when you indicate, for instance, that sexual activity in a girl of 12 probably indicates prior abuse- because although I was shocked by it, I found that 12-13 is now not at all uncommon for loss of virginity (although more common than that by far is oral sex among middle schoolers.) Part of that trend seems to be physiological, as puberty is occurring at younger ages- but I believe the cultural immersion in all things sexual is partly to blame as well.
FWIW with regard to the girl I mentioned, abuse could be possible (that's always possible anyway, no matter what things look like from the outside), but primarily the family seems to not provide appropriate emotional support and guidance. And when I talk about all of these societal factors, that's the kind of thing I'm referring to as well, with families abdicating their responsibilities to the kids and then in that void, the surrounding culture and authority figures at school fill the gap in ways that aren't at all healthy for kids.
It's not the concept of discouraging early sex, sex in the absence of emotional maturity and mutual commitment, that I object to. It's the linkage between that kind of education, and "morality" I find counterproductive at best and repugnant at worst. DE-link moral issues from fact-based conversations about reproduction, birth control, and the emotional/psychological/maturational component of sexual activity.
My issue here is that morality need not be (and shouldn't be) distinct from those emotional/psychological/maturational components. I think you're confusing morality in general with religious morality, and a particular kind of religious morality at that. I'm sensing that you hear me say 'teach the morality' and think of the kind of stigmatizing/shaming that you probably believe goes hand in hand with religious morality with regard to sex. At its core though, morality is about treating other people with respect and that's my opinion of the proper background to teach both the religious aspect (which I agree should not happen at school, but through the home) and the secular aspect of sexual morality. What I sense there's not enough of in school based sex ed is teaching the self respect to know when you're actually ready (which protects against the societal and peer coercion) and the deep respect for others which goes beyond just 'don't push if the other person says no' and extends toward really knowing and caring for the other person enough to know if there's a 'silent no'.
You are. I'm in no way, and most of us are not, the kind of people who would do something like this.
Actually, we're grown up and intelligent, and refuse to be stupid and substitute pathological collective guilt (misdirected!) for individual responsibility and distinct cultural as well as behavioral problems.
To say the least! This in no way merits stupid collective guilt. Nor is failure to engage in such nonsense evidence of any lack of empathy or sympathy, which some may rush foolishly to assume incorrectly (and that's not a surprise, sadly), much less ignorance of actual cultural issues and trends (as I already correctly noted, originally). I even pointed to a similar event elsewhere, involving a worse crime than this.
******
MTV, Grand Theft Auto, and other brutal video games are all I see young men doing these days. We are raising a second generation now of violent monkey-slackers. I guarantee you it's at the heart of why rapes go on. It's like anything that society decides to normalize, if it's normal for kids to witness women being raped, subjegated to males or killed by them then we should EXPECT this type of gang rape to be on the rise and be a matter of culture like T-Steel said happened where he grew up.
Don't play dumb folks...
***
It's dangerous to forget that. Start looking around for reasons--that is, people other than the perpetrators to blame--and you'll find some. "It's MTV," you'll say. "Those Viacom executives. Some of them make *millions* a year! Causing violence like this! Kill them!" Talk about mob mentality. That's another historical legacy we're gradually overcoming, but it takes perseverance and forbearance.~ Dr. J
*******
Give me a friggin' break. Not everything boils down to "liberals vs capitalism". Some things Dr. J, actually boil down to a basic study in human behavior, sociology and a fierce examination of morality. Nobody's going to torch Viacom, but we sure as hell can rip that crap away from our kids and smash their CDs into smithereens [yes, I'm encouraging that]. And we can contact our cable companies and tell them we don't want MTV's crapola or any other like it piped into our account. And we can pressure our kids' friends parents to do the same so they don't have a sneak-away place to get exposed to monkey-see monkey-do.
"Don't play dumb folks..."
While there is merit to the argument that violent programming (television as well as video games) has an effect on youth,
http://www.killology.com/article_teachkid.htm
http://www.killology.com/article_trainedtokill.htm
there is a larger problem here (which I've listed already -- the "underclass" culture in particular as well as the decline in civility that we've seen since the late 1960s). Incidents like this, just as so much other violent crime, are not found everywhere in our society, but concentrated where there are other, related problems.
It's still surprising, and pathetic if it shouldn't be so, that so many people on this thread actually are astounded that something like this would happen, after participating in a thread not long ago about a worse crime, murder, in Chicago metro, which featured the same kind of "filming-bystander" witness behavior, and was noted for refusal of anyone to contact the police, which was followed about a thread about a violent attack on someone in Florida that was a reprisal against someone who informed the police about a crime. T-Steel, at least, is among those who understands that there are violent places in this country where violence is an accepted and even institutionalized part of the culture.
"We've done our best to opt out of it and fight for a healthier moral environment in which to raise our kids, but are often called prudes or religious zealots for doing so."
Among the wonders they have brought to my life, my goddaughters, when in high school (Los Alamitos, CA -- LA metro) chose the high road themselves (including a good dose of religion) and rebelled against the conformity there (sex, drinking, other drug use) that was often ruining their peers' lives then. They were quite strong-willed about taking the positions they chose. Along with "parental" pride I also felt a good deal of relief.
Well, that's what worked for me as a teen as well, and it's what I try to impart on my daughter.
I realize my take on this incident focuses on sexuality while yours mostly focuses on the violence of the act and of the subculture. I think there's some truth to both, but I attempted to point out another perspective on general adolescent culture today (which I'm led to believe by friends who are parents of kids just 5-10 years older than my eldest, has gotten much worse even in the time span since their kids were going through it) in which kids wouldn't report a sexual incident because there's never any presumption that all parties involved aren't consenting to the acts. And I do think that adults in our society- through the crass sexuality in popular entertainment as well as an overreaction toward destigmatizing kids who are sexually active out of choice- have contributed to a great deal of confusion in the younger generation about the absolute right to say 'no', and the normalness of that response as well as the 'yes'.
There's no doubt about this, just as there is an obvious problem with violent programming (about which I provided a pair of links to Silhouette, earlier). "Calvin Klein ad" is a joke about this, as well as cliche'.
I do view the central issue as that this is a violent act first and foremost (some feminists would say, of domination, which may or may not be so; certainly a clinical view would see such things as a form of bullying if self-satisfaction by the male[s] were sought), and related to it, the underclass subculture. The sorriest people are those decent people caught in that culture due to poverty or other reasons, who can't escape, and fall victim to this. (This could well have been true the second time my car was stolen in LA and used in a fatal drive-by shooting, killing a 14- and a 16-year-old; it wasn't even a drug or turf dispute but merely a show of bravado by the car thieves and shooters. It's safe to presume that kids like those two that were killed could very well have been innocent, not criminals themselves, and to feel sorry for them, in fact to feel sorry even if they were criminals -- "nobody deserves this.")
And then of course, among the broader demographic of adolescents, I would certainly agree with the point I believe you're raising about subgroups in inner cities, where there's little or no positive role modelling or value teaching by adults in the environment, and often gangs with associated violence and domination taking on the role of family support for kids.
The mysogyny that's routinely found in "rap" or "hip-hop" "music" (noise accompanying a degenerate form of poetry, which is being kind), and in the underclass culture it celebrates (whose main characters may be considered "Demonic Males," with all the book by that name introduces) has been long noted.
"I would certainly agree with the point I believe you're raising about subgroups in inner cities [...]"
This also makes me think again about Chicago, and how it stirred the susceptible to muttering again about gun control (which is sought by the city of Chicago and some of its suburbs, and which will be the subject of an important Supreme Court ruling soon). It in turn makes me think about not only the underclass culture, and how one intelligent author debunking generalist arguments in favor of gun control not only mentioned something that Dr. J did earlier on this thread (a county in medieval England, to name one example, had a murder rate that is a multiple of today's in the USA, and at a time when arms were knives rather than guns), but which stressed the "clinical" metaphor: it's obviously a myth that all of us are susceptible to committing or experiencing violent crimes like this, so the first thing that should be done is to distinguish which people are more highly associated with this kind of criminality, and look for the causes primarily in this sub-population that is exhibiting the behavior to a much greater degree than others. It's a cultural phenomenon, complete with lack of family structure (gangs as surrogate families have long been acknowledged, for example) and self-absorption (due to immaturity), and to what seems to be a rising extent, a lack of empathy or (more importantly) a growing lack of conscience.
*******
Thank you thank you. Yes. There is such a focus in our country on not just the indulgence of sexual appetites and drives but also on food, drugs, drinking, sugar and just about any other thing that gives us a temporary "high" to fixate on. What we lack is spirituality, a moral base. And I'm not talking just christian or any other religion; I mean a pragmatic moral foundation...which is all but gone in our culture.
Here's a litmus test. Imagine taking a time machine and plucking someone from the 1940s or before and putting them in front of a TV set or internet machine today? They would probably either die of shame from what they saw or start vomiting or go back and tell everyone to kill themselves because of what lies in their near future. The reaction in any event would not be mild. It would border on shock.
Say what you will about the old ways, but at least there was a basic moral fiber that ran through the country, even if there were the glaring exceptions now and then. But how they viewed the Bonnie and Clydes of their day was with morbid disgust, curiosities at best but certainly nothing to mimic!
It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this. Yes there's violent crime every day but now and then it takes just one of these stories to jog a reaction. Either that or we'll all just go back to our numb acceptance of whatever the cable company sends down the pipes. Even if it is shit.
The lack of emotional support and guidance is what I was getting at when I referred to family dysfunction, as well as possible abuse. If you're saying that families should provide this emotional support and guidance, I certainly agree. If they do, obviously that protects children from unhealthy societal messages. But then I have to ask, if they don't -- and I think you would agree that all too many young people today suffer from emotional neglect -- then what is it you are advocating with regard to the larger culture that will make up for that? Are you objecting to middle- and high-schoolers being given information about birth control? How are you going to change the sex-saturated culture in a way that makes up for parental neglect? And even more to the original point of this discussion, how does all this lead you to believe that a mob of boys gang-raping a girl for two and a half hours is in danger of being misinterpreted by passersby as consensual sex?
Also -- and this, in my view, is crucial -- where exactly are boys in all this? Is it only girls who should be taught to respect themselves and not have casual sex, or should boys be taught that rape is not sex and that no means no?
I don't pretend to have all of the answers- there really IS no good substitute for family support. But I do think we could make the surrounding culture less toxic and stop accepting certain elements of entertainment or calling people prudes if they don't accept the status quo. And if schools are going to be the stand in for educating kids about sex, then I simply can't agree that morality has to be left out (it just needs to be secular morality rather than religious.)
And even more to the original point of this discussion, how does all this lead you to believe that a mob of boys gang-raping a girl for two and a half hours is in danger of being misinterpreted by passersby as consensual sex?
As I tried to indicate, I could be completely off base on that- but what I have been made aware of currently is that teen parties often include a fair amount of group sexual activity and voyeuristic stuff so that I'm not so sure that a bystander wouldn't see this as 'normal'. And just as in my time, if you came upon a couple having sex in a car or somewhere at a school dance, you wouldn't report them- if these kids have normalized those kinds of activities then they're not going to report them either.
I also have been told that a lot of girls are participating out of a sense of coercion so that it's not enough to say that boys should be taught to accept no for an answer but to also understand that the default answer isn't yes.
Anyway, it may or may not be the case that the event in question was obviously not consensual, and without more details it's impossible to know how much it might have appeared violent vs. sexual in nature, and whether or not there were signs that other kids would have necessarily have seen as indicators of rape.
Oh, and btw- on the point about teaching of boys, I feel that's an area that even most good PARENTS neglect. There's still way too much of the attitude that boys will be boys- and now, instead of it just being about boys having sex with the 'bad girls' until they're ready to settle down with the one that they can bring home to Mom, the only change is that all girls are considered potential willing partners in the casual sex during that earlier period.
And listen, none of this has easy answers either. With such a long period between puberty and the time we consider ready for marriage, it's hard to know how to guide kids. Even I struggle with what to teach my kids about this since my religious sensibility says to wait for marriage but in the secular sense I tend toward teaching waiting until you're mature enough to handle a committed relationship even if that doesn't end up being a lifelong commitment.
Christine, with respect, that truly strains credulity to the breaking point. A mob of up to 20 boys gang-raping and watching other boys gang-rape a 15-year-old girl outside the school building, on the school grounds for two and a half hours, leaving her unconscious under a bench, with the physical evidence of a brutal assault all over her body,does not look to anyone like a "teen party." That is just absurd. The girl had to be air-lifted to the hospital in critical condition, Christine! Do you understand why she had to be flown and not taken in an ambulance, Christine? Because she had all but been raped to death, that's why, and her survival depended on getting her to the hospital by the quickest means possible!
And just as in my time, if you came upon a couple having sex in a car or somewhere at a school dance, you wouldn't report them- if these kids have normalized those kinds of activities then they're not going to report them either.
This is not analogous to two teenagers having sex in a car, Christine -- except that if I saw a boy raping a girl in a car, I would be able to tell the difference between that, and a boy and a girl having consensual sex. And "these kids" who watched and participated in the California gang rape had not "normalized" anything -- they were participating, either actively or passively, in a rape. Naturally they didn't call for help, Christine! The entire mob was 100 percent boys who had specifically gathered to take part in the rape!
Anyway, it may or may not be the case that the event in question was obviously not consensual, and without more details it's impossible to know how much it might have appeared violent vs. sexual in nature, and whether or not there were signs that other kids would have necessarily have seen as indicators of rape.
Everything I've already written above. Your lack of clarity on whether at least four and up to 20 boys raping a girl for two and a half hours, into unconsciousness, left to die under a bench, is really a rape or whether it might possible be consensual sex, is appalling. I don't have significant disagreement with any of the points you've made about talking to teenagers about sexual activity, but this uncertainty you apparently have that what was obviously one of the most brutal sexual assaults in this country in recent memory was actually rape and not consensual sex is ludicrous to the point of being deeply distressing.
Do you see these, and everything else, clearly yet, Kathy? I've been subjected to all kinds of incorrect, unwarranted, and even mentally ill responses to my comments, which were perfectly normal and correct.
Are you objecting to middle- and high-schoolers being given information about birth control?
No, not at all...but sometimes I don't think it's taught appropriately (sometimes giving kids too much confidence in what it can and cannot protect against, or even if the scientific information is presented correctly there's evidence that girls tend to be most freaked out about pregnancy and so all they really hear is the part about "do this and you won't get pregnant" even though many of those activities still leave them vulnerable to STDs.
And, I think there should be more emphasis on the emotional /psychological effects of sex instead of just brief platitudes of 'being ready'. I think that schools could do more to help kids understand the actual emotional ramifications more clearly, and to present information about how girls are even more affected by sex as an emotional bond and that is why boys need to better understand the girl's readiness or lack of readiness.
... which aren't even honest platitudes, because what is meant is "being prepared" (or "being careful").
Which is to also point out that of course at NO time did I in any way imply or say what you claim I did here:
Your lack of clarity on whether at least four and up to 20 boys raping a girl for two and a half hours, into unconsciousness, left to die under a bench, is really a rape or whether it might possible be consensual sex, is appalling
Since any fair reading of everything I've written here would clearly indicate that I am not at ALL confused about this incident being a 'real rape' or not, and instead I'm pointing out a potential problem that I feel may need to be addressed on whether or not our KIDS know the difference, I'll thank you not to twist my words and to save your indignation for Whoopi "rape-rape" Goldberg.