We used to call this a "tittie twister" and we never got punished for it

And we ended up growing out of it.



GOLD HILL, Ore. - A teen who pinched and twisted another boy's nipple while standing in line at a deli has been sentenced to four days in juvenile detention because he refused to write a letter that explained his actions.
ADVERTISEMENT

David Thumler, 16, was convicted of offensive physical touching in July 2005, after the victim's parents complained to police. The Crater High School student paid a $67 fine and served three days of community service.

"I emptied trash cans, mowed lawns and shoveled gravel," Thumler said.

But Thumler's refusal to comply with the final piece of his sentence will cost him four days in detention. He was required to write the letter during four classes put on by Mediation Works, which operates the victim-offender program for Jackson County Community Justice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nipple_pincher

man, this kind of crazy just leaves me speechless.

each other IS crazy, isn't it?

I'm glad someone is finally taking a stand against bullies.

I used to see the bully and jock boys (sometimes the same ones) do this crap to the "wimpy" boys all the time... especially in grammar school. Very mean and humiliating. Making another child cry isn't a healthy thing.

that it was much more effective to grab just the shirt and twist the fabric so hard that the victim had to walk around the rest of the day with a pair of shirt nipples.

as a Freshman in high school, that and wedgies. He came home with ruined clothes and a great desire not to go to school. It cost us not only MONEY to replace his clothes, but hours of encouragement.

It's not harmless. It's cruel bullying.

Crazy to me people are defending this bully behavior.

Chalk up really good for a shot then catch you friend off guard and tap lightly at the right spot on his white T-shirt. On a good day you could catch him off guard twice for the "full effect." ;)

We weren't very good pool players...

on edit: But I have been on the receiving end of a bonafide TT and came close to popping the offender in the chops.

tormented this way? I thought the whole point of being a Democrat was that you were sympathetic to others and had empathy. That's assault, if not sexual assault, and anybody who does that should be punished, if not convicted in a court.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sexual assault? No, I'm sorry, but treating it as anything more than it is, is simply taking things too far. If my indifference to a titty twister means I'm not a Democrat in your eyes, then I guess all the work I do for actual causes is pointless. I guess I'm out of the club.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A bit of a difference.
plus, unwanted physical contact is ASSAULT. Plain and simple.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's a natural phase of growing up, doing shit like this to prove what a man you are!

beaten out of him. He got a titty twister, big fucking deal. He wasn't sodomized with a pinecone like those jocular assholes in Pennsylvania did at that football camp to prove how "manly" they are. You know there is such a thing as relativism. The fact of the matter is now the kid looks like a complete wimp, and the kid who's going to Juvie for this will end up kicking the crap out of him for this kid crying like a two year old.

I'm not saying the kid should have gone to Juvie, but saying it's not a big fucking deal and to lighten up makes it seem OK and picking on kids is not OK.

which is exactly what it seems the people flipping out over this want to do. i would rather my kid get a titty twister than put him or her in some kind of protective bubble only to have their whole world come crashing down on them when they realize, it's not such a nice world out there after all. There's a thing called "perspective," and as long as the kid wasn't injured (and if anyone claims he was, you need help) I honestly can't see myself being too upset about this happening.

whoever called this sexual assault needs to seriously reassess their values and their life btw.

..of what is acceptable, imho.

your kids should expect to be assaulted? Are you conditioning them to accept any and all treatment by others? That is just crazy.

if a kid breaks their arm, they have every right to press charges and the like. If a kid gets a titty twister, they can complain to the teacher, but no charges should be filed. This is about proper reactions based on the severity of the situation.

It happened in public, in a place of business. It was an assault by one person on and other, and has been properly treated as such by the authorities.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." --Mark Twain

Don't physically assault people and you don't risk being punished for assault.

Or are you more accustomed to having them inflicted on you?

The fact remains that to do this to another person constitues assault under the law in any jurisdiction in the country; were it not so, there would neither have been arrest nor conviction. The person who did this will doubtless find much harder and nastier fellows than himself resident in the juvenile hall, and perhaps take an apt lesson from the broadening of his experience....

A kid gives some other kid a TT (for short)and now it seems we are hoping he learns a lesson by getting worse things done to him? Perhaps then the people who teach him a lesson will then get someone to do something even worse to them, so they learn a lesson, and then on and on :)

There is always someone bigger and meaner than you....

"To live outside the law you must be honest."

well wait, i did give one to my stepfather, but the fact of the matter is this is not a big deal. there are kids doing drugs in school, dealing drugs in school, beating the living shit out of kids in school, and people are acting as if this is somehow comparable. it reminds me of when Chris on Family Guy comes home after his teacher murders her husband and Lois thinks Chris did it. here's the conversation:

Lois: You know what you did young man, and we're very upset.
Chris: You mean the one time I had hard gas and I pooed myself?
Peter: Close, but no.
Stewie: How is that even close?

Here's the equation:

titty twister = insults < drugs < beating the shit out of a kid

There is really little point to pressing on....

The gentleman above wasn't being snotty or mean. He didn't insult you. He merely chose to illustrate his point with a humorous TV anecdote.

It was and is a good point, his use of the Family Guy anecdote aside.

I fall right in the middle on this issue, I suppose.

Kids do crap. When I was a kid, I both gave and got stupid stuff like that. Hell, our high school had a Freshman Day (not quite like the one depicted in Dazed and Confued, but you get the idea Open Season for Titty Twisters, Dutch Rubs, and the like).

I still remember the crowded classroom over lunch period of a kindly teacher who let us freshmen wait out the ever-so nerve racking lunch period. I still remember looking down into the HS courtyard and seeing perhaps our most abrasive, obnoxious classmate running down below, pursued by three or four seniors.

Was it right? No. Did that kid, abrasive though he was, deserve to get thrown in a trash can? No.

Did the senior who threw him in the trashcan deserve punishment? Maybe. But did they deserve extreme punishment like juvvie hall? Not in my opinion. Hell, one of those seniors sits on the City Council (city to remain anonymous) today, and does a fair amount of positive communtiy work for the poor and underprivileged.

Would he have been able to do his good work in the City Council if he had a stint in juvvie on his record? I wonder.

I have always respected your opinions and perspectives, sir. But if indeed you are a judge/magistrate, then surely you must know the law must be tempered with reason (which is why mandatory minimum sentences are so insidious, IMHO).

Would this not be one of those times?

As I said, I am not married to a strong position on either side, but I found your point interesting and I am in partial agreement with it. But I am also in partial disagreement with it.

Thoughts on my counter-point?

That boys will be boys, and position in the pack is determined, for better or worse, by aggressiveness, competence at violence, and ability to "take it", among other things.

It is also true that people who transgress are on occassion caught out and punished, and that some find a harsher lot in consequence than others. That, it seems to me, is one of the chances one takes when doing something that transgresses, and that ought to be balanced against the fun of transgression by anyone contemplating such an act.

In my view, a school administration that lends open sanction to a custom such as you describe is derelict and incompetent. They are quite fortunate some freshman did not purloin a pistol from his father's drawer one such morning, or arm himself with a switchblade, and use the thing. Had such occured, the responsibility would really have lain with the school administration, and my sympathies would lay with the freshman.

(sigh)

And I am virtually certain the school administration most definitely DID NOT condone it.

It has been more than 20 years, so my memory is a bit faded on the topic, but I recall the administration discouraging it, as least in a desultory fashion.

I do agree that, in today's world, the danger of a freshman pulling a pistol is more likely. And I would guess that the "tradition" of Freshman Days as they were variously practiced around the nation, have mostly been over at least since Columbine, maybe before.

Should the kid have been punished at all for applying a titty twister? To his FRIEND (or at least someone he considered such, according to his own words)?

Even that is questionable. But to sock him with juvvie hall and force him to write a letter of "criminal thought processes"?

Excessive. Even if he deserved punishment of some...way too excessive.

And the more I think about it, the more I respect his act of conscience NOT to write that odious piece of tripe.

As adults, we learn all to easily to surrender our consciences and jump through the hoops in order to pay the mortgage, etc. I admire this kid for sticking to his guns, and following his conscience.

The child assaulted, and his family, do not consider the two to be or have ever been friends. The offender's parent refused to co-operate with an informal reconciliation process that would have avoided a trial. This is hardly an act of consciemce; this is simply someone who refuses to admit to himself that he did wrong, and needs to mend his behavior.

If the authorities in your school had opposed the matter effectively, it would not have continued. A few arrests, a few expulsions prior to graduation, and the "tradition" would have dissolved. Those who furnished the examples would have had no one to blame but themselves.

In either case, even if that was the full extent of the situation and it was a case of "mild bullying" (if there had been other incidents you'd think they'd have come out from the "victim" and his family), I continue believing the punishment was excessive.

As for my old high school, as I said it was 20+ years ago. During those Freshman Days (which I did not participate in as a senior) no one was struck or physically injured in any way beyond the brief but unharmful pain of the Dreaded Dutch Rub or Titty Twister. Mental anguish, perhaps another story.

Am I condoning the practice? No. I didn't condone it then and I don't condone it now.

But arrests? Expulsiuons? We are going to have to agree to disagree here. Too severe punishments by far.

On a different note, I finally figured out who you remind me of, sir.

(and I mean this is a complimentary fashion)

Captain Sir Edmund Pelliew of the Horatio Hornblower series. If you haven't seen it, do so. I think you would enjoy it.



"There is nothing that occurs aboard a Captain's ship that is outside his responsibility, and you would do well to remember that, Mr. Hornblower."

http://www.tv.com/horatio-hornblower/show/13833/episode_listings.html&season=0

Were favorites of my boyhood: thank you for reminding me of them.

We shall, indeed, agree to disagree on this matter, and leave it aside.

A pleasure to cross words with you, Sir!

Christmases ago. He liked them quite a bit and I have no doubt that was at least partially responsible for me picking up on the very well-done A&E series later on.

As to your closing sentiments...back at you, sir!

:toast: :beer:

To taking a loaded gun to school?

Does not bode well for a long and happy life, free of professional interest from the police....

Especially the male ones. They tend to like to hit each other. Most get over it eventually, though.

culminating with the presidency.

It's a juvenile thing. Teens do all kinds of crazy shit before growing up.

People do indeed do all sorts of crazy things at that age; not all of them survive the doing, either. This one messed up, and got caught out at it. Life is hard.

"Nature is a hanging judge."

It's that his punishment was a lot harsher than it's been for all those other kids who've been caught.

Did you know the titty twister also goes by the "nipple cripple" as well as the "purple nurple"?

At least according to Wikipedia's "School Prank" page.vice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titty_Twister

Had he kept his hands off the other boy, nothing would have happened to him at all. Had he done it to the wrong boy, he might have had his throat slit on the spot. There are always a variety of possible outcomes....

"The future is hard to predict, on account of it ain't happened yet."

Though in any case, you are simply pointing out the obvious; that this boy is a coward, making sure to select for a victim someone he is pretty sure will not be able to defend himself effectively. This is one reason he meets so little sympathy from many....

and all the other instances of young white males who got sick of the bullying, went home and came back with an automatic weapon.

Normally kids know who will slit their throat and who won't

that's a chilling answer, raginginmiami, and not what i normally expect from you

i'm sorry but kids should not be messing w. other kid's nipples, they should have learned that in kindergarten, frankly as i think your answer tacitly acknowledges, we have here a bully who has picked out a smaller, weaker boy and decided to hurt him sexually and physically and perhaps most important mentally, and why? because he figured he could get away with it

four days in juvie does not sound unfair to me, indeed, if i were the victim, i would feel disrespected that the sentence of the person who assaulted me was so mild

i hope it is enough that the bully gets the message to keep his hands to himself, we little people are not here to be preyed upon by the strong, we actually have feelings too

I'm putting myself in the mind of a kid. Let's face it, the brain of a teenager is not fully developed yet. They don't have the same logic and reasoning (most) adults possess.

"here a bully who has picked out a smaller, weaker boy and decided to hurt him sexually and physically and perhaps most important mentally, and why? because he figured he could get away with it"

You make it sound as if this incident was cold, calculated and premeditated where the older boy picked the younger boy out of a crowd simply because he was the smallest and that he would get away with it.

If you read the second article (post 28, I think), you would see that these kids were hanging out together, trying to chat up a teenage girl. The younger kid said something that embarrassed the older boy and the older boy gave him a titty twister. I think it's obvious that the reason the younger kid embarrassed the older kid, and the older kid gave him a titty twister, is that they were both trying to impress the girl.

Now I know the girl was likely NOT impressed, but boys are stupid about those things. Perhaps the titty twister caused more physical pain than originally anticipated. A boy of 15 is going through drastic physical changes and might not even know his own strength.

Also, in my post that you responded to, I screwed up and left it incomplete. What I was trying to say was that most kids know who the kids are that are dangerous and crazy and capable of slitting another's throat, and likely not antagonize them with a titty twister. It was a response to a previous post where the DUer said this was a possibility of happening if you give a TT to the wrong kid. Yes, it's a possibility, but highly unlikely.

The incident we're discussing is nothing but teenage antics between two buddies. It happens every single day in schools throughout the world. Perhaps he should have been punished, but not by being locked up for four days in juvie.

the younger boy says they're NOT buddies, why does the word of the bigger older boy who is trying to get out of punishment more believable than the word of the smaller younger kid?

i am a small person, i was once a kid, it was unavoidable if i was to go out in public at all that i would have to encounter bigger bullying kids, it didn't make us buddies, it really didn't matter to me what went on in the bully's mind, sure, no bully thinks he is a bully, everybody is a hero in his own mind

a young man of 15 DOES know that grabbing someone else's nipple is wrong, you know he knows that, i know he knows that, it is adding insult to injury to abuse someone and then say it's OK because "hey, we're buddies"

my abuser is not my friend just because we have the misfortune of prior acquaintance, that is no different from the argument made by the date rapist to excuse his actions

Guess what a common denominator is for young white men who go to school with automatic weapons and open fire on their classmates is?

A "whimp" might look defenseless while your assaulting him, but after he decides he can't take the bullying anymore, goes home and finds a gun... whatcha gonna do then?

Was okay when I was in 8th grade in the 70's -- but it shouldn't have been.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And not having to make snide personal assumptions about the person you are debating?

In at least three posts in this thread, you've either tried to make another DU out to be a bad democrat or tried to make another DUer out to be a shallow, insecure bully simply because they stated different viewpoints than you.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read through this thread to see how other DUers on both sides of the issue are able to state their opinion without having to make snide judgements about the person they are debating.

I am perfectly polite to people who are reasonable. Anyone who thinks that sexual assault is okay is not a reasonable person in my book. You're the one making snide personal assumptions, BTW. And I AM sticking to the issues. Assault is assault. Someone who doesn't see that isn't worth my time. Which is why this will be the last time I'll read one of your posts.

:boring:

It was unasked for contact, and it was painful. His complaining does not make him a wimp at all! It's no different than asking girls and women to just shut up and take it.

"Crying like a two year old"? For shame. Ridiculing someone's very real humiliation.

the little wimp that went crying to the principal probably has a few future dates with some closed fists.

live & learn- it's all part of growing up- learning to choose your battles.

when the 'whimp' snaps and decides he can't take it anymore, goes home and gets a gun and returns to class with it.

getting passed around like a pack of cigarettes for the rest of his life...

and all for the sake of not knowing which fights are worth fighting.

you see, all that bullying made the whimp suicidal as well as homicidal.

Perhaps this conversatin has given me insight into suicide bombers.

and all because nobody had the sense to teach him to choose his battles wisely.

Remains the person who feels both that it is fun to torment someone weaker than he, and that doing so is socially approved behavior. You are, indeed, arguing in favor of both those propositions. Why do you think tormenting people weaker than you is fun, and that it is a proper behavior to indulge yourself in?

life has taught me that there are all sorts of idiots in this world, you can't fight them all, and it's best to choose your battles wisely. with some idiots it's just better to move on, and forget about it. lunkheads who give titty-twisters fall into that category.

but if somebody wants to be one of those tight-ass morons who think that they can change the world with every encounter-more power to them, and let them learn for themselves just how far it gets them, and how much actual change they actually foster.

sheesh...:eyes:

Idiots who inflict violence on others require fighting, by whatever means cime to hand. Appeal to state authority is an acceptable and often efficacious means of doing so.

maybe he'll think differently.

"Idiots who inflict violence on others require fighting, by whatever means cime to hand..."

so- violence begets violence, until the person with the biggest weapon rules the day...real intelligent...:eyes:

not all battles are worth fighting in the REAL world---maybe you should pay it a visit sometime.

Amounts to saying that a person who is assaulted should simply accept the assault, and concede to being a lesser creature than the person who assaults him.

How is any of this different from what you accuse me with such dudgeon of subscribing to, accepting that the person most capable fo violence rules the day at the end? The only difference apparent to me is that you seem to feel that should be accepted from the outset, and the person most likely to indulge in violence be ceded the title straight off. You may question my inteligence if you wish, but one of the odder things life has brought to my notice is an apparently widespread belief that intelligence and a capability for and competence at violence are somehow incompatible. That is far from true.

As a matter of fact, in the real world you seem to imagine me unfamiliar with, none of the dire consequences you have posited for the boy whose parents brought in the authorities in this matter seem to have materialized. There is in the reports concerning the matter not the shadow of a hint he has been persecuted in the school or the neighborhood, beaten up, or even ostracized. It is far more likely that nowadays he is pretty much unmolested, and the boy in the toils of the authorities over his action more careful in his behavior.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.... that a better outcome in this case would have been if the "wimp" kicked the offender square hard in the balls and pulled his head toward his raising knee.

My experience is that the vast majority of folks who do this kind of shit need a serious ass kicking, and they change their ways once they get one.

I'll bet you this dilhole doesn't run around twisting nipple in juvy, that is for sure.

About the only part of this case I disagree with it the "sexual" assualt, this was not a sexual assault it was a garden variety bullying assault by a punk.

at least the kid would have earned a little respect among his fellow students for standing up for himself.

How often does this happen? We don't know the whole story. This was probably a kid who got picked on by some bullies for a long time. It is wrong. Don't touch other people, period.

Try that juvenile activity now and you'll be hauled off to court. Making fun of sexual abuse is reprehensible.

Your assumption that the other gentleman is/was a bully is specious and unfounded.

Do you think I am/was a bully for taking the opposing side of this debate?

Let me end the speculation, and you can choose to believe me or not as you like.

I LOATHE bullies. Until I learned to fight back as a teenager, while a young lad I was a victim of bullying on more than a few occasions. And I'm not talking about my buddy giving me a Titty Twister in line at the deli, either.

I'm talking about REAL bullying, the kind that makes you ditch school rather than take a beating (because what's a note from Teacher versus a fist in the face or three at age 9?)

I have know way of knowing what your life experience is along these lines, but it seems to me you have a serious lack of perspective on this issue.

"Sexual abuse" my tuchus!

of the debate when it comes to assault and battery. You just don't do it. And if you do, you are punished for it.

The level of logical reasoning skills on this board is woefully inadequate.

If you think that kids hurting each other, IN ANY WAY, is okay, then you are the one with the serious lack of perspective on this issue.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they can be damned painful and can injure. And it IS sexual harassment. You just don't grab and twist others' parts at will.

Is it still sexual?

You don't just grab and twist at will, whatever the part.

any asshole that would grab someones nipple and injure them for"fun" or to be"funny" is an asshole and he gets what he deserved . Good Juvenile hall for the little fuck face bully.For if this bully did such to me,he would not have any testicles left.The "justice " system shows bullies too much mercy.
In fact I wish every bully would just die.The world is better off without them.

offed himself anyway immediately following the castration. :shrug:

You should not be tolerated when you abuse people for"kicks"
Society has way too much sypathy for bullies.Buollies are violent by choice.

and obnoxious as hell. It's bullying behavior and not in the least bit amusing.

I don't go along with "boys will be boys".

I wish they had been punished.

You wouldn't do that a girl.

But boys did it to each all the time, and these were friends. Maybe I grew up in a different environment (Miami) than everybody else.

We didn't do that to girls either.

We did all kinds of stupid shit to each other though. Head butting, bloody knuckles, "slug bug", and all that other shit. Not once did it ever feel like assault, and I've always been the little guy. I'd have felt differently if it was someone I wasn't friends with, but these kids were friends.

But some of my friends did and it was nuts. I remember one guy ended up with a big bump on his forehead. He was pissed off that night.

That should not excuse it, either.

I'm sorry for what happened to you. And in 5th grade, most girls have past puberty and, these days, most boys, too.

That is unacceptable behavior and "over the line" and does come MUCH closer to the definition of "sexual assualt".

I wish those assholes had been punished, too.

Seems like something that should be handled by parents/school officials, etc.
No need to make a mountain of of a molehill

And the one set of parents (bully's) wouldn't cooperate.

Some of you all need to take a chill pill.

Agreed

If the kid he did it to had kicked his knee-cap loose in reply, police would not have arrested the one who struck back, but might still have arrested the one who initially committed a crime, if complaint was vigorous enough.

The cops had other things to worry about and the parents weren't complaining.

You would have quickly found it was very difficult to breathe. People have a right to be left alone and untouched; it is unfortunate both that some glory in violating this, and that others seem incapable of enforcing it for themselves.

involved & perhaps the parents if necessary? I think the question is a matter of how best to resolve these issues. What is your opinion?

My natural inclination is to leave it among the children, but that does not always work well. Some cannot defend themsleves adequately; some people just do not learn short of very serious consequences. If this person did this to a stranger, that is certainly a police matter; if it was part of a continuing pattern of persecution of the one by the other, then parental involvement, and police involvement, would certainly be warranted.

gives me the impression that the parents took up the gauntlet & ran with it to the ultimate detriment of their child. But that's just me.

that did not belong in the "system". Impulsive behavior like this does not necessarily fall into the category of criminal behavior despite the letter of the law. Zero tolerance policies are a case in point.

Most crimes of violence are matters of impulse rather than planning. The great common denominator of criminals is poor impulse control. Persons who lack the ability to break the transmisson between impulse and action when the action is an inappropriate one generally do wind up sooner or later in handcuffs in the back of a squad car.

difficult time wrapping my mind around a "TT" being a crime of violence. Mooning is impulsive (and against the law as well) but I see little need in getting the courts involved. This does not sound like a serial titty twister, it sounds like juvenile hijinks that could be forgotten if not for the overreaction.

Causes no physical harm or pain, and so falls into a very different category. Any touching of another person with intent to cause pain or other harm is misdemeanor assault and battery; in many jurisdictions, even a verbal threat of violence is misdemeanor assault. Grabbing someone's nipple with a pinching twist certainly qualifies.

Seriously (Sling Blade references aside) you are ultimately correct & it is sad the offender made it worse by refusing mediation. That is what happens in a litigious society--admitting guilt & apologising has been known to backfire.

I am stuck with it in any case....

A pleasure to make your acquaintance!

You would have nothing to worry about

More detailed reports, retailed in No. 28 below, make that clear.

they're not buddies. A kid that age has a complete life of his own once he's in school. And these two were hanging out together.

That is all we really know of it, beyond the comments of the persons and parents involved.

It may surprise you to learn that many parents do have some good idea of their children's lives away from their immediate sight, even their teenaged children, through communication and close observation. Therefore there seems no reason to discount the mother's statement, or to presume her ignorant of the facts.

You seem wedded to the idea that this was simply horsplay among friends, and unwilling to entertain any other view of the case. On your own showing, you seem to have engaged in such yourself, and do not like the idea that what you did might be regarded as criminal by anyone else, or the thought that had circumstances broken out differently, you might have been badly punished for it. Such considerations do not weigh with me, as horseplay was never among my tastes, and my youthful adventurings were conducted wholly and openly without regard for the law.

I would have kicked them in the nuts so fast their potential future children would have felt it.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Magistrate.

and was reprimanded for what the Brits would call disproportionate response since I really did hurt the other kid. Nothing permanent on my record though his knee most likely was the worse for it later in life. However he never tried anything like that again.

Edited for a grammer error

Those kids who were on the receiving end of titty twisters, swirlies, etc. somehow knew that the people doing it to them would never be punished, so they shut up, put up with it and suffered in silence.

The boy that was "twisted" says that he and David were not friends. David claims that Matthew had said something to the girl who was the clerk at the deli about David and he responded by "twisting" Matthew's nipple. It sounds to me like Matthew embarrassed David in front of the girl and David reacted.

Matthew's father later reported the incident not expecting it to go to court. It may not have ended up the way it did, but David's mother refused to let him attend an informal intake hearing. It appears that the courts didn't look kindly on this and came down hard on the kid, perhaps in part due to his mothers actions.

Here's an article from back in August when the event took place. It sheds more light on the incident and how it got blown out of proportions.
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0807/local/stories/13local.htm

and the forsythia's trying to bloom. :hi:

I'm glad to have reminded you of such lovely things. Sometimes we all need to take a few moments to dwell on the beauty of our world. :hi:

There's a difference between consensual twisting between friends and assault. Two kids trading painful shots in the arm is fine, if theyr'e both enjoying it. And we've all seen it.

BUT... From the article:

"Offensiveness is going to be judged by the person" on the receiving end, he said.

"They’re not friends," she said. "If (David) was my son’s friend, it would be a different thing."

Exactly.

Then, Mom protects baby bully so he doesn't have to face the consequences of his actions:

"David’s mom, Christine Alford, said she refused to allow her son to attend an informal "intake hearing" at juvenile court after seeing a photo of a youth in handcuffs on the county’s juvenile court Web site."

Then, he gets a stiffer sentence for non-compliance. WAAAAA!

I agree that was a poor choice of wording.

What I was trying to convey was that if his mother had complied with the first informal hearing it wouldn't have went this as far. She, by choosing not to comply, caused this to go to further extremes than it would have otherwise.

Considering the example she was setting for her son, I don't disagree with the fact that the came down harder on him. Hopefully he'll learn to think rather than react in the future, and to respect the court system rather than think it doesn't apply to him.

It was uncalled for.

I know teenage boys. There is a great deal of difference between a 13 and a 15 year old. The older boy reacted physically because he was older and bigger. The fact that that was the first type of reaction he thought to have shows that he has much to still learn in life.

The former could have easily outweighed the latter by 50 pounds. Hardly a simple case of horseplay that had gone too far.

but the "assault" was.

My initial reaction to the thing is much like Raging in Miami's reaction. Stuff happens. Boys WILL be boys and you can't excise aggression from their fundamental nature.

By itself, a purple nurple should not earn jail time.

But there's more to the story. I do think that respect for the law is vitally important. If you don't do what the court says, you should get punished. The reasons that landed you in court are irrelevant.

They make it clear that this was not horse-play between friends, and that there was a signifigant disparity in physical prowess between the two boys. It is therefore a fair conclusion that the aggressor in the matter has very poor control of his aggressive impulses, and cannot confine his behavior to what is socially appropriate. It is a problem that he still does not seem to understand that he did something wrong, as this suggests he has learned nothing, and will conduct himself similarly in future, and if he does continue to act in this manner, he will find himself in real trouble before legal drinking age. This is not a trivial matter.

Perhaps not in so many words, but by not forcing him to accept his punishment. What the David did was wrong and has been made worse by his and his parents actions since the incident.

He's still young, I feel the courts are trying to save him from himself down the road.

That makes the child's situation doubly unfortunate, and we can only hope the court's actions will have the effect you suggest.

"They’re not friends," she said. "If (David) was my son’s friend, it would be a different thing." I didn't know every single one of my kids friends. Some were just school buddies, or friends of friends. It sounded like the younger kid didn't seem to fearful of the older kid when he insulted him in so called jest. I don't know many kids that would do that to anyone other that a friend especially not a bully. Unless the younger kid had a bad case of foot on mouth disease. Words are a form of harassment also. Some states even have verbal assault laws. I think these kids learned a good lesson, don't touch unless you need to defend yourself. The younger kid may have learned to watch what you say to someone.

However the impression that they were friends is created here and not in the article that I provided.

David himself said, "I was messing around with someone I thought I knew.". "But I guess I should have known him better." If anything that implies that they were acquaintances and not friends.

The article doesn't imply that they were hanging out together nor that they were friends. For some reason that's a concept that's been created by this thread. Perhaps it's due to the fact that reporter spoke to Matthew's mother rather than him directly.

We'll never know what Matthew said that promoted this, but I'm sure you're correct and he'll be more conscious of his words in the future. For all we know David could have just been hypersensitive and taken Matthew's words the wrong way. We don't have enough information to know for sure. Whatever the full details of the event, I doubt that David will be twisting any body parts on people he doesn't know well enough in the future. Perhaps he'll learn to respect the court system even if his mother doesn't. If they can learn from the experience then it was a step forward toward their becoming mature adults.

pretty sure I heard that on Judge Judy

With NO chance of parol.:P

for the victims, instead of the victims' parents having to constantly replace underwear due to stretched out elastic. This thread brings back memories that make me BOIL.

Maybe make him earn enough to pay for a counselor for his victim(s), who no longer want to go to school.

The kid should have written the letter.

If you say you are going to twist a tit, THAT is an assault...

twisting it, then becomes battery...

what has happened so that now any little thing is absolutely soul-crushing?

thier choices to hurt others for amusemeent is wrong. Bullies DO crush souls and they need not be tolerated. Consent is a vital part of human rights.Bullies do not respect others bodies and they violate consent.So fuck the bullies than.they made thier choices. The peson bullied had no choice.They got hurt cause bully chose to hurt them because bully wabnted entertainment or a power trip. Fuck the bullies.

the teen suicide and drug overdose rates in this country were a scandal when i was a teen, and the suicides/overdoses were often the most vulnerable kids who had suffered from being bullied, being physically or sexually abused, being accused of being or actually being gay, etc.

the strong should never have been allowed to prey on the weak, unfortunately, our society really didn't give a damn until a few of the weak got sick of the shit and picked up some weapons

it was always soul-crushing to be victimized by shithead jocks, those of you who were big enough not to be victimized just didn't give a shit about the rest of us, you had no clue

http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/suicide.asp

Clearly, this is indicative that kids are handling things much better with all of this new overprotectiveness.

having one of his testicles removed. It always starts with supposedly "harmless" assaults like this but if you do not stop Cro-Magnons when they engage in "little" assaults like this one THEY DO NOT LEARN that their actions are WRONG and they keep going - they continue to indulge their ignorant, thuggish brutally violent STUPID natures.

FUCK THE BULLIES. Stupid little shit should have gotten MORE punishment and they should have thrown his ignorant bitch momma in there too.

:evilgrin:

Seriously though, I agree that hurting another person should not go unpunished. I just think it's ridiculous that this story and the reaction has gone to the extent that it has. If David (the kid who went to juvie over this) had been a problem bully, who consatanly picked on others (or even constantly picked on Matthew specifically) I might agree with the punishment, but he wasn't.

by telling mom the next morning that they are sick and can't go to school, and by really getting a very sick feeling in the pit of their stomachs at the very thought of going to school again. They feel humiliated.

My kind and gentle and intelligent son was courageous in handling this and it broke my heart to see him go through it. I finally found out when I asked him why all his underwear were stretched out and got irritated with him for having to buy him new ones so frequently. He didn't want to tell me and BEGGED me not to go to the school about it. When I wanted him to fight back, he said he couldn't as he didn't want to hurt anyone. Other kids don't handle it that well - although he was deeply hurt - thus school violence.

which seems appropriate, given that it's assault.

Why do adults defend the brutality of others?

sorry to be redundant, but DU'ers need to recall what the common demoninator is in cases where young white males bring automatics to school and start shooting is. :(

... as the original poster said, we grow out of it...

No, as an adult, I do not do such things, and I realize that touching another without their permission is wrong... We seem to be the only society in the world that admonishes children for being children.

Other than a bit of humiliation, which we all have felt, and most of us have grown out of, nothing more seemed to be done.

I do not believe it is up to the courts to waste their time with such foolishness.

Yes... I said foolishness.

sorry, old enough to know better

if it were your 13 year old daughter assaulted by this creep does that change your answer? why does it change yr answer?

Pretty simple, really.

organ on males as they are on females, perhaps even MORE so since in the male the only function of the nipple would be stimulation whereas in the female the PRIMARY function of the entire breast is the feeding of babies.

But that doesn't negae sexual/erotic functions it might have. The reason I said what I did is that nipple stimulation is much more common for a woman than it is a man (I forget the exact numbers now, I might have it in my sexual behaviour notes, but I'm busy with other research right now, so I'm not digging that out for some stupid message board thread), and in a woman it is actually capable of enducing an orgasm. Good luck doing that with a man (or most men, anyway).

That's high school age.

If i'm not, my apologies.

for their sick, illegal behaviors. Even if they are "only kids." Maybe there is some justice.

Never mind child molesters, murderers, rapists, arsonists, drug dealers and other assorted shitheads roaming the streets, we can sleep better knowing that those titty-twisting bastards are behind bars.

The pain this "poor" kid felt will last a lifeti--- okay it lasted, at most, a minute! But... but... the kid might have a purple "nurple" for a little while. That "poor" "poor" kid. You aren't empathizing with him enough Name Not Needed! You aren't "feeling his pain" and you're not advocating the softening of children like "good" Democrats would.

let me know what state that is and i'll write a nasty-gram to the state representative or state senator of your choice

Mothers Against Titty Twisters.

The kid who had his nipple pinched will come out of this situation more fucked up by all of this shit, than by actually having his nipple pinched. Apparently they were friends, so there's a good chance all the bullshit surrounding it fucked up their friendship, and that's much worse than having one's nipple pinched, if you ask me. I understand encouraging kids to not hurt each other, but taking it to the extent that this case has taken it is just fucking ludicrous (speaking as someone who has had his nipples pinched by friends on a number of occasions).

The fact that taxpayers' money is being wasted on shit like this is pretty ridiculous as well.

Thx.

sheesh, read the whole story

they weren't friends, they weren't even in the same age group, the younger boy was 13, the older boy was 15

The mother of the 13-year-old said they weren't friends, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Mothers tend to forget that children have a mind of their own and don't disclose every bit of information about their personal lives.

were you never a kid? well, clearly you weren't a small kid, you were part of the problem and not part of the solution

was i never to go anywhere, was i always to stay home and hide in the basement because bigger kids, including the bullies, would also be in public places?

my abuser does not get to say it isn't abuse because he knows my name from around the neighborhood

15 year olds don't "hang" w. 13 year olds, make it at least a little believable, it sounds like mom remembers more abt being a kid than you do! but, oh, that's right, no one assaulted you, you were doing the assaulting

i don't understand why you just can't be glad you got away with doing something wrong but admit it was wrong and it shouldn't continue to happen all down thru all future generations

being smaller and younger than someone else shouldn't make you subject to being grabbed at will

what if the victim was your son? what if it was your daughter? would you still say suck it up?

And I had 13 year-old friends when I was 15. (Most of whom are still friends, I might add, just to avoid accusations of the younger being "used" or anything of the sort.)

Where did I ever say that I was the one giving TTs and I had never been on the receiving end of a TT?

"but, oh, that's right, no one assaulted you, you were doing the assaulting"

"clearly you weren't a small kid, you were part of the problem and not part of the solution"

I was a smaller kid. I was a younger kid because my birthday is in September. I was picked on because I was considered weird. I was an ADHD (we did it call it that back then)kid who did not have the best social skills. I got more TTs than I gave them out.

But it would have been worse if my mother had made a federal case out of it.

Take your slandering lies somewhere else or stick to the facts.

Was able to say something capable of embarrassing the twister.

Even if they weren't the closest of friends, they seem to have at least been casual acquaintances, this is being blown way out of proportion. I don't for one second get the impression of malicious intent or "strong preying on the weak" as you like to put it. It was just a copuple of kids dicking around. (And yes, 15 is still a kid. You said you're in your 40s, so maybe you forget what 15 years old was like, but it was only a few years ago for me, so I remember it quite well, and my maturity level was nowhere near where it is now at 20.)

And just because the kid's mom said they weren't friends, doesn't mean they weren't. I had and have plenty of friends that my parents don't know about. It's not that unthinkable. (Shit, watch the movie Dazed and Confused, a whole lot of mingling age groups, so I'm guessing it's a little more common than you'd like to think.)

Also, as I mentioned already, just because they were diferent ages doesn't mean they weren't friends, either.

the sentence is appropriate for assault, if anything, it's a little mild -- $67 fine and a hand full of days for unwanted sexual/physical assault doesn't seem out of line to me, indeed, i'm going to assume the only reason the sentence was this light was that the victim was a boy, sort of a reverse discrimination thing going on to my eyes

I think the police should have shot this future serial killer at the scene of the "crime".

and made to realize HARMLESS actions like this can have real reprucussions. Like you'll have supposed liberals advocating unbelievably harsh punishments for minor actions. The insanity in this discussions reminds me of a discussion on Fox News' "Day Side with Linda Vester" about the football sodomy incident in Pennsylvania in 2003. The question was asked if the kids who performed the pinecone sodomy should be executed. The audience cheered. People pushing the idea of this being sexual assault, saying this kid is a criminal, deserves to be in Juvenile Hall are just as bad as the redneck audience of that show.

it's OK for a 15 year old to grab and twist a 13 year old's nipple

i'll ask you what i asked another poster above, does your answer change if the victim is your 13 year old daughter?

i am in my forties, however, i am physically tiny and it would be possible for this 15 year old boy to grab and twist my nipple, if he did, i would file charges for assault, the police would prosecute, and he would be in juvenile detention or even in prison for way more than four little days

but it's OK to do the same thing to a 13 year old, who may not have the emotional maturity to cope w. this kind of direct attack on his masculinity?

this is weird, dude, the crime is probably MORE serious because the 15 year old chose to victimize a younger, weaker victim, not LESS serious

you're overreacting and you only look foolish by your half-assed attempts to bring reactionary justice into the whole thing. This isn't a "crime," firstly. If it was an actual crime, he'd actually be spending more than four days in Juvenile Hall.

I will admit this made me laugh: "but it's OK to do the same thing to a 13 year old, who may not have the emotional maturity to cope w. this kind of direct attack on his masculinity?" Oh the poor kid got a titty twister. IT NEVER HAD BEEN DONE BEFORE TO ANYONE EVER!!! OH THE KID IS GOING TO BE IN COUNSELING FOR YEARS BECAUSE SOME KID TWISTED HIS NIPPLE!!! If the kid is that emotionally fragile, he should be taken away from his parents for destroying the kid mentally. I pray you don't have children, because when they get out into the real world, and people are much more subtle in their bullying, your overprotective whine if you don't like it mentality will have done nothing beneficial for the kid. Titty twisting is not a serious offense. He didn't grab him by the balls and squeeze, which hurts much more if getting hit there by street hockey balls is any indication. Attack on his masculnity my ass. The kid wasn't called a girl, he wasn't called a homophobic epithet, he had his nipple twisted. Big, fucking, deal. This kind of pissing and moaning from whatever ideology is motivating your line of thinking (it sure as hell ain't liberalism or Democratism, Andrew Jackson would have executed the twistee for how he reacted to this) only hurts children because they think it's alright to be overreactive cry babies to minor offenses.

as the offender in this case was held accountable for his actions.

There would not have been an arrest, nor a conviction, nor a sentence. That statement is nonesense, but probably you have not had much experience of police and courts, and have no idea how hard a person has to work at drawing serious jail time in most jurisdictions.

It is also odd you complain of someone making this "a social darwinist situation", because it is exactly that strain of thought you are making most of your appeals to. You are simply attempting to carve out some protected space from the leading determinants of survival of the fittests in this matter, namely the police and courts, whose power exceeds that of any individual, however "bad" and "hard" he imagines himself to be.

Gen. Jackson would have considered the person who did this no gentleman, and would have expected the person it was done to to produce a pistol and shoot the low snake on the spot over it: you may have appealed to the wrong figure and milieu if you are attempting to write the thing off as minor...

The fact is, the boy committed misdemeanor asxault in a public place, and was dealt with appropriately by the authorities. A good stomping by relatives of the younger boy, of course, would have been just as satisfactory, to my view. It really amazes me to see people who imagine violence to be a casual thing that can be done with every expectation there will be no consequences from its doing. There generally are consequences for it; they are frequently painful, and sometimes permanent....

valid or invalid. During his time as head of the Tennessee Militia he trained his own canons on his troops who were complaining and prepared to leave because their regiment wasn't getting enough food. In that case, one can understand why the men were complaining. However valid their reasons for complaining were, he still trained his canons on any potential mutineer or person leaving their charge. General Jackson also hung two men for absolutely no real valid reason other than he had heard they might be mutineers. A lot of the facts from objective sources say these were simply members of the regiment who were simply complaining too much. General Jackson was no gentleman either, as his desire to get in pistol fights was notorious.

Jackson was a tough son of a bitch who had no time for people who bitch and complain. Jackson had respect for people like Santa Ana and Napolean, not whiney figures like John Quincy Adams and the nullification supporters in South Carolina.

pinched and twisted his nipple while standing in line at the deli. He probably woulnd't have considered it a minor incident.

(Not that I care, really, about how andy jackson would feel about the situation ...)

That's what this fell under. Also, the mother of the 15 year old refused to bring him in for a meeting where these types of things are usually handled. She insisted it go to trial, so, there you go. That's all the parents of the 13 year old were looking for, to make sure the 15 year old was confronted with this behavior to make sure it didn't get worse. In any event, if the kid stays out of trouble, it'll be expunged anyway. If it makes the kid think twice before he puts his hands on someone, then it's a good thing.

i just can't see any problem w. that

altho to be honest if it happened to me and i had legal recourse, as kids did not in the bad old days, i would not want a confrontation, i would just want the perpetrator sentenced

indeed i was once "confronted" and apologized to for being robbed by a bigger kid and it was clear that she was just apologizing to humor her dad and that he was allowing the confrontation to happen to humor us and that they were in no way taking seriously the fact that she had robbed me, they just didn't care, they didn't have to care, she was bigger, i was smaller, and so i'm worth less in society's eyes

apparently here too, in some people's eyes

The juvenile authorities wanted the kid brought down to the facility for a meeting with juvenile workers. I don't know what the outcome of that would have been, I would guess the community service would have been given because that's what usually happens here. I don't mean one of those lame meetings in the principal's office kind of things. And as for the parents of the 13 year old, I was trying to say that they hadn't intended for the kid to have to go to court either, they just wanted some authority to confront him. Again, not just the lame "sorry" that a personal confrontation generally brings. So it got blown more out of proportion than anybody wanted, but that's because of the 15 year old's mother. And still, we have a bullying law and I think alot of states don't and that is creating some of the confusion about the case too.

and it seems to me like sixteen years old is a little late growing out of it.

Thumler didn't throw a snowball at the kid.....who knows what that might lead to.

If you go BANG! when you throw it, it becomes an "armed" assault and it's mandatory felony plus 15 years for using a weapon in commission of a felony.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, but it seems like it's getting that bad.

another guy? That the parents went crying to the police is a little over reactive. I would say a call to the kids parents may have been more in line with the offense.

And that's why he must be severely punished. If he'd done it to a girl, that would be normal behavior, but to another boy? Why, that's getting perilously close to homosexuality, and we've got to stamp that deviant behavior out right away! :sarcasm:

:eyes:

Crying to mommy over everything.

the poor kid.

As if every form of "accountability" relies on Mommy, Daddy, and the fucking State Apparatus (the Big Daddy).

Pathetic. A society of pussies and clowns, absolutely orgasmic over its own repression. The childhood fantasy used to be revenge against the bully through invented, childhood means: we see such responses from Our Gang - the group getting together and inventing some plot through which the bully would be foiled and humiliated, no parents involved. This was the standard plot in childhood thought: the self-determination of childhood, the micro-society that does not rely on the adult world for its order. THis is a healthy fantasy, a fantasy that implies that childhood has its own power and its own modes of governance, its own ethic.

Now the revenge against the bully requires the intervention of the adult State Apparatus? What weakness. What pathetic, disgusting weakness. Not only is it a symptom of the snitch society run amok, it strips childhood of its independent power of invention, and lodges childhood strictly within the grasp of the State. Another symptom of control societies, where we can't even plot our secret revenge against the bully. No. We must go tell Teacher, Mommy, Daddy, the Police. Fucking sick, sad shit.

:rofl:

If somebody fucks with you, getting somebody to intervene is not fascism. If someone here is a wimp or crying to mommy, it is the offender, who had to be protected from the consequences of his actions. (Wah! I don't want to write a letter! That's fascism!)

Our Gang? Jesus. Yes, I agree with you that the standard plot in childhood thought, as you describe it, is a healthy fantasy. But it is unhealthy to confuse fantasy with reality.

The kid in this case had an apparently painful and humiliating experience and actually (gasp!) shared it with his parents. And this, to you, is apparently inexcusable behavior from a 13-year-old? This makes him a wimp, one of the pussies and clowns with a pathetic, disgusting weakness? (not to mention an agent for fascism?) Because an eighth grader went to his parents when he was feeling bad? Whatever.

is fascism. It is the greatest mistake of so-called liberal thought to think that fascism occurs in parliaments, or the "great events" of history. Wrong. Fascism is a desire first and foremost, and circulates in our everyday behaviors. The belief that everything should be adjudicated by an Authority Figure is fundamental to fascist thought. You pretend like I'm saying that this specific kid is an agent for fascism. Wrong. A delightful misreading, but not at all my point. The point is that the immediate appeal to Mommy, Daddy, and the State - and the celebration of that appeal on these boards - is a fundamental feature of fascist thought, a thought which cannot contemplate immanent adjudication of problems of power. The Daddy society which intervenes in everything, and constantly extends its power to intervene even into the most trivial exercises of power (minor bullying), is the issue. This same Daddy society believes that there is NO "minor bullying," no trivial exercise of power that can escape its domain, precisely because it seeks to extend its power into the very capillaries of everyday behavior: no field of power is exempt from the State Apparatus any more, period. And this celebration of the State masquerades as "progressive" thought. What a fucking joke. It is fascist thought itself, the very logic of fascism.

And yes, Our Gang as an example of a different kind of thought, of a childhood exempt from the exercise of Power of the State Apparatus, a childhood that can organize its own forms of Power without Mommy, Daddy, and the State inserting itself into every...fucking...thing. So, yes.

You would have, then, no objection had the younger person's response to this been, say, a stout swing of a baseball bat to the skull the following day?

The fact is that rules of the society we live in, and have lived in for centuries, and indeed, the rules of any society in which family and clan vengeance have been superseded as the means of maintaining civil order, hold that the proper recourse for any crime against one's person is an appeal to constituted authority for vindication. The person assaulted in this instance behaved properly, and did so. This is not something new and novel, by any means, nor is it a harbinger of some ghastly alteration from a past Eden to a horrid and repressive new order....

For the fairly obvious reason that the response would itself be far in excess to the initial problem.

And it may be the case that some appeal to constituted authority has been with us for quite some time, and may even be necessary in some cases. What does seem remarkably new is the extension of such appeals into every aspect of social life. That is where the problem comes up. This is not some "Fall" from a past Eden (the past forms of power had their own specific problems), but it is a qualitative shift or modulation in the exercise of Power. This shift is fully illustrated in this case, but more so in the loving responses of people on this thread to capillary extension of State Power into heretofore unaffected domains.

Why is this bad? It is not necessarily bad, but it is dangerous and suspect. We must learn to recognize modulations in the exercise of power if we are to respond to them appropriately. As it stands, progressives have a State Power hangover: because State Power was effective in dealing with local problems of everyday behavior and perceptions in a sometimes good way (segregation would be the obvious example), certain so-called progressive believe it is always an appropriate response, not seeing how whole domains of social life once escaped its grasp, and therefore allowed a margin of immanent power and decision exempt from external Authority. Given this state of affairs, people learned to make their own decisions collectively, and it is out of this very form of relationship that State power emerged in the first place. Once State power usurps the capacity for such immanent decision making, it eliminates the margin of immanent power that would supposedly justify it. And that is, in its essence, fascism.

My own experience of violence is that disproportionate response goes far to make the necessary point that the proper feeling is fear even to think of turning it in certain directions. My youth and young adulthood were of a kind that required acquisition of a certain craft knowledge in the field. Many people seem incapable of learning at anything much below the traditional "ten for one is the game" ratio, and require an object lesson that circulates widely.

It does not seem to me that this case involves any new extension of state authority: state authority claims to stand ready to vindicate all constituents of a society against physical assault on their persons, and makes no distinctions in this regarding age or condition, save perhaps the condition of being in state custody. Nor does it seem wrong or dangerous to make use of that claim in a circumstance such as this, for the alternative is the sort of action that comes naturally to me and doubtless many others, that would certainly cause a good deal more physical harm and tend over-all to result in a less orderly and more fearful condition. Any proposal that the victim simply "suck it up" can, of course, be ruled out as improper at the outset, as this is tantamount to saying some persons have no right at all to an inviolate person and must simply adjust themselves to that fact, in favor of a superior grade of human who can impose upon them as the spirit moves without let or hinderance.

Indeed, it seems to me that the endorsement and apologetic for bullying many have made here is a far more real and serious precursor of fascism that the concerns you press. A leading characteristic of all fascist social orders is the lisencing of physical persecution of some element of society and humanity identified as less human and weaker than the approved sort. This is, at bottom, merely bullying writ large and made a part of the social contract with state approval and sanction. The bully is the fascist in microcosm, and a social order that maintains bullying as an accepted role is fascist on the level of interpersonal relations, and incubates fascism for translation into a political order, by creating and nurturing a cadre of humans to whom the ways and practices of a fascist order are second nature as a question of personality and entertainment.

your last paragraph, in particular ... i argued much the same thing in a post below, though not as quickly or as elegantly. The lynchpin of fascism is a belief in strength as the only legitimate authority, a belief echoed in the actions of a bully (and in the arguments of those who might defend a bully).

However much the State "claims" to "stand ready to vindicate all constituents" - and this is indeed a universal claim of the State Apparatus - the fact is that the State was rarely called into such situations, primarily because constituents felt a need to maintain non-State action at an everyday level. Whatever the circulation and putative insinuation of State power may have been in principle, in action it functioned very differently, and minor offenses were "let be," as it were, to be adjudicated locally and communally. Does this lead to more "disorder?" Of course it does, but "disorder" need not be read as a negative characteristic of society; the will to order is itself a suspect assumption, and not far from fascist logics. A general "dis-order" at the everyday level can function as an exhaust valve for a society otherwise smothered by the State and its various interests (to wit, Capital, but any productive order could and does stand in here). This is evident in any sociological study of social practices, and exists across societies (the work of Michel Maffesoli is relevant here, but no less relevant is the work of even Durkheim). When rationalization, order, and State control of everyday life take over the whole social field, you have a very dangerous kind of society indeed.

As for bullying being fascism in microcosm, yes and no. Bullying certainly represents some aspects of the logics of fascism, to the extent that it is a problem of power. But fascism is also the keen refinement of resentment, and the development of a transcendent authority to deploy against the object of resentment. One need hardly provide examples here, as they are all too well known and and all too current. Simple differences in force are one thing. An entire system of thought and power developed out of the fear of differences in force is quite another. As I see it, the voices here screaming that the State Apparatus must intervene to prevent all bullying are much more likely the purveyors of fascism than the bullies themselves.

We have done that before, you may recall.

The state was solicited voluntarily by an agrieved party in this matter, so the persons most concerned did not feel a need for the matter to be handled privately, or see any good in doing so. This therefore is not an intrusion of the state against the will of any: the offender, of course, having committed a criminal act, has no say, and there is no need whatever to consult his will, for he cast his bread upon the waters with his action, and must accept whatever consequences come his way as the result.

An impulse to order does not strike me as particularly fascistic; order is an aim of all social organization, and a positive good in itself, at least in my view. It is essential to the smooth flow of existence, which must be regular and predictable to the degree the whimsy of the universe allows, for any experience of life to be peaceful and tranquil. Disorder is much more entertainming in fictions than in real life: disorderly situations and existences are very little fun, and very straining and stressful to experience for any length of time. Those persons who thrive in them tend to be of the "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" sort, and those persons who thrive best in them do so by imposing a local order of their own amid the general chaos.

What makes you think bullying is not a keen refinement of resentment escapes me. Persons who indulge themselves in that behavior generally are riddled with resentments of various sorts, and persecute others as a means of both expressing and relieving those feelings. Persons who wish social sanctions imposed against such behavior are not the problem: it is social acceptance and toleration of that behavior that is the problem, and the major incubator of a reservoir of persons socialized to a fascistic outlook and orientation.

Disorder is of course relative, and generally relates to the given social order. So, Saturnalia, while highly structured as ritual, served as a general overturnings of existent social order. The same could be said of all the minor eruptions of "disorder" in everyday life. Now, one could of course say that such disorder is merely an order that we didn't expect (as, say, Bergson would), but as a relative eruption of a different order, such events feed social life, release it from the smothering weight of any particular rationalization.

There is no doubt that bullies have a finely tuned sense of resentment that drives their actions. Where fishwax gets the idea that I'm defending or apologizing for bullying is a mystery to me. At the same time, they differ very little from those who go running to the State for help for even minor disruptions, in essence, from those who desire the Big Daddy State Apparatus to squash any hint of disorder. If anything, the bully is more honest about his or her relation to power. The piddling liberal worldview that pretends such State deployments of power are "for the better of all" is a softer version of fascism, to be sure, but all the more dangerous (and persuasive) for all that.

the logic of fascism is that might makes right, and that strength and power are the only legitimate avenues to authority. The exercise of authority in this case rests on an entirely different form of legitimacy than raw power. The actions of the bully represent only raw power/strength. Appealing to a legitimate authority to prevent or protest the unlawful use of individual power is simply not fascism, nor does it follow the logic of fascism, which would hold that the offender has the legitimate authority (within that realm) to inflict such pain as he sees fit because he is stronger. That is the logic of fascism.

Again, appealing to the rule of law is not inherently fascist, whether you do it after weeks of putting up with the behavior or whether you do it the first time you're assaulted (as you seem to assume is the case here, given that you initially complained about a general intervention of the state apparatus and you now argue against the "immediate appeal" to authority).



First, that doesn't mean that belief is exclusive to fascist thought. Second, I'm not sure who here has argued that everything should be adjudicated by an authority figure. Saying that something is legitimately subject to adjudication by an authority figure is not the same as saying it should be handled that way in all cases (or even in this specific case).

Often the best resolution (for all parties) involves something other than an appeal to an outside authority, but it seems to me this is pretty much up to the discretion of the offended. In this case, a kid and/or his family chose to appeal to a (democratic) authority to prevent/protest the unlawful/uninvited/harmful exercise of individual power. Some on here have recognized the legitimacy of democratic authority over the illegitimate power of the offender (a power which, essentially, is only legitimate in the fascist sense). This does not make them crybabies or pussies and clowns or willing fascists. They are, in fact, resisting a fascist theory of authority by appealing to a democratic authority.

Complaining to the cops about a titty twister? I feel sorry for what social harm he's getting now--and of course none of that is against the law and the hurt will go much deeper. But everyone here seems to think differently. :D

And feel the sting of what Nietzsche called resentiment - the barb still under their skin.

"Daddy! Daddy! Protect me from the Bully!"

Sounds like a disturbingly familiar ideology....

Because of coruse, "bullying" doesn't really happen, it's just boys being boys, horseplay--the little pansy kids on the recieving end should learn to be less sensitive, since when did a bit of humiliating abuse do anyone any harm...Just the same as with women really, since when did a few grabbed asses do anyone any harm! The ones who whine are still just resentful about being groped by the boys at school, so who cares?

Bullshit.

Sorry to mess up your theory, but I was never really bullied (quickly snuffed out any attempts to do so), but I'm not blind to the problem and I don't think it's OK to victimise the weak or initiate physical attacks on others- least of all when it comes to children. Perhaps that's because I don't have any past misdeeds that i feel the need to justify to myself. But if you can't grasp why that's a popualr view on a progressive message board then I despair for you.

Some bullying obviously rises to the level of adult intervention.

Some bullying needs to be dealt with internally or immanently by kids and their peer groups; it is a way of growing and learning to handle yourself without running to Daddy (whether the parental authorities or the State Apparatus) every time something goes wrong.

Neither case is absolute: that is, there is neither a) ONLY bullying that needs intervention by authorities, nor b) ONLY bullying that can be dealt with without such recourse. This particular case seems ridiculous because it assumes a). You pretend that I assume b). I do not.

A progressive message board should not posit the State Apparatus or designated "Authority" figure as the be-all and end-all of every single problem. That's a fascist tendency on its face, but that is what most people here seem to believe is the "solution."

they'd most likely be fired, lose their health insurance, and have to worry about how they would support their family. In view of that, it seems like a few hours of community service and writing a letter isn't that big a deal for the older boy in this case to be whining about. For those saying this ought to be kept in perspective - yes, it should. Letter writing and picking up trash isn't such a big deal, is it?

The four days of detention isn't a direct result of the incident; it's the result of the bully's decision not to comply with a court ordered punishment. That was his own choice to make.

I don't understand why he didn't just write the letter - it didn't need to be such a big deal. It's a ridiculous thing to take a stand over - one's right to inflict pain on another person's nipples against their will. Anyone arguing that the victim was making a mountain out of a molehill should question whether the bully was doing the same thing, by opting for 4 days detention rather than simply writing the required letter.

It wasn't just that he had to write a letter. They wanted him to admit to having a "criminal thought process." I'm glad the kid stood his ground.



Thumler said he presented a rough draft of his letter in the third session. He said he balked when told he must also describe his "criminal thought processes."

He said that would imply malicious or criminal intent, and "none of that applied to my feelings or actions."

Thumler said he had no criminal intent because he considered the victim to be a friend at the time of the incident — which he deemed horseplay. Including the language sought by Mediation Works, he said, would turn his prior court statements into lies.

"It was a matter of conscience," Thumler said. "I figure the worst is already over.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nipple_pincher

I'm sorry, but conscientious objector status is appropriate for refusing to go to war. It's not a matter of conscience to recognize that physical force against a person without their consent is illegal.


As far as describing his criminal thought process, all he had to do is describe his thoughts at the time and how they deviated from what is legal. From the article: "They don't have to apologize," she said. "But they are required to be accountable." How hard is it to write something like this:

At the time I was thinking it was horsing around, and harmless. My mistake was in looking at it only from my own point of view, instead of the other person's perspective. Some people object, strongly, to being grabbed without permission, and that's their right. I assumed permission where none was actually given. I now understand that rough horseplay like that is only appropriate when it is clearly understood by all participants that they are all joining in willingly. If there's any doubt as to their willingness to engage in that behavior, a physical act against another person can be considered assault, which is criminal.

How can you conscientiously object to something like that?

Opting to spend four days in detention instead of just sitting down and writing that was a CHOICE he made. He's being held accountable for that choice, which is part of what the training is about.

"intentionally caused harmful or offensive contact with another person"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_ (tort)

I received a few tittie-twisters in my day (and gave none) and can tell you that this is absolutely ridiculous. Male-to-male bullying behavior is an important part of growing up, and shielding a kid from it will fuck him up. Poor kid must be getting no end of grief for his parents complaining -to the police- about a tittie twister. Bullying can go too far, yeah, but in this case it certainly didn't seem to. These sorts of bully attacks really aren't about extreme physical harm but about social positioning and that sort of thing. A kid -needs- to experience and deal with this sort of thing by himself to a large extent if he's to function normally in society. That doesn't mean the fifteen year-old isn't an asshole, but assholes are part of life at any age.

Being bullied and bullying is NOT an important part of growing up, nor is it a requirement for functioning normally in society. The opposite is true - those doing the bullying as well as those being bullied are LESS likely to function normally in society.

"Compared to their peers, kids who are bullied are five times more likely to be depressed. Bullied boys are four times more likely to be suicidal; bullied girls are eight times more likely to be suicidal."

"Nearly 60 percent of boys who researchers classified as bullies in grades six through nine were convicted of at least one crime by the age of 24. Even more dramatic, 40 percent of them had three or more convictions by age 24. Bullying is an early warning that bullies may be headed toward more serious antisocial behavior. Moreover, victims of repeated bullying can explode in ways that threaten not just the bullies but many others as well. For example, a Secret Service study of school shootings found that “almost three-quarters of the attackers felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by others prior to the incident.”

http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/BullyingReport.pdf

but sometimes too much is *too much*
"male to male bullying" can get to a level where something does need to be done; if nothing is done it can also result in a kid being fucked up for the rest of his life

I can't abide bullies, it's a personal quirk. One nice thing, however, is that you never feel sorry, no matter what you do to them. I used to keep a jar filled with the teeth I'd knocked out of their faces in my school knapsack.

The sound of their teeth clattering against the glass jar in my backpack was usually enough of a deterrent, after that initial meeting. Ahhh, youth.

in some generation raping slave women were also ok. didnt make it right.

on edit: not that i am saying this is rape. just arguing with your premise that your generation did it so it makes it ok.

The titty twister spans several generations. It gets passed down from the older kids. It's tradition.

Tradition doesn't make something right.

This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum.
It can be found at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4840746

when I was in middle school/jr high:

A group of 8 boys ripped, and I do mean ripped beyond sewing repair, my pants off and dumped me in a trash can.

A girl stalking me because I "went with" her (new) boyfriend over the summer rode my bus home every day for 2 weeks and tried to "teach me a lesson" between the bus stop and home. Every day.

One very large, intimidating girl decided who was allowed to use the bathroom, or not. Those who were not received "lessons" from her that included picking them up by the neck and pounding their head into the wall over and over.

Several times a week you would hear a roar from the field, and see a crowd gathering. It was always some poor girl, singled out by another, and surrounded by a large crowd as her attacker pulled her clothes off, punched, screamed, kicked, scratched, etc..

And yes, there were "titty twisters" and other culturally accepted forms of abuse.

I never saw an adult intervene. Not once.

Getting away with it doesn't make it ok, and I don't think anyone should be getting away with bullying.