April 27th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
02:13 am - 1KWFFH: on hometown hotties on the cyberbathroom wall...

(72 comments | Leave a comment)

 
1KWFFH: on hometown hotties on the cyberbathroom wall... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 27th, 2006 - 11:15 pm (Link)
yep... and then what will we have? A whole generation of blind men with hairy palms.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: April 27th, 2006 - 11:26 pm (Link)
You mean we don't already?

I bet you expected a different response from the teacher. But serious. I'm more worried about a boy actually pulling a girl's pants down in public, or getting a BJ from her in the bathroom (both have happened in my school this year), than I am about this adolescent wanking. Which is all it is. It might lead to more serious things, and they should get a "talking to" from their parents. Yup, I said parents. This is a parenting responsibility. Not a teaching issue.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 27th, 2006 - 11:38 pm (Link)
no, actually, its exactly the response I would expect from you and the one that I would hope for (though not necessarilly expect) from any teacher. You're a reasonable person. You realize you are a teacher, and not a parent and you can't see everything. Kids are going to hide things, and as was mentioned elsewhere, lets just be happy they weren't hiding a gun. That sounds like a cop-out, but its not. Your responsibility is instructing students in intellectual development. You have a secondary responsibilty of protecting them physical harm. You cannot and should not be responsible for their emotional development or their emotional safety. After all, it isn't even appropriate for you to tell a student whether or not he should be a snitch. You certainly can't tell him whether or not it is appropriate to lust after co-eds.

By the way, thanx for the post card!
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: April 27th, 2006 - 11:44 pm (Link)
Yeah....I do have to wonder what my reaction would have been had this happened at my school. Generally my reaction to any bias incident is to talk about it. And usually to find some way of equating it to racism, which the kids all agree is bad, and help them understand that bias is bias and we shouldn't say stuff about people just because of color, gender, age, religion, or sexual orientation (yup, we have the gay talk quite a bit). I recognize that some of their parents are feeding them this bias. So I would have talked about this list and how offensive it is, but the boys do have the constitutional right to be offensive. And I don't really see how this list is all that different from when People does the Sexiest Man Alive or whatever or whoever it is that does that. It's just a more genteel way of saying "We want to fuck him, and you should too."

You're welcome!
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 28th, 2006 - 12:30 am (Link)
exactly. I'm not arguing that its offensive (or non offensive). I obviously offensive (and quite intentionally so) here a lot. And as you say, I have a right to do so. I obviously do it for entertainment value and usually because its easier for me to write and make the points I want to make "in character" than it is to do it out of character. But rights are rights. And you have the right to be sexist or racist or anti-semetic or homophobic or anti-republican or whatever you want. Like you said, the kids understand racism, so if you equate sexism with racism to teach them that it is bad, that is one thing. But punishing them for exercising their beliefs and rights is another.

And as you said, yeah, its the exact same thing as People does. Or FHM, for instance. The picture for this entry, in fact comes from FHM's sexiest woman list for this year. But moreover, its the same as electing a homecoming king and queen, or prom, or voting for sexiest, prettiest, smartest, mostl likely to succeed, etc. in the senior year end yearbook polls. Its merely frame of reference that is making this seem objectionable at all. And, though I can't really know, it really feels like its a bigger deal to the parents than it is to the students. Obviously we all remember stuff like this from when we were in school. The students interviewed acknowledge that the list has been published in previous years, and it seems that the list was distributed a month ago without incident. Its only a problem because the parents are bringing it up now. In fact, I'd argue that the hubbub is more disruptive than the original list ever could have been.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: April 28th, 2006 - 12:53 am (Link)
I think my favorite part of the hubbub is where readers wrote in with their opinions. So many people wrote in to say that the boys should tried civilly and criminally. But they forgot to specify what crime had been committed. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a crime. Even if we all disagree with it, that doesn't mean it is a crime. The law and morality are not the same thing.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 28th, 2006 - 01:28 am (Link)
well, the obvious belief is that they kids are guilty of sexual harassment, but I honestly think the case there is really weak. Simply put, the kids are guilty of being annoying teenagers. That's just not a crime, no matter how badly anyone's feelings are hurt.

As stated in comments above, they could alternatively be guilty of libel, but that's only the case if you can prove they knowingly lied about something. "Katherine has nice boobs" is not libel, nor is "Katherine is a slut" because those would just be opinions. "Katherine gave a blowjob to Johnny Depp" could be libelous, but only if you can prove that A) you didn't blow Depp and B) I know that you didn't blow Depp but said it specifically to defame your character. That's important. Libel involves the allegations being false and the writer being malicious, which specifically means that the writer either knows the allegation is false or has reckless disregard to the truth. Thus, I don't really need to witness you blowing Depp. If he tells me that you blew him and I have no reason to disbelieve him, then when I print it I'm not guiltly of libel (he may be guilty of slander, if you didn't actually blow him). Furthermore, if I have every reason to believe that you blew Depp, like maybe you had a date with him and then later someone saw him getting a blowjob in the parking lot, and no one really saw your face, but everyone assumed it was you and therefore it was common belief that you blew Depp, even though in reality it was Steph who just hooked up with him after your date, then again, I am still not being libelous by reporting on it. And finally, if you're known to have blown Grieco, Peter DeLuise, Dustin Nguyen, Steven Williams and went down on Holly Robinson, then it probably doesn't really "defame your character" to say that you blew Depp too. It's all very complex. But at the end of the day, I don't think you can prove that these boys were attempting to defame the character of the girls. In fact, I'd say their point was more a misguided attempt to score with them (or help their friends do so), so its definitely a weak case at best.

Now, I haven't read the list because I couldn't find it, but its entirely possible we could charge them with bad grammar.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: April 28th, 2006 - 01:52 am (Link)
Next time you talk to Johnny Depp, let him know I'd be happy to blow him.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 28th, 2006 - 02:13 am (Link)
Katherine is such a slut. :-)
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: April 28th, 2006 - 07:53 pm (Link)
Only for Johnny, Hugh, Jude, and Orlando.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 28th, 2006 - 08:10 pm (Link)
I heard you went down on Peter Deluise.... on a good note, though, he gave you an A-

[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: April 28th, 2006 - 08:42 pm (Link)
LIBEL!
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 28th, 2006 - 09:44 pm (Link)
No it's not... it's only libel if you can find some way to proove to me that you can do better (or worse) than an A-.... Hmmm... what comes to mind...
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com