Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SealyStar]

Again, abstenance is the better message to give until they have an internalized sexual idenity, and a sexual impulse that is genuinely theirs.

... which might not happen until their twenties or some crap, well after they've been screwing for a decade.

But eh. So long as that's not all you're doing, whatever. Abstinence can be your primary message so long as you're not dropping the ball on actually teaching people what they need to be safe.

The problem is teaching abstinence from a physical standpoint rather than a mental one. They talk a lot about unwanted pregnancy and STDs as the only reasons you should be abstinent, as if condoms, birth control pills, and various other solutions don't exist (and as if such problems can't affect monogamous married couples), but completely ignore the typical adolescent's lack of mental readiness for sexual relationships or the drama they cause.

[Sergarr]

I doubt that *consent* of all things would be a concept kids are unfamiliar with. And if they are, holy shit, that needs to be rectified ultra fast, that's like Ethics 101 in like 90% of systems.

But then you would have to crack down on bullies hard, and that for some reason cannot be allowed.

[wierd]

Maybe I have been too conditioned for doublethink...

I see both sides of the bullying coin.  On one side, a bigger (or at least more aggressive) peer is causing emotional distress to another peer.  On the other, most cases of bullying result from the bully being socially insecure, and having an internal need to assert themselves, and 'need' the reassurance that comes from causing the distress to others gives them. (Not a healthy way to do that, but it keeps them from slipping into psychotic depression.)

"Cracking down on bullying" usually takes the form of unconditional punishment of the bully for being a bully--- rather than evaluating the bully as somebody in need of alternative forms of social reinforcement, and civics training.  This causes more harm to the bully, but protects their victims-- a mixed bag.

The real problem, is that schools are NOT willing to intercede in the way that is actually, demonstrably best---- Getting the bully into a more productive environment for them that is more supportive, and which they do not need to harm others to feel self-empowerment, then give them remedial civics in a non-offensive (emotionally) manner.   Parents dont want to admit that their child is having those kinds of problems, and will fight those kinds of policy decisions for a very wide assortment of reasons.

To combat bullying, you need to dig deeper under that bush and get at the roots underneath.  You need to target parents with parental education--- and that's where its a non-starter. No parent wants to be "Told how to raise their child."

[Graknorke]

I have a feeling that the "bullies are just insecure" isn't a thing that's actually true necessarily. It's just a way of not having to confront that some people will be shit with no ulterior motive than enjoying being shit.

[Neonivek]

I have a feeling that the "bullies are just insecure" isn't a thing that's actually true necessarily. It's just a way of not having to confront that some people will be shit with no ulterior motive than enjoying being shit.

It is a myth.

The opposite is often true... in fact the opposite is almost always true that bullies are actually people with "High" self-esteem.

It is just a myth that people believe because it makes more sense to common thinking AND it makes them think better of themselves.

[ArKFallen]

I have a feeling that the "bullies are just insecure" isn't a thing that's actually true necessarily. It's just a way of not having to confront that some people will be shit with no ulterior motive than enjoying being shit.

That can be a part of the insecure bit, or at least it was when I was bullying people. I enjoyed being shit because I felt like shit and wanted to enjoy being me. People have ulterior motives for everything because biological cause and effect is under ulterior motive.

Unless you need to be cognizant of your motive for it to be ulterior but then it seems like this is a strawman.

[wierd]

I said "usually", not "aways."  There ARE people who just enjoy hurting people. They are called psychopaths. Most people are not psychopaths. By derivative, most bullies are not psychopaths, and thus most bullies don't have such a rationale behind their bullying.

In either case, separating the bullies from those they bully is the first step-- it allows the ones being bullied to be free of the bully, and that seperation allows for the remedial social support training for the bully away from those they were bullying.  Should they fail to respond to treatment, and present clinical signs of psychopathy, they can be detected early, and much harm can be avoided. Those that respond well to the new environment become better socially adjusted people with stronger internal coping mechanisms that dont rely on hurting others.

But again-- requires telling parents that they are doing something wrong with their child, which is a non-starter.

Neon:

You make that assertion pretty boldy.  Have you ever been a bully?

Many times in my people watching, I have observed more of the bully's social life than what most who have experienced bullying do.  Bullies tend to get bullied themselves by their peers. They may not have any real, intrinsic desire to hurt other people, but do so out of a sense of needing to remain socially relevant. EG, the clique of cool girls who pick on the nerdy girl. Most of that clique does it because the "big bitch" does not like the nerdy girl, and the local social structure revolves around the bitch. (just as an example.)  It then becomes a choice of sticking with the social dynamic (due to lack of strong internal self-esteem), and bullying the nerdy girl-- or suffering an identity crisis after refusing to bully the nerdy girl.  Kids may not be fully aware of this choice-- people are programmed for social behavior biologically, they don't usually rationally contemplate their actions. 

There are similar group dynamics that happen with groups of boys. 

[IWishIWereSarah]

Most people are not psychopaths. By derivative, most bullies are not psychopaths

You didn't prove the independence between those two propositions. Your proof is therefore false. :p

[ArKFallen]

Most people are not psychopaths. By derivative, most bullies are not psychopaths

You didn't prove the independence between those two propositions. Your proof is therefore false. :p

HooHooHoo! How silly.
Good editing skills fixing that tulpotypo.

[wierd]

Most people are not psychopaths. By derivative, most bullies are not psychopaths

You didn't prove the independence between those two propositions. Your proof is therefore false. :p

I see your pedantic quibble, and raise it to irrelevancy.

Even psychopathic bullies experience moderate improvements with early diagnosis and treatment.

So, even if more bullies are psychopaths than not, removing them from the population of those they bully, and giving them treatment, is still the prescribed solution.

[cerapa]

I think I've seen 4 types of bullies, but I'm sure there are even more.

One person who bullied me did it because he had low self esteem. When other people weren't around, he was obviously uncomfortable. He also seemed to panic whenever he himself got negative attention and immediately tried to find a way to deflect it towards someone else.
The second seemed to be of a dominant type, with the bullying being simply an extension of that. He just didn't care about his actions.
The third simply followed what others did. I would honestly say that he wasn't a bad person, just not particularly bright and happened to hang out with a bad crowd.

The three never did anything when there weren't other people around. In a one-on-one setting you wouldn't even be able to tell that they were assholes.

The fourth though, seemed to genuinely enjoy the act itself.

[Neonivek]

Neon:

You make that assertion pretty boldy.  Have you ever been a bully?

I just read the studies and the "Corrective psychology to cure people of being bullies" and it mostly points to bullies operate more on a "Might makes right" mentality.

They ARE superior so they need to exert it.

Building their esteem tends to only aggravate their bullying.

[ArKFallen]

Searched "Corrective psychology to cure people of being bullies" and

Did you mean: Corrective psychology to cure people of being bullied

WTF.

[wierd]

That makes the assumption that there is only one kind of bully-- Alpha bullies.

In the "Cool girl" group dynamic, the "big bitch"-- The one who leads the clique.  There are far more little bitches than there are big bitches.  They survive by cuddling up to the big bitch, who then does not pick on them (as bad.)  They are still bullies. Building their self esteem allows them to confront the big bitch, and tell her no, allowing them to escape that group dynamic and manifest an independent personality.

The big bitch is usually of the narcissistic personality persuasion, which is what your studies usually focus on, as they are the more interesting demographic.  These ones feel superior, and have an intrinsic need to feel superior. Being equal is simply out of the question for them, because they have already decided that they are simply better than everyone else. These are the ones harboring psychopathic tendencies.

Here's a rather interesting (if long, and somewhat dated) documentary about one such girl...

She received treatment, and saw improvement.  It required complete removal from her normal domestic setting.

[SirQuiamus]

Searched "Corrective psychology to cure people of being bullies" and

Did you mean: Corrective psychology to cure people of being bullied

WTF.

"It's the victims' fault, obviously! Wearing glasses at school, in broad daylight? For shame! That kind of behaviour has its consequences!" /s