Im sorry - but even if a man cannot get an erection at will in every case (which may be true for some people some times - for example - yes, if you recently had sex you might not be able to get an erection straight away even f you saw an arrousing sight), it is certainly the case that any man can prevent an erection at any time - simply by thinking of something that is unattractive.

no body is talking about erections or such. the simple black and white.. and COMMON SENSE factors in this case are as follows:

Spitting water on a resident, lying in bed with a resident, touching a resident on the buttocks, inserting her finger into a resident’s rectum, antagonizing a resident, humping a resident and putting her hand over a resident’s mouth because that resident would scream.

so let's take this one by one shall we?? Maybe this will provide some clear thinking.

Spitting water in the face-- not an assault but, a very offensive thing to do especially to someone who cannot defend themselves.

Lying in bed with a resident--again not an assault, but something that probably isn't in the job description.

Touching a resident on the buttocks-simple assault and sexual harassment. Unless the patient explicitly asked for a touch on the buttocks then it is sexual harassment. Plain and clearly simple.

Insertion of finger into rectum--sexual assault and sexual harassment. If the action was not consented to or done for a purely medical reason, it's a form of rape. Plain and clearly simple.

Antagonizing a resident-- until I know the expansion of the antagonizing I can't comment on this one.

Humping a resident-- now I'm assuming this is for all intensive purposes dry humping or humping such as a dog would do. --assault of a very demeaning nature (much more demeaning than calling them children) and again sexual harassment. Unless the person said "hey cutie, come hump my leg like a dog" :rolleyes:

Putting a hand over a residents mouth in order to get the patient to scream-- assault and if you have a good lawyer.. you could pull an attempted murder charge off of this.

So I ask.. who is clearly thinking? Who is really looking at this in black and white?? I'm all for due process and won't assume the girls are guilty until proven to be so, however, if they are found guilty and the evidence shown proves this without any doubt, then yes they should get whatever sentence is merited in the law. They will have abused people who have no way of defending themselves. This is no different than preying on children. Children cannot defend themselves and neither can people in this type of situation.

Now. what are we confused about exactly? Why does it matter if it's a girl or a boy doing these acts? Does it really matter? I don't want to hear some lame ass excuse about the female makeup because if we want to paint with such broad strokes.. all the English are just power hungry murderers who want to control everyone with cunty fingers.

Instead of ignoring what the academics write and going off on some common sense avenue..look at all the evidence presented.. there are many academics spouting the same stats.. and.. one person's common sense is another person's ignorance. Just because you spout common sense doesn't mean you actually have it. In this case, SF, you lack it.


hrmm that's funny.

I can think of the most horrific and disgusting things known to man, and if my wife is playing with me, I'll still get an erection.

But I didn't have any malice, or cause any physical damage in my disrespect, so it's obviously ok.

ftw.

Not a crime. A disciplinary matter at work at most.

Not a crime and utterly harmless

Harmless, and at worst a misjudgment. The buttocks are of course not a sexual region with regards to the male - so there is hardly even a sexual connotation to this action. It is nothing more than horseplay which did not harm or demean the resident in any way - as he was a male.


The only action in this whole case which could be considered criminal assault (I would call this possibly sexually aggrivated assault rather than anything such as rape - which it self evidentally is not. A woman, biologically, cannot rape a man - because she does not have a penis) But the key question here is the context. Did the man object? Did he complain or feel he was violated? As I stated earlier, do we believe that even a very old man could be so overpowered by a 110 lbs 19 year old girl that his trousers and underpants could be removed against his will and she do this? I put it to you that they were in a situation (however bizzare and inappropriate) when he had willingly removed his clothing and allowed her to place her hand at least in this region.



ie - having an argument with a resident. I am sure that this happens every day in every care home, not a criminal or disiciplinary matter in any way.

Again, over excited horseplay. Maybe a disciplinary offence but hardly a crime in relation to a woman dry humping a man. Women may "grind" against men in dance clubs every night in towns and cities across the world - do you propose rounding them all up and charging them with sexual harrassment?

A disciplinary offence, if it happened as reported, hardly a criminal matter. I think we have to consider the possibility that the hand over mouth was to stifle a cry of another kind. The girls after all did not hold the man hostage 24/7 - if he had wanted to cry for help he simply would have called for help the minute she took her hand away.

Actually, spitting is assault. Just recently in Toronto, a transit driver was assaulted as such by a passenger. Think of some of the dangers as well: hepatitis and meningitis, etc.

And the lying in bed thing depends on the context. It could be assault depending on what was done exactly.

The buttocks aren't a sexual region? Who are you to decide what is and what isn't a sexual region? Is a females ass any different than a males? Or are your homophobic tendencies showing? Females look at the asses of men, they like them if they are nice.. so it can be a sexual region.. oh.. you mean that by merely touching a man's ass that's there no way for that to turn into arousal right? WRONG.

So first off you're assuming that the male wasn't wearing a gown.. he was wearing trousers and a belt and everything.. and next you're assuming that a man in a facility like this could still hold some sort of power of a 110lb girl. Nevermind the fact that many of them don't even have basic bodily control.. I mean.. how in the world could this have really happened? Girls just don't do these sort of things.

So now you're going on the whole, the female doesn't have a penis and therefore cannot rape a male. It's impossible for men to get raped unless there is a penis involved. That's nice, you just slapped all the women in the face who have been raped by force with objects other than a penis by that sort of logic. If a woman walked up to you while you were somehow incapacitated and shoved a broom stick up your ass would not think you were raped? Of course not.. because she doesn't have a wang. She can't rape you.

Apples/Oranges.. If I go into a strip club I'm WILLINGLY walking in there for whatever purposes I intend on. If however I am admitted into a mental facility, I'm pretty sure that the brochure is not going to list "lap dances upon request"

SF-- I don't know why you keep wanting to play this argument as it's demeaning towards all genders and quite frankly wishy washy at best. Either you simply like to hold firm in any belief even if it is found to be false, or you simply cannot comprehend what is being put in front of you.

I sincerely hope it isn't the latter.

I can't believe I'm wasting my fucking time responding to this inanity...Tell that to all the men who enjoy prostate stimulation. Even taking that out of the equation, the butt is very much a sexual organ. You claim that the butt is not a sexual organ because a person is male, which I assume is because you disassociate the butt from male sexual gratification. Except, women are just as likely to get sexual enjoyment out of external butt play than men, and are arguably less likely to enjoy internal anal stimulation than men. The female butt is viewed as a sexual organ because men see it that way. If a woman's butt can be considered a sexual organ because of external attitudes, then so can a man's.

Again, are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea what it's like to be in the condition many of these kinds of patients are in? Honestly a 5 year old could take my grandpa out, let alone a 19 year old, relatively athletic (it appears) girl.

Yes, context. Like being in a vulnerable position where you're supposed to be able to trust the people who are taking care of you. As for complaining and feeling violated, how many times does it have to be pointed out that these people had Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia (not to mention that this happens to elderly citizens of sound mind too, and they are often afraid to report such abuses). They very likely didn't particularly comprehend what was going on at the time, and even more likely they didn't remember it long enough to complain to someone else about it.

You are stretching and stretching and stretching to hold onto your precious view of "the fairer sex," and it is getting increasingly ridiculous. But you're right...clearly, they're just picking on these poor, innocent girls for no reason, when they must have had an altercation just like any other normal nursing home altercation. It's just not possible at all that sweet, young, innocent teenage girls, who just don't have any form of impurity in their nature, would ever intentionally upset and antagonize a vulnerable senior citizen for their own amusement.

Yes, because god knows it's such a similar situation to what we have here :rolleyes:

Again with the stretching. A girl would just never do anything to harm another human being - it's not in their nature! - so there must have been some other reason for her to cover the patient's mouth! Clearly they're just being picked on by professionals who obviously have no idea how to really care for senior citizens. They're just jealous because the girls thought of stifling their screams first!

Give me a fucking break. And AGAIN...do you seriously not have any fucking clue what Alzheimer's or dementia is? By the time the girl was done, the patient may not have even remembered what happened. It's not unreasonable at all that he or she wouldn't cry for help afterwards.

I'm tiring of this stupidity.

Women who are sexually attacked in ways that do not involve sexual intercourse are victims of serious crime of course, for which the criminals should face 20 years to life automatically - but simply not rape. Rape is a specific term with a specific meaning.

You are talking about a woman ramming a broom up my arse... but this is not reality, things like that simply dont happen. You might as well come in here and say "but what if the women suddenly turned into a horse and stamped on the man with her hooves"... this is not a scenario with any reflection in the real world.

The core of this argument is that I have addmitted that what the girls did was wrong and they should lose their jobs over it, but I have stated that this is not the serious sex crime that others choose it to see it as. Whether you want to accept it not, the fact is that majority of society agree's with me.

Women are by and large not violent criminals (which doesnt mean that women dont commit crime, but it is usually propert crime).

The article in fact only states that this is a care home - it is others who have taken a "worst case scenario" that all of the people are suffering from very serious senility or alchzeimers and then treated this scenario as a fact.

My grandmother was in a care home for a couple of years before she died, so no - it isnt the case that I have no clue what institutions like this are like. Some people are very vulnerable and some people are mentally as sharp as you or me.

Clearly you should be the new editor of the dictionary. More importantly, legal definitions have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but I that's not as easy to look up. Suffice it to say, the legal definition is going to be even more broad.

Uncommon? Sure. Doesn't happen? Hardly.

Considering your lack of even the most basic understanding of dementia, I don't see any reason to lend credence to your view of "reality." And while I'm sure I could find an instance of a woman shoving a broom up a man's ass if I wanted to, this stupidity is no longer amusing to me.

Again, think about this: You're a lone voice out of about 45 people I've seen discuss this situation over the past couple days. The majority of society clearly does not agree with you, but you keep telling yourself that.
-----Added 5/12/2008 at 05 : 39 : 35-----
And more selective reading:

Just answer this one question:

All of the facts you have before you are IDENTICAL in terms of description. The ONLY difference is that the people who did it are male. Everything that happened happened exactly as YOU DESCRIBE it has happened.

Do males face the same consequence for identical acts? A slap on the wrist and lost jobs?

If no, what accounts for a double standard for the consequences of entirely identical actions?

I'm not talking about the proclivity of one sex to do something or to not do something else. I'm saying the same thing happened. Should the sexes be punished differently for factually identical situations, and if so, why?

are you fucking serious?? really.. take a step back and look at what you wrote. women just don't stick things up mens asses.. no.. there's never been a case where a woman has shoved things up a mans ass before when it was unwelcome. It's never happened because women are just the "fairer" sex.

What a disgrace you are to women. You want to act like you're noble or chivalrous but in fact you are doing all women a great disservice with your argument. I challenge you to visit any women's prison and ask what they think the makeup of a woman is. If they are possible of doing horrible things like this.

The more you type the more I can't help but feel that the only reason you are taking this stance is because you would love for a woman to do these things to you.

The fact that this in your own words happened in a "care home" is even more damaging. The people are there to be taken care of, and being taken care of does not involve any of the actions these girls are accused of.

so quit looking at your own sexual desires and take a look at it in black and white.. it's a simple case, and a simple resoultion.

I have already stated that if this case involved male nurses and female patients and I was to say the same thing then the arguments I have made would become disgraceful and without merit and without shame.

If male nurses abused elderly women in this way we would be looking at very serious crimes.

But - and I dont know how many times I can say this or how I can make it more clear - what I am saying - and what the majority of people believe (whether 10 people on a particular internet site agree or not) is that men and women are fundamentally different in some ways. A women slapping a man's arse is a different, a fundamentally different, thing to a man slapping a woman's arse.

It is quite frustrating that all I am saying is these simple and logical truths, and yet again and again I am given pedantic and legalistic arguments from people claiming this isnt true.

__

I am sure if we tried we could dredge up some case, out of context, where an insane woman shoved a broom up a man's arse or whatever - but the real world situation is that men are not sexually assaulted by women. Sex crimes are a disgraceful and disgusting stain on even the most civilised nations. Even in a superpower like the US 1 in 4 women in her life will be sexually assaulted by a male criminal. This is the real world. This is what actually goes on. And rather than face this reality we would rather talk about the out of control antics of some teenage girls in a care home.

At no point have I excused them, and at no point have I said what they did was right or ok. But to compare them, and the actions we have seen listed, to rape and rapists is utterly disraceful in my opinion. Rape destroys people's lives, and is one of the most wicked hate crimes that exist in society, and here we are saying it is the equivalent of a teenage girl slapping an old man on the bum?

We have lost our perspective if we allow ourselves to say such things - even if we make these claims (as I feel some people are doing) in the spirit of winning a logicla argument when they know in their hearts they are not true.

1 in 33 men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime.

if my wife grabs my ass.. she isn't doing it because she's bored.. she wants some action.

there are fundamental differences between sexes.. but to say that one gender shouldn't be punished for doing something of this nature and another should be is a purely sexist viewpoint and one that does no favors for the rights of women.

a female sticking a finger in a mans bum when the action is not wanted is no different than a male sticking a finger in a womans ass when it is unwanted and in the legal definition constitutes rape.

On what basis can you call me or allude to the accusation that I am a sex pervert simply because I refuse to be bullied into agreeing with you, Guccilvr? I have made no personal comments in this discussion and I dont see any need for you to make this claim that I only believe what I do because I secretly long to be abused.

The simple facts are that this is being blown out or proportion by a media because it is a "sexy" story. These girls are not sex offenders

That seems somewhat misleading. If we're talking about a sexual partner putting her finger in your bum, that's obviously not the same as a man raping a woman. How many men are forcibly raped? For how many men is the action against his will and something he cannot stop?

you again ignore the facts. the girls assaulted the men.. there should be no distinction or bias towards the gender doing the assault.

will: the stats were for men who were forcibly raped. granted they may not have been all by women but about 10% were.

So do you propose that that context makes no difference, ever? That we should be neutral between the fire and the fire engine? If a 5 year old child walks up to you in the street and hits you and a 17 stone heavyweight boxer does the same thing - is it all just the same?

You respond to my simple question with, again, an assertion that baseline differences in the way that the sexes function and interact justifies the difference between a lost job, suspended jail sentence and a small fine and 25+ years in prison with a permanent record as a sex offender. And that's ok with you?

The actions would be identical, and yet one person essentially gets off and the other spends the rest of his life dealing with the consequences of actions. Systems of justice are fundamentally premise on the assumption that everyone is equal and that everyone who is guilty of a crime should receive roughly the same sentence. A legal system ought to punish an act, regardless of who the actor is, assuming the actor is found guilty. A legal system with completely different responses to the same actions due to race or sex or creed or sexual orientation is corrupt to its core, because then you're punishing the actor and not the action, in which case it is no longer a fair system, but an arbitrary system, which cannot guide people in how they should act.

Edit: Per above, we distinguish between children and adults because we, as a society, have decided that children (unless they show some sort of gross disregard for human life or safety with some level of intent) don't understand how to act, that they aren't socialized. That's a major distinguishing factor in your example and the example I posed.

Think about this a different way, if a girl drugged you so you were conscious but unable to move, then tied you down and shoved her finger in your ass and rubbed her butt in your face and spit on you, would you be upset? Would that be sexual assault?

What you're saying is that people who are too old and frail to protect themselves must have consented in some way because the actors were female whereas if the actors had been male, they couldn't have protected themselves even if they tried, justifying wildly different consequences for identical events. Don't you see how strange that sounds?

...

furthermore it seems possible to me that something like 1/36 men would be subject to a serious sexual assault. If we agree that 1/4 women are sexually assaulted in life, we have to keep in mind that around 10% of males are homosexual or bisexual. if 90% of the males commit this disusting level of assault against women, statistically we should expect that the 10% of homosexual males are as a depraved as the 90% of heterosexual males. A figure of 1/36 is roughly statistically equivalent.

If you read the police report, you discover that as many or more victims were women than men. Many of the women had their breasts poked in a manner to inflict pain, or the girls spit phlegm into their mouths than held their mouths shut so they couldn't scream. But alas, why let facts cloud the argument. ;)

LIES! Women are too pure to commit such acts!

So forcibly raped by women, the stats go from 1 in 33 to 1 in 330? That's a serious difference. And even that statistic stinks to high heaven.

I'd guess I've known about 900 men in my life. Statistically, then, abut 3 of those men have forcibly been raped by a woman? There are about 600,000 men in San Jose. Statistically, then, at least 1800 San Jose men have been raped by a woman? Forgive me, but without rather serious verifiable statistics, this seems like nonsense. And since verifiable statistics on male rape really don't exist yet, I'm afraid I have to call BS.

A legal system exists in fact to provide security for the people. If our prisons are even 1% female in terms of their population we have failed deeply as a society.

On the contrary, legal systems exist so people know what they can and can't do. Judicial systems exist to punish people that don't follow the legal system. When the judicial system arbitrarily interprets a legal system on the basis of something like race or gender (so that sticking a finger in an ass is horseplay in one instance and sexual assault in another), it fundamentally undermines the legal system, because then the legal system no longer tells you what you're allowed to do.

There are no reliable reports that I have seen that any of the residents involved were female. If this was true, it would be a different matter.

UCSC Rape Prevention Education: Rape Statistics

I can't make any promises how reliable those numbers are. Certainly it supports the notion that the vast majority of sexual crimes are by men against either women or men.

The point of this conversation centers around the fact that SF seems to claim that women writ large are incapable of sexual assaulting a man and that it has never happened, period, which means that what these girls did could not be anything other than horsing around. Even if only one man has ever been sexually assaulted by a woman, it would disprove that assertion, and there is no doubt that it has happened, albeit rarely.

The entire police report is available on smokinggun.com. If you take the time to read the entire report, they refer to every victim by their initials. However, they use either "her" or "him" to refer to the victims after mentioning the initials, thus advertising the sex of the victim. At least half (I think more, but I didn't literally count each one) are women.

Is poking women in their genitals and breasts, leghumping them in a bed while holding a hand over their mouth so they cannot scream, or spitting phlegm in their mouths than holding their mouths shut ok in your book?

Or are you merely continuing to restate a rediculous opinion to play devil's advocate and/or try to stir people up?

I appreciate the citation. It seems by these statistics that a man being raped by a woman is exceedingly rare, which is what I expected.
I didn't intend to argue that point at all. What those young women did was sexual abuse and it was criminal.

Oh yeah, I wasn't accusing you of defending them or making that assertion, I intended to put into context why the issue of female on male rape, rare though it is, is on the table at all, which is because SF is making that argument. Sorry if that were unclear.

The issue isn't whether or not it happens as frequently as male->female rape, the issue is whether it is not in the realm of "reality," as Strange Famous claims. Clearly, women are not the docile, innocent creatures Strange Famous would like them to be.

I just read the TSG article and if that kind of "he said, she said" stuff constitutes reality or evidence for a criminal prosecution to some people I dont know what to say. No evidence, no facts, simply stating gossip as fact. Is this whole case a joke?

In the U.S., it's around 7%. Female Prison Population Hits Record But men are still 15 times more likely to be incarcerated. Recent stats show that women are increasingly committing more crimes. Maybe it has something to do with women's lib. over the past 40 years. I don't want to speculate. :) But the bottom line is, if you do the crime, you do the time. Women should not be excluded from this--not even pretty teenagers.

Sorry, all the people who are commenting on this thread need to check the police report listed on the smoking gun... there is nothing here., nothing at all I admit I got sucked into it and was treating reported statements as facts as well as everyone else, but if you read the actual police statement its a complete joke with no actual evidence that any of this happened... this is a non story of pure fantasy and malicious teen gossip. It is pitiful that they can find a prosecutor willing to pick up such a weak case. I feel embarassed I even got involved in a discussion about things that didnt happen.

Obviously you did not read the police report slowly or thoroughly, because a) there is photographic and video evidence, and b) the majority of the "she said" portion of it was the girls confessing to doing the acts.

Exactly, no judge will ever allow a defendant's open and willing confession along with pictures and videos of the crimes being committed to stand up in court. ;)

he's going to make a good DA.

"Well, yes, their confession is just hearsay, gossip, I say. Just plain old gossip. You know what you are? You're a hoot, that's what you are."

The issue was exactly that because that's what I was talking about. I wasn't involving myself in the back and fourth between you and Strange Famous. I saw something that looked wrong and addressed it.

Cases of women raping men being exceedingly rare actually does have a great deal to do with this situation, though.

Let's take on these claims one at a time, objectively.

Spitting water at someone: irresponsible? Yes. Childish? Yes. Criminally negligent? Of course not.

Lying in bed with a resident: this depends on the circumstances. Could it be that there was a situation where lying in a bed was bad? Absolutely. Still, they could also have been a case where a 110 lb. 18 year old girl had just lifted a 200 lb. man into bed and she had to get off her feet and take a few breaths. We simply don't know.

The buttock issue: Have you ever worked at a nursing home? One of my best friends did. People she worked with bathed the elderly people there. That means washing them in what would normally be inappropriate places. Does that mean sticking a finger in someone's bum? Probably not. Does that mean cleaning up after someone that's had an accident? Absolutely.

Antagonizing? Hell, I antagonize people here regularly. That's a normal part of human interaction; people aren't always going to have perfect manners.

Humping a resident: I still don't know what this means. Was the police report written by a 6 year old? Are we talking about grinding or are we just talking about a hip thrust in the air?

Putting a hand over a resident's mouth: my grandfather had Alzheimer's. Towards the end, he would be living in his memories, and some of those memories were of the war. And he cried out. Now imagine someone crying out in a retirement or convalescent home. Wouldn't that cause a ton of problems? Of course.

It seems silly to me that we've got over a hundred posts, but we still really don't have a clue about what happened in that place. Could what they did be criminally negligent? Absolutely. Might there also be good explanations? Of course there are and anyone that denies that point is just being antagonistic that should be arrested.

i've read four pages of this crap...

is anyone ready to close this absolutely ridiculous thread?

The fact that, according to the confessions detailed in the police report, the girls admitted to purposefully carrying out those actions to arouse, make angry, hurt, and/or humiliate, kind of takes away the "good explanation" theory.

I thought it was ready for the Hall of Fame, myself.

:confused:

I'll repeat: spitting is assault. The allegation is that she spit water into the mouth of the patient. I also read that she "hocked a loogie." Either way, it's assault.

I believe the term is "wrongful touching", but it's only assault when intent can be demonstrated.

Does anyone wonder if the fact that these girls are pretty little cheerleaders has led to them feeling invulnerable? What kind of spoiled brats would be so heartless as to molest helpless people? What would be an appropriate punishment?

I basically just got home from dinner with a friend. So it could be the alcohol talking here but I just read through the whole thread, start to finish. I'm not ready to vote for moving it to the hall of fame. But I'd seriously consider "nonsense."

Seriously have a couple drinks and go back and start from #1- if you're not laughing your ass off by page three then you sir have no sense of humor.

oh, gee, more assholes. what a surprise.

kumbaya, my lord, kumba-fucking-ya.

:confused:

what's so confusing?

Maybe it's just me, but I think anyone who makes entertainment out of fucking with old people in a retirement home, to whatever extent, is an asshole.

Hence, my expression of regret, really.

For those saying that spitting is not assault, walk up to a cop and spit on them and see what that gets you.

I'm not used to women being referred to as assholes. That's generally a title for men from my experience.
Different rules apply to police officers. If you don't believe me, call one a fucker.

so now only certain words are good enough for men and others for women?

I call women assholes all the time..and men bitches all the time..

perhaps that's not where you were going with that.. so I'll let you chime in before that goes any farther.

you can call a cop a fucker if you want. they can't arrest you for it.

asshole is very useful term in my personal vernacular. It can be used to describe the behavior of anyone. Sorry if you thought I was referring to you or anyone else on the thread.

I've simply not, in my experience, heard women called assholes. Generally the term for a woman asshole has always been bitch with people I'm around. It's not some message about how women are better than men.
Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

And the girls confessing their intent isn't good enough for you?

It's pretty sick that not even the girls confessing and describing these acts in such a manner that makes them highly illegal is not enough for some people to see that they've done anything wrong.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29...nwreck450b.jpg

See y'all in another thread. I think this one is about wrapped up, personally. Pretty much everyone disagrees with strange, and his position is so riddled with logical inconsistency that it's fairly impossible to imagine how one might find common ground - so why try? I don't mean that as an insult to you strange - but seriously. People with vaginas are inherently not violent and thus shouldn't be charged with violent crime with appropriate sentences, people with penises are and should. Thanks, but no thanks. The middle ages left the station ~700 years ago.

edit: rewording for clarity

I think that image is an appropriate note on which to close this thread.

this just in:

Teens Arraigned For Elderly Abuse - January 22, 2009