Author: has written 211 posts for this blog.

Guest Bloggers are most welcome to diversify the range of views and experiences presented on this blog. The opinions of Guest Bloggers do not necessarily represent other bloggers on Feministe: differing voices are important to us. Readers are cordially invited to follow our guidelines to submit a Guest Post pitch for consideration.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

154 Responses

  1. karak86
    karak86 September 26, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

    But… it’s not funny, it’s not satire, and it’s not humor. It’s pictures of underage girls, who don’t know their pictures are there, being told they look like “sluts”. And we know what “slut” is code for: someone who deserves to be a victim of sexual violence because of their perceived dress or behavior.

    A cat wearing a hat is funny. Mocking a 12 year for wearing a shirt about liking cock is just… sad. And kind of weird.

    1. Shoggoth
      Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

      I don’t think laughing at a kid for wearing a COCKS NOW, ASK ME HOW shirt is so bad. Like leaving a snarky comment. Making a whole page for them on the other hand…

      1. Andie
        Andie September 26, 2012 at 2:42 pm |

        Except it’s really not funny. It’s disconcerting, at best.

      2. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm |

        Odd sense of “humour” there.

        Kids being sexualiis,ed by clothes that say “I love cock” or “future porn star”, even something like “Future WAG”*, isn’t a laughing matter.

        Don’t children deserve to make it at least into double digits without being told that their worth lies in how well they can command. the male gaze?

        *WAG. = Footballers Wives and Girlfriends.

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 3:08 pm |

          A 12 year old girl wearing a COCKS t-shirt seems more like a misguided attempt at shock humor. The Future WAG one, that’s far more sinister and unsettling.

        2. Jen
          Jen September 27, 2012 at 9:09 am |

          Not to nitpick, but 12 IS double digits, yo.

        3. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 9:19 am |

          Jen – some of those girls are. about eight or nine.

          Read the post yo.

      3. Joe from an alternate universe
        Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

        Gee, so many reasons this is not funny. First, there is already a real problem with over-sexualizing children – from beauty pagents for 5 year olds, where they strut around with make up like adults (really gives me the creeps), to – I guess – pages like this. Second, and I know this is old fashioned, it’s just plain vulgar.

        I don’t blame the kids; they think they are acting like adutls, or at least that it makes them seem more mature for some reason. Of course, kids want attention, and stuff like this achives it, but they don’t understand consequences like this can happen. Two creeps like this repost the pictures, and those pics are now out there forever. They need to understand this doesn’t make them popular in the long run, and certainly doesn’t garner them long term dignity.

        As for the creeps – pedophiles in training actually – god only knows how they obtained these. Pervs usually pretext as children, though, so all the more reason to watch what your kids are putting up there and with whom they are chatting.

    2. Shoggoth
      Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm |

      I’d also make fun of kids wearing Alcohol brand shirts. I just don’t think kids should be used as billboards for products like cocks and whiskey, things they aren’t qualified at their age to reccomend to other people. They’re like people who write reviews on Amazon for shit they’ve never actually used.

      1. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm |

        I just don’t think kids should be used as billboards for products like cocks and whiskey

        That’s the thing though, it’s not the cock that’s the “product”, it’s the little girl.

        She’s the one developed, packaged, and displayed. She’s the one being reviewed and rated, as she will be for as long as she’s female.

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm |

          You’re right, but I’m not in a very dark mood today. These are hella internet “jokester” just being themselves. I use the quotes because I feel there’s a pretty hardcore prurient appeal to them, getting to combine self-righteousness with sexual gratification. Always a potent mix. They’re indicative of a bunch of wider social problems, but they’re essentially being dumb crass mean spirited kids. There’s nothing to be done about their page because as soon as it goes down it’ll go right back up.

          They’ll grow up. Some of them will get over their misogyny and try to do better. Some won’t. It’s just a small, tiny part of the flood of sewage that seeps out of redditor and chan and other spots around the net. When i was a dumb kid I used to get roped into the same kind of “Funny internet misogyny” too. I got over it, a lot of people I know also got over it.

          Not that it isn’t a problem, because these things let people affirm each other’s horrible views. I guess maybe I’ve been around this shit too long to get upset by it any more. It would be a full time job.

          Though I might be a little too optimistic about it. I’ve been pretty optimistic about the future lately.

          Fuck ‘em.

        2. EG
          EG September 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm |

          They’ll grow up. Some of them will get over their misogyny and try to do better. Some won’t. It’s just a small, tiny part of the flood of sewage that seeps out of redditor and chan and other spots around the net. When i was a dumb kid I used to get roped into the same kind of “Funny internet misogyny” too. I got over it, a lot of people I know also got over it.

          But will the children whom they are calling “sluts” and using as jack-off images get over it?

      2. Joe from an alternate universe
        Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm |

        C*ks as a product. Now this is really what you’d call a Freudian slip. But, however accidently, you’ve made a good point. Body parts as product – part of the problem. I’ve never heard of any women that treat that as an commodity or object to be sought out and obtained, but plenty of men do seek the “products” women have. That makes me all the more assured that a shirts like that are put on these kids by adult males trying to project their own puerile sexuality on these girls.

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm |

          It wasn’t accidental. I called cock a product because, parlty what you said, but mainly because it amused me.

          But I’d be careful of assuming males are the ones putting these shirts on girls, and they aren’t wearing them glibly and thinking they’re being hi-larious.

          I think ti does raise another issue though. Like I said, I think COCK shirts are meant as shock humor, or at least are pretty fucking jokey and lame (much like my posting) That’s the only way anyone at all, let alone little girls, wearing them makes any sense to me. Everyone knows dick jokes are funny. Could part of this stem from men fearing women are co-opting our precious dick jokes?

        2. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm |

          Yes, I agree, some of these kids think it’s funny. Like I said in a previous post, it’s not, and those kids need to be gently shown that’s it’s inappropriate and vulgar, and that older kids and adults that tell them it’s funny or cool are really putting them on display and the joke is really on them. And it will come back in ways like this.

          As for the dick jokes, are they really funny? Or just crude?

      3. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm |

        I’d be careful of assuming males are the ones putting these shirts on girls, and they aren’t wearing them glibly and thinking they’re being hi-larious

        Yeah, stupid little slutty sluts always trying to get attention eh? Using their marketing, fashion and retail connections to do it.

        Oh wait, that’s right, theyte CHILDREN. They don’t design, manufacture and market anyfuckingthing.

        Guess who does?

        I mean, you do realise this is a real issue in feminism, don’t you? Teaching girls and women to appeal to the male gaze, simultaneously sexualising them and disempowering them, desensitising them to sexual violence in images, words and music.

        It isn’t funny to ser children exploited by adults who should know better. It isn’t funny to use the desperate childhood need for acceptance against these children, ‘Everyone else is doing/wearing it, what’s your problem?’

        I can’t believe this has to be explained in a social justice space.

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 4:58 pm |

          I think you’ve missed my points as well, which were to make corny jokes about dick joke tee shirts.

        2. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm |

          In my experience, kids are also amused by dick jokes and other forms of vulgar humor, which is fine. A kid wearing a I HEART COCKS t shirt is making a dick joke with their clothing. It’s a pretty bad one, and if they put it on Facebook they’re showing off their bad jokes. (Much like my posting).

          And what’s wrong with crude and vulgar humor???

        3. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm |

          I think you’ve missed my points as well, which were to make corny jokes about dick joke tee shirts

          Oh so edgy.

          This isn’t a primary school playground, or reddit. You’ve got millions of places to engage in dick jokes, so why do it in a serious discussion about the disgusting sexualisation and misogynist bullying of little girls and young women?

          Again, privilege. Making sure that your voice, your point of view, and the notes from your boner are everywhere. Whether they’re wanted or appropriate apparently doesn’t mean shit to you.

          Do you go to Queereka and make gay jokes? Is it appropriate to go to the. Terrence Higgins Trust website and make AIDS jokes? How about visiting a Paralympic forum and unleashing a load of jokes mocking people with disabilities?

          If not, why not?

        4. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 5:59 pm |

          And what’s wrong with crude and vulgar humor???

          I don’t appreciate most of it, but that stuff should be for adults, not kids. As has been pointed out, these kids probably didn’t make these shirts. Kids vulgar humor should be relegated to poop and fart jokes as far as I’m concerned, nothing more.

        5. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 6:02 pm |

          This is a thread about creepers making a Facebook page to creep on kids and mentions kids wearing COCK t-shirts in the OP. I think the kind of people who make pages like that deserve mockery and ridicule, and I think COCK shirts are funny. If you feel otherwise then I respectfully disagree with you.

      4. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm |

        I guess maybe I’ve been around this shit too long to get upset by it any more.

        That’s easy to say when you can walk away.

        Ain’t privilege grand?

        You are a guy, aren’t you?

        1. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve September 26, 2012 at 6:56 pm |

          Hold on a second, but I think we’ve moved into the attitude of the Facebook group. Are we really criticizing a young girl for wearing an ‘I love cock’ t-shirt? I can see criticizing the store that sold it to her, but I don’t think it’s evidence of anything other than a question of taste. I also don’t think there’s any reason to assume a girl who wears a shirt like that is more likely to sexualize herself in other ways.

        2. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 11:48 pm |

          Steve . we’re not. mocking the children, we’re not accusing them of sexualising themselves.

          Why is this so hard to understand?

          Two young men have a page dedicated to calling preteen. girls “sluts”.

          With me so far?

          They are using a sexual slur to denigrate children. Yes?

          It isn’t about t-shirts. We’re not saying slogans on t-shirts are bad.

          Calling any woman “slut” is misogynist abuse, vilification of female. sexuality, and just wrong.

          We’re saying that taking pictures of girls, some who appear as young as seven or eight, and calling them “sluts” because of how they look, what they wear and what they say, is wrong.

          They are being. inappropriately sexualised by being fed the message, via the media, that their goal in life should be to attract the male gaze.

          They’re being abused with the language of sexual violence and sexism for then daring to act on the insidious, toxic messages they see and hear.

          They upload pictures thinking they look grown-up, or “hot”, and a group of fucking creeps then take these pictures, add sexual captions to them, and redistribute them for the lolz.

          Why is it so hard to understand why that’s bad Steve?

          Why would anyone then think it was appropriate to come into a post about children’s naivety and innocence being exploited, a post about a trend that uses the language of sexual violence against kids, and think it’s fucking appropriate to joke about it because HE is sick of taking the abuse and exploitation of girls seriously?

          Can you not see the naked privilege on display?

          No, of course you can’t. So instead you somehow manage to grasp the wrong end of a frisbee, and conjure up some conversation where I’m blaming these girls for the abuse they’re receiving.

        3. Kerandria
          Kerandria September 27, 2012 at 5:12 am |

          I also don’t think there’s any reason to assume a girl who wears a shirt like that is more likely to sexualize herself in other ways.

          Really? Have you seen how much we’re up against? This, this, and this. The sexualising of children is done in media, by their peers, by fashion. What group of humans has an overwhelming amount of control over the systems that teach children that it isn’t only ok but acceptable to actively participate in that aspect of the kyriarchy?

          I don’t think it’s evidence of anything other than a question of taste.

          Shirts like that aren’t about bad taste. When kids are wearing subversive shit like that, it’s about brainwashing some of our most vulnerable brethren before they even have a fucking chance to think for themselves.

        4. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 27, 2012 at 8:25 am |

          Exactly Kerandria!

          I’ve got a longer comment still in moderation that said much the same.

        5. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve September 27, 2012 at 9:37 am |

          Steve . we’re not. mocking the children, we’re not accusing them of sexualising themselves.

          You’re not, but I felt others like ‘Shoggoth’ were. (Haven’t got the hang of this nesting, so sorry if it looked like I was responding to you)

        6. tinfoil hattie
          tinfoil hattie September 27, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          It isn’t about t-shirts. We’re not saying slogans on t-shirts are bad.

          I am. I definitely am. WTF? It’s HORRIBLE that a child that young would wear a t-shirt with the slogan “I Love Cock” on it. For crying out loud.

        7. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 9:38 am |

          @Steve – nesting is evil. Apologies and internet beer for you

          @Hattie – I meant t-shirts in general. What I was trying to say was that the shirts are the symptom of the sickness that needs to be attacked.

          Mr “Haha stupid sluts are funny” was acting as if the shirts were the raison d’etre behind this post and the anger Viet’s been generated.

    3. tinfoil hattie
      tinfoil hattie September 27, 2012 at 11:38 am |

      Where did that girl even GET the shirt? And I can’t make myself look at the link, but if she is 12 or even younger, there is something very bad going on with this young girl. Sexual abuse? Neglect? I don’t like it, and hell to the no, it’s not FUNNY.

      1. Sarah
        Sarah September 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

        This. A thousand times this.

        The 12-year-old-sluts page doesn’t actually generate original content (or advocate violence, as far as I could tell), it’s all reposts and screencaps from various facebook fails. I’m a little less worried about two teenage idiots collecting stupid shit they think is funny than I am about middle-schoolers boasting about how much “dik” they “liek” to “sukk” and their parents being apparently oblivious.

        1. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve October 3, 2012 at 4:09 pm |

          m a little less worried about two teenage idiots collecting stupid shit they think is funny than I am about middle-schoolers boasting about how much “dik” they “liek” to “sukk” and their parents being apparently oblivious.

          This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said some comments here seemed just as shamey as the FBpage.

  2. Andie
    Andie September 26, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

    How wrong IS it to lock your kids up in order to protect them from all of humanity?

    Gord, I hate people.

    1. Partial Human
      Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

      I’d want to do the same.

      It’s part of the reason I won’t have kids. I just don’t feel equipped to guide a potential girl into adulthood without driving both of us into insanity.

    2. im
      im September 26, 2012 at 11:32 pm |

      My greatest children-related fear is that I will fail to teach my children, if I have any, to be the sort of badasses that would make their own choices about this sort of thing.

      The question of where the photos come from in the first place is confusing and worrysome. It’s a question worth asking… Coerced? Unlikely. Maybe just the foolishness of youth, which should not be disseminated across time and space by those with no connection to them?

  3. Partial Human
    Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

    Ah Failbook, where post-birth pictures* and nursing are “obscene”, and hate is just money in the bank.

    It made me really sad to see women and girls defending the page. But oh! We don’t need feminism anymore!

    *headdesk*

    That child in the t-shirt looks about seven or eight to me.

    As someone who was objectified and harassed as an eight year old after tragically attaining adult stature and secondary sexual characteristics virtually overnight, it scares me to think of today’s little girls, nearly 25 years on, and how amped up the sexualiisation of them is.

    1. Fat Steve
      Fat Steve September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm |

      As someone who was objectified and harassed as an eight year old after tragically attaining adult stature and secondary sexual characteristics virtually overnight, it scares me to think of today’s little girls, nearly 25 years on, and how amped up the sexualiisation of them is.

      Jeez, Partial, it saddens me the way you refer to a portion of your childhood as ‘tragic.’ It shows that these things don’t just go away, even in 25 years time. :(

      1. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 27, 2012 at 12:01 am |

        Why would you think that sadness and anger about sexually-loaded verbal and physical violence would go away? My “crime” was to develop breasts and walk around with them. My punishment was to be an eight year old girl in a world where men and boys think that a pubescent girl is fair game for objectification, groping, and bullying.

        Were things different when you were a little girl? It’s just that I can’t quite grasp why it’s my attitude toward that abuse that troubles you, rather than the societal attitudes that continue to make that abuse acceptable.

        1. Andie
          Andie September 27, 2012 at 7:02 am |

          I kind of interpreted his comment as being sad that this stuff is so bad that the pain of it doesn’t go away. I don’t think he was saying that it’s not understandable to feel this way, or unjustified in anyway. I read it more that he was sad for you, because that never should have happened to you.

        2. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 27, 2012 at 8:32 am |

          Maybe you’re right Andie.

          This whole thing literally gave me. nightmares last night.

          It never goes away, and these poor kids who’re force fed the message “LOOK SEXY!” from (what seems like) kindergarten, then act on that to get “LOL SLUT!” in return will have permanent internet evidence of their humiliation.

          I can’t even…

        3. Andie
          Andie September 27, 2012 at 9:26 am |

          I know.. as the mother of an 11-year-old girl, especially one that is likely going to be considered “conventionally attractive” and as such likely subject to scrutiny (well, just like any woman) I want to cry thinking of someone treating a kid to this kind of humiliation. Kids are naive, they will do stupid things, and they will emulate ‘adults’ – who in many cases are just older children – and they shouldn’t be subject to shaming for growing up and trying navigate growing up and figuring out who they are (which I think is the case with some of the young girls posting ‘sexy’ pictures. We tell kids to grow up and act their age and then act shocked when they don’t get it right)

          NO ONE should be subject to such treatment, let alone children.

        4. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve September 27, 2012 at 9:34 am |

          Thanks Andie, thats exactly what I meant.

          Yeah Partial, I was just commenting on how much it sucks that you have to deal with these memories every day.

        5. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 10:02 am |

          Andie – I cannot imagine the strength and mental fortitude you must need to parent a future woman.

          I chose to remain childfree, partially because of my fear that I just wouldn’t be able to parent in a way that didn’t involve carrying her in a sling until she was 30. I wasn’t parented well, so wouldn’t want to continue the cycle of producing completely broken women with no self-esteem, eating disorders, and an unhealthy need to please their abusers.

          I’m sure you’ll do a great job. The fact that you’re worried enough to be mindful of the issues almost certainly means that you’re handling them well. A bit like the old maxim “If you think you’re insane then you’re probably not!”.

          @Steve – again, I can only apologise. This whole thing touched a very raw nerve and I lashed out. I’m sorry.

          This is the sort of thing that you carry inside for a long time. When people like shuggoth compound the abuse of these children by laughing it all off, it just reminds me of the people who minimised and mocked everything from my bullying to my sexual assault, on the grounds that I “deserved it”.

          At least my humiliation isn’t captured in perpetuity. I’m frightened, honestly frightened for these girls and their futures.

        6. moviemaedchen
          moviemaedchen September 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

          This is the sort of thing that you carry inside for a long time. When people like shuggoth compound the abuse of these children by laughing it all off, it just reminds me of the people who minimised and mocked everything from my bullying to my sexual assault, on the grounds that I “deserved it”.

          At least my humiliation isn’t captured in perpetuity. I’m frightened, honestly frightened for these girls and their futures.

          This. It’s bad enough to be on the receiving end of such abuse (and you have my full sympathy, Partial Human). But to have it recorded, publicly broadcast for virtually anyone in the world to see, mocked and then made potentially permanently available, adds a whole other massive layer of ickiness and trauma. And people complain about the criticism this abuse receives because they feel a need to defend their love of dick jokes. For fuck’s sake.

    2. im
      im September 26, 2012 at 11:36 pm |

      I wonder if there is a way to artificially delay the development of secondary sex characteristics until a bit later in life.

      In some completely unreformed patriarchies, people actually try to do this, I have heard. But in a way that causes lasting damage and prevents the secondary sex characteristics from EVER appearing, even when desired.

      1. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 27, 2012 at 12:08 am |

        Yes, that’s the answer to preventing sexualised abuse of little girls, mess with their bodies!

        Or, and this will sound reaaally radical and far out, we could (as a society) stop enabling the creeps that abuse and exploit. little girls for daring to go through a natural bodily process!

        Nah, that can’t be done, too hard. BRING ON THE LUPRON! DEVELOP MORE EFFICIENT BREAST-IRONING TECHNIQUES!

        1. Annalisa
          Annalisa September 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm |

          This X100. Put the blame where it lays: at the feet of these creeps who think it’s their god given right to sexualize young girls.

          (The part about this whole thing that makes me vomit the most is how the creators of this page see nothing wrong with their behavior. Nothing. What a parental fail)

        2. EG
          EG September 27, 2012 at 2:19 pm |

          Eh, I’m not sure you can parent a sociopath out of being a sociopath.

  4. Shoggoth
    Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm |

    It’s a bit suspect that these folks are so keen to collect a treasure trove of tarted-up ‘tweens.

    1. Bagelsan
      Bagelsan September 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm |

      I’m sure it’s only for educational purposes! Their typing single-handed is a coincidence.

      1. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm |

        Their other hands are shaking collection tins for NGOs dedicated to stamping out child exploitation. DUH!

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

          They’re shaking something.

    2. konkonsn
      konkonsn September 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

      Nice alliteration.

      I’m just…how does this not fall under child pornography of some sort? Two adult males collecting pictures of teenagers for the sole purpose of discussing them in a violent, sexual manner.

      I guess if they were still children at a school, there could be some anti-bullying measures taken by the school itself. What do we do about adults bullying children, though?

      1. Shoggoth
        Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm |

        Thank you.

        Re; Child Por: That would be a strange issue from a practical standpoint. The kids are the ones taking the pictures, so classifying it as Porn would appear to require redefining pornography to refer to the means of distribution, and not the content. Or the content plus means of distribution. But I think there would be some legal issues involved in making a picture pornography when person A views it, and not-Porn when person B views it, effectively creating a Schrodinger’s Skin Pics situation.

        1. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 4:49 pm |

          But I think there would be some legal issues involved in making a picture pornography when person A views it, and not-Porn when person B views it, effectively creating a Schrodinger’s Skin Pics situation.

          Yes, that is why government agencies and movie rating agencies go to great detail to describe what is porn and what is not. It doesn’t matter what the viewer’s opinion of the material is; the specific content is what earns you a porn designation, an XXX, X, or R or NR (Not Rated) movie rating. Movie producers all the time try to skirt the ratings trying for that coveted “R” rating without going so far as to get an NR. They even have the amount of time a body part is shown as affecting the “R” vs. “NR” rating.

        2. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

          Excuse me, I forgot NC-17, which replaces the old X rating.

        3. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 5:07 pm |

          Quantum pornography!

        4. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 6:07 pm |

          You lost me there.

        5. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 6:09 pm |

          Kind of like how in Quantum Physics (so I’m told) energy can be a particle or wave depending on how it’s measured, a picture could be porn or not-porn depending on who views it.

        6. Thalia
          Thalia September 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm |

          In Canada, there are actually legal issues around things like sexting because the age of the individuals involved as subjects* is what matters above all else – so even if another underage (read: under 18) person is taking the pictures and/or receiving the pictures, consent is not the problem at hand.

          A naked picture of a 16 year old would be, in Canada, considered pornography even if it was taken by the subject* themselves. Anyone in possession of that photo, even if they had consent from the subject* of the photo could be charged.

          *subject in the context of ‘the subject of this picture’

        7. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 6:33 pm |

          Kind of like how in Quantum Physics (so I’m told) energy can be a particle or wave depending on how it’s measured, a picture could be porn or not-porn depending on who views it.

          OK, I get in now, but it’s still wrong. There are guidlines about the content of material that determine what it is regardless of the intentions of the producers and attitude of the viewer is.

          A naked picture of a 16 year old would be, in Canada, considered pornography even if it was taken by the subject* themselves

          It’s the same here in a lot of states. About 5 years ago a 15 year old girl was put in juvenile detetion after she sexted a picture of her genitals to her boyfriend and school officials found out about it. It’s still considered distributing child porn even if the kid took the picture themselves.

        8. im
          im September 26, 2012 at 11:39 pm |

          This gets into thorny issues. I’m against stuff like that where the child or adolesecent’s rights are specifically limited like that, or are considered to be complicit in an act of objectification. Probably the best way would be to have some method of punishing people who disseminate private photos w/o consent of the person originally giving them.

    3. super anon for this.
      super anon for this. September 27, 2012 at 11:50 am |

      Your comments are offending me deeply. “Tarted-up teens”? “They’re shaking something”?

      Teens are not “tarts.” “Jokes” about men masturbating to images of children are not funny. AT ALL.

      My kid told us about two years ago that zie had been sexually exploited by a family member for years. My kid was 10 then. The so-called perp was an 11-year-old. The perp’s father had gotten into the shower with my kid when my kid was 8. Among other, slightly lesser offenses. It came out then that another family member had observed said father being sexually inappropriate with his own kids for years. It’s a FUCKING NIGHTMARE from which we are all still recovering. And oh, by the way? My kid’s therapist reported the incident(s), as legally required. The family was investigated.

      Guess who is now ostracized from the extended family? If you said, “The family of the kid who told?” give yourself a cigar.

      SO JUST STOP WITH THE “JOKES.” Please stop.

      1. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 10:13 am |

        I’m so sorry that happened to you anon. I’ve experienced the “ostracise the victim and pretend nothing has happened” scenario.

        It’s almost always the victim that’s blamed, thanks to a world fuelled with misogyny. It’s disgusting, and people who find it funny are shining examples of this twisted worldview that treats female sexuality as something to be exploited and mocked.

        Hugs for you and your child. Nobody deserves that. I hope you are able to have a safe and happy future.

  5. doberman
    doberman September 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

    While it is unfortunate that these girls have had their pictures appropriated in such a way, it makes me very uneasy that you suggest the “removal” of it from Facebook.

    While I understand that people don’t neccesarily have a right to post what they like on someone else’s website, it seems morally wrong to me to attempt to censor these young men’s views. Is it not better to try to change the world through education, rather than authoritarianism? Nobody learns that way; they simply fear reprisal.

    Also I do realize that Facebook seem to have a double standard on this issue: they allow sexist content while censoring racist (or other discriminatory) content. I am opposed to this as well. All content should be allowed through. Let it have its day in the court of public opinion.

    1. EG
      EG September 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm |

      Again, a non-governmental entity deciding that it does not want to provide a soapbox for young men who call children sluts is not censorship. Facebook is not a public utility.

      1. Joe from an alternate universe
        Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm |

        True, freedom of speech guarantees us the right to say what we want within limits, but we don’t have the right to demand others give us a forum.

    2. Adaquinn
      Adaquinn September 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm |

      I’m sorry, but seeking out pictures of children, and then reposting them without the parent’s knowledge or permission is wrong. Seeking out pictures of children wearing inappropriate clothing and then sexualizing them is wrong. You want these men to be educated on how it’s wrong to do this; you take away their website and explain to them that exploiting children isn’t their right.

      1. moviemaedchen
        moviemaedchen September 26, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

        Bingo. In order to actually educate people and have the remotest chance of that being effective, there need to be actual *consequences.* Otherwise it’s just words, that they will ignore, and they will continue to hurt real people.

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 3:33 pm |

          This is true in general. it’s not true for Facebook though, because that is a world without consequences. If the page gets taken down they can have a new one up in five minutes if they’re being slow about it. You’d have to be constantly vigilant against them and wear them down until they just didn’t want to remake the page any more. FB doesn’t seem to have much in the way of tools to deal with Ban Evasion.

        2. Annalisa
          Annalisa September 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm |

          Well, then, how about banning the authors of the Facebook group from having access to Facebook? Ban their ISP address? Ban them from their personal accounts until a proper amount of time has elapsed? There are other social sites that do this, I don’t see why Facebook can’t do the same and send a message to these kids that their insistence in posting that content comes with a price.

      2. Henry
        Henry September 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

        Summary: teenagers often do fucked up stuff, adults do not need to publicize it.

        I cruised the current offerings on that site to see what’s going on. The pictures taken don’t need futher sexualizing by adults they are already sexual in nature. Whoever posed and took the shots did the sexualizing and most of it appears to be the usual teenage crap kids do to try to be shocking (lots of pics of teens with bongs, teens posing sexually etc.). In ye olden days these would not go past the polaroid stage and would never be in front of adults if the kids could help it. Nowadays kids feel free to post such on their facebook pages, and then these two jackasses took them and made fun of them. I think that is wrong, there’s no need to dip into what these kids are doing, that is for their parents and teachers etc. to handle.

        1. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm |

          Yes, unfortunately we live in a world where such mistakes get stolen and used by others.

          In ye olden days these would not go past the polaroid stage and would never be in front of adults if the kids could help it.

          LOL, wow, you ran with a fast and probably stupid group of kids. Polaroids, really? No one I ever knew was so dumb as photograph themselves and friends unless fully clothed. And bongs? Just say to the cops, “Come get me now”; I’m so stoned I need a ride anyway.

      3. tinfoil hattie
        tinfoil hattie September 27, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

        Posting any photo of any kid anywhere on the internet without the permission of the child’s parent(s) or guardian(s) is absolutely wrong. That’s why school systems have “opt out” forms for website photos, for instance.

    3. Andie
      Andie September 26, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

      So.. attempting to ‘censor’ two douchecanoes is more morally wrong than scamming pictures of prepubescent girls and sexualizing/humiliating/degrading them in a public forum?

      I’m thinking saying “Fuck no, this is bullshit” and shutting that crap down is the best form of education we have here.

      Nice priorities.

      1. moviemaedchen
        moviemaedchen September 26, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

        This.

    4. Beatrice
      Beatrice September 26, 2012 at 3:17 pm |

      Let it have its day in the court of public opinion.

      In the context, this looks like a completely meaningless phrase.

      It’s facebook. Assholes are going to lol at sexualization of girls, racists are going to lol at racist “jokes”, sexists are going to lol at sexist “jokes”. People who don’t care won’t visit the page. Most of the people who disapprove won’t visit the page either, with some exceptions who will try to explain how that shit is not funny. Those few will get drowned in the tons of lols and “look at the little bitch”.
      So, what’s this court of public opinion? What can it accomplish in this particular setting?

      You can cry censorship all you want, but I’m all for this page to be taken down. Same goes for racists. Same goes for any variation of “I’d rape/kill that bitch”. You know what message that sends them? That what they are promoting is unacceptable. They may not take it to heart, they may consider they are being treated unfairly, but there is this one (rather large, I’d say) benefit to this rather than letting them be. That benefit, in this case, is protection of those girls whose pictures they are posting.

      1. Safiya Outlines
        Safiya Outlines September 26, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

        Thank you.

        I knew there’d be the usual “Oh noes censorship”, plus the usual “…but the First Amendment!”, thank you for dismantling these arguments so effectively.

    5. im
      im September 26, 2012 at 11:44 pm |

      Well, can I say that I favor authoritarianism?

      I’m more bothered by censoring the *children*, we need to suppress the people who disseminate the photos, some kind of squelch power on part of the original poster? The children pictured are not being directly hurt?

      Definitely these assholes who make these groups need to be wiped off the Web. Reddit must also be subjected to a cleansing ban-fire until the heinous crimes committed in its days of nature are burnt and purged away.

    6. Sheelzebub
      Sheelzebub September 28, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

      You’d have a point if they weren’t posting pictures of children and targeting them.

  6. ASH
    ASH September 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

    “As long as there are sluts, we will put them in their place. Keep the submissions coming guys.”

    Did I actually just read that?

    This is so disgusting. We have two 19 year old guys trolling the internet to find pictures of girls to slut shame.

    HOW totally fucking pathetic.

    1. im
      im September 26, 2012 at 11:45 pm |

      Slut shame, slut fetisize, or both? AAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

  7. onetinythought
    onetinythought September 26, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

    I visited the page with the link above. It makes me want to throw up. If this is the kind of treatment that girls and young women expect to get (“so just embrace it, sluts! or don’t put your pictures up!”), and that (some) young men think that this kind of thing is ok, then I fear for the future.

    For real.

    1. im
      im September 26, 2012 at 11:46 pm |

      That this group is publicly viewable is AWFUL. I’m not sure what should be done about the whole ‘cannot share information without loosing control entirely’ thing.

  8. Matt
    Matt September 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

    Tangential: you are, of course, right that FB censors stuff all the time, but wrong about what they censor. Whether it’s a page called “Fuck Islam” or Anne Frank memes, they have major problems with all kinds of hate speech.

    1. Joe from an alternate universe
      Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

      Their policy is arcane to say the least. But you can have anti-religious pages and postings, but you can’t have pages attacking the practicers of said religions, i.e, someone can have “F Islam”, but can’t have “All muslims are ….”, or “We should do x to all Muslims”, etc. And historical figures such as Mohammed and Anne Frank are not protected.

    2. amblingalong
      amblingalong September 26, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

      But you can have anti-religious pages and postings, but you can’t have pages attacking the practicers of said religions, i.e, someone can have “F Islam”, but can’t have “All muslims are ….”, or “We should do x to all Muslims”, etc.

      As it should be, really. Religions are just (silly) ideas, and attacking ideas is rarely problematic. There’s a massive and important difference between saying “Fuck Islam,” which (depending on where you’re posting from) could be a radical, liberatory, progressive statement, and “Let’s get together and kill some Muslims”

      And historical figures such as Mohammed and Anne Frank are not protected.

      Again as it should be. I mean, stifling conversation about long-dead individuals seems to be an awfully slippery slope- can I criticize Mother Teresa if you can’t criticize Mohammed?

    3. im
      im September 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm |

      This is tricky. The lines I would be inclined to draw are at dehumanization, at violence advocacy, at profane criticism of elevated things, and at eliminationism by any means other than persuasion.

  9. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin September 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm |

    I think a majority of these young women never intended for their pictures to be seen by the general public. Spiteful ex-boyfriends who have deliberately leaked sensitive materials onto the internet have been the culprits more than once. I’ve even seen it happen in my own life to a friend.

    I really don’t think the point of the page is to shame sluts. That’s a distraction from viewers who want to take part in a visual freak show. And, I’m sure, certain men appreciate the underage pictures. The misogyny here is prominent, certainly, but I think the whole “shame-the-12-year-old” premise is disingenuous.

    1. Joe from an alternate universe
      Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

      Excellent point. We should remind all kids that the boyfriend or girlfriend you have now may be someone, who in the future, won’t be your friend anymore. And anything you gave them can be used against you.

    2. Henry
      Henry September 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm |

      This too. If you think back to the crap you did as a kid to be shocking etc. you can come up with quite a few things that if photgraphed and put on the internet would not be a good thing for an egalitarian inspired society to see. It’s not just scorned GFs/BFs also the privacy settings people do not understand, so they are posting their own shots, or they are simply too young to care if the rest of the planet sees a photo of them pretending to do something horrid to an anatomically correct Mayan statue (real example from the site).

      I work across the street from the Wall Street Bull statue and there’s a line around the block to take obscene photos with the thing’s giant brass balls. There’s a privacy violation here by these 2 admins, even though they are culling public photos. These public photos were meant to be shared with friends, most of them as jokes, not turned into fodder for slut jokes.

    3. tinfoil hattie
      tinfoil hattie September 27, 2012 at 11:55 am |

      I really don’t think the point of the page is to shame sluts.

      Except, you know, for the actual wording that says exactly that.

      I think the goal is multi-faceted: to shame these young girls, to punish women for having bodies, to display their full-on hatred for girls and women, and – as an added bonus! – to give a place for other disgusting people to gawk.

      As for bewared of “spiteful ex-boyfriends,” that sounds a little like “Don’t get raped!” Putting the responsibility on the victims instead of publicly excoriating the sick men who did this.

      1. Annaleigh
        Annaleigh September 27, 2012 at 11:41 pm |

        This, this so much. Thank you Tinfoil Hattie. Kevin and Joe’s comments were so frustrating.

        1. tinfoil hattie
          tinfoil hattie September 28, 2012 at 12:24 am |

          Aaah, you’re welcome. I just hate mansplanations SO MUCH.

      2. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 10:28 am |

        Oh SO MUCH THIS.

        It seems like it’s now open season on any girl past toddlerhood.* But no, we can’t blame the men!

        Stop or delay female puberty, laugh it off, stop girls wearing certain clothes or posting on the internet. Just don’t blame the sick purveyors and promoters of this kind of filth.

        *Certain religious communities hold that any girl of 3+ must be covered entirely from the neck down, lest they sexually distract men. They are not allowed to be alone with men either, for the same reason. It sickens me.

      3. Joe from an alternate universe
        Joe from an alternate universe October 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

        Where did I say I was blaming these kids and letting the pervs off of the hook? Please read my post.

  10. (BFing)Sarah
    (BFing)Sarah September 26, 2012 at 4:29 pm |

    I don’t even want to see this FB page. It makes me physically ill that there are people searching FB to try to find pictures of little girls that they think are dressed “slutty” and then posting them (without their knowledge or the knowledge of their parents/guardians) to be commented on and mocked. Shame, shame, shame on these young men. If my son EVER did anything like that…I’m fairly sure I’d smash his computer with my car. I just don’t know how I would keep myself from slapping him. I’d need to have the police there just in case. How can people defend that kind of behavior??! These are CHILDREN. And I agree with posters above that said that its not funny, its disturbing. There is a difference. Its upsetting and sad, not something that you should laugh at or mock. These little girls are human beings. They are worthy of respect and kindness. Would you laugh if it were your sister, mother, or daughter that was posted up on a site like that? I don’t think so.

  11. mh
    mh September 26, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

    Astounding to me that the New Yorker’s cartoons were banned from FB for showing dots representing female nipples (the dots representing male nipples were apparently OK) and this crap is allowed. Not like they labeled the New Yorker “controversial humor.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/2012/09/nipplegate-why-the-new-yorker-cartoon-department-is-about-to-be-banned-from-facebook.html

  12. mh
    mh September 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

    Astounding to me that the New Yorker’s cartoons were banned from FB for showing dots representing female nipples (the dots representing male nipples were apparently OK) and this crap is allowed. Not like they labeled the New Yorker “controversial humor.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/2012/09/nipplegate-why-the-new-yorker-cartoon-department-is-about-to-be-banned-from-facebook.html

    1. Shoggoth
      Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm |

      There’s a special place in Hell for people who add “-gate” to every scandal, no matter how minor. If Watergate happened now we’d have to call it Watergategate

      1. Joe from an alternate universe
        Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 6:21 pm |

        OK, now you have something I do think is funny.

        1. Shoggoth
          Shoggoth September 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm |

          If I throw enough shit at the wall, eventually something will stick. :)

        2. Joe from an alternate universe
          Joe from an alternate universe September 26, 2012 at 7:01 pm |

          Yep! And no F*K, C*T, C*K, D*K were needed! See.

  13. MEMESPN » Sport Memes Network » Bookmarks for September 26th from 17:22 to 23:03

    [...] Facebook and the “12-year-old Slut” Meme – Feministe (blog) – <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="7"><tr><td width="80" align="center" valign="top"></td><td valign="top"><br /><div><img alt="" height="1" width="1"/></div><div><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNG_PoAZzddDYigtqFefReeda-QJhw&url=http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/09/26/facebook-and-the-12-year-old-slut-meme/"><b>Facebook and the “12-year-old Slut” <b>Meme</b></b></a><br /><b>Feministe (blog)</b><br />This is a guest post by Soraya Chemaly. Soraya Chemaly writes about the role of gender in culture, politics, religion and media. She is a regular contributor to Huffington Post, Fem2.0, The Feminist Wire, BitchFlicks and Alternet, among other media. She has <b>…</b><br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/more?ned=us&ncl=dH4ElpYFOKZaSfM"><b></b></a></div></td></tr></table&gt; [...]

  14. dc
    dc September 26, 2012 at 7:27 pm |

    “They’ll grow up. Some of them will get over their misogyny and try to do better. Some won’t. It’s just a small, tiny part of the flood of sewage that seeps out of redditor and chan and other spots around the net. When i was a dumb kid I used to get roped into the same kind of “Funny internet misogyny” too. I got over it, a lot of people I know also got over it.”

    “It’s a bit suspect that these folks are so keen to collect a treasure trove of tarted-up
    ‘tweens.”

    tweens.
    yeah- twixt crawling and toddling.

    “I’m just…how does this not fall under child pornography of some sort? Two adult males collecting pictures of teenagers for the sole purpose of discussing them in a violent, sexual manner.”

    (this)

    “Re; Child Por: That would be a strange issue from a practical standpoint. The kids are the ones taking the pictures, so classifying it as Porn would appear to require redefining pornography to refer to the means of distribution, and not the content. Or the content plus means of distribution. But I think there would be some legal issues involved in making a picture pornography when person A views it,
    and not-Porn when person B views it”

    *but but she SAID she was 18 officer!*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Defenses_and_exceptions

    Defenses and exceptions

    The age of consent is a legal barrier to the minor ability to consent and therefore obtaining consent is not in general a defense to having sexual relations with a person under the prescribed age. Common examples:

    Reasonably believing that the victim is over the age of consent
    In some jurisdictions, (such as England and Wales[8]), it is a defense if the accused can show that he or she reasonably believed the victim was over the age of consent. However, where such a defense is provided, it normally applies only when the victim is close to the age of consent or the accused can show due diligence in determining the age of the victim (e.g., a 15-year-old who used a fake identification document
    claiming she was 18 or older).

    the principle is the same:

    Sexual relations with a person under the age of consent is a criminal offense in most countries. Many different terms exist for the charges laid and can include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, illegal carnal knowledge, and corruption of a minor.[1]

    ie a ‘child’ CANNOT legally consent.
    whether she/he wears (or is airbrushed into)
    this outfit is not the point.

    as anyone would know who actually cared.

    but no shit.
    can you say “paedophile?”
    even convicts kill these people.

    “While it is unfortunate that these girls have had their pictures appropriated in such a way, it makes me very uneasy that you suggest the “removal” of it from Facebook.

    While I understand that people don’t neccesarily have a right to post what they like on someone else’s website, it seems morally wrong to me to attempt to censor these young men’s views. Is it not better to try to change the world through education, rather than authoritarianism? Nobody learns that way; they simply fear reprisal.”

    fire.fire.fire.
    (oh wait there’s no one in the fucking theatre.)

    waiting for polanski to show up now
    because its obviously just all in fun.
    heh!

    1. im
      im September 27, 2012 at 12:05 am |

      WTF? I am not even sure what you are trying to suggest.

      As somebody who was a minor less than two years ago, I find some age-of-consent laws troubling. When I was 13, I was capable of deciding to do things. I am not saying there would never be issues, but Futhermore, this is a completely different issue: these girls are posting pictures, themselves, and then completely different people with no connection to the girls are making compilations of the photos with hateful commentary. And the pictures, while sexualized, are not pornographic.

  15. smoketree
    smoketree September 26, 2012 at 9:09 pm |

    Finally, someone dares to take a stand against twelve-year-old girls. What a triumph for “satire.”

    1. OutrageandSprinkles
      OutrageandSprinkles September 26, 2012 at 9:50 pm |

      I know, right? Put those pre-teens in their place.

  16. uscskitty
    uscskitty September 27, 2012 at 1:11 am |

    “As long as there are sluts, we will put them in their place. Keep the submissions coming guys.”

    This is but one step from a rape culture that justifies rape by blaming the victim. Today, it’s perving on preteens who are expressing themselves in a manner that our rape culture sees as inciting sexual violence or slut-shaming. Tomorrow, it’s blaming the victim for what she wore, did, or did not do. The issue is with pervs who can only see the girl as a sexual object, not the girls who took the photos. It suggests that this is nothing more than an excuse to perv, but to look acceptable as if they’re doing a service to society.

    1. K S
      K S September 27, 2012 at 9:11 am |

      And if you really look at the pictures, they’re not really that bad. It takes a real pervert to think that those pictures are suggestive. And the pics of girls showing their cleavage could very well be older girls. There’s no proof that all of them are underage. I for one, happen to know many girls who look 12 when they are 16+. And the text that goes with the pictures (statuses/comments etc) could very well be fabricated using photoshop, considering how pixellated the pictures are. The owners of this page are serious misogynists and they’re channeling their frustration onto some poor unsuspecting girls. Agreed some of them don’t seem very intelligent and do post things in some atrocious grammar, which makes their comebacks less effective. But when I last checked, bad grammar didn’t make anybody a slut. A little unintelligent certainly, but a slut?

  17. K S
    K S September 27, 2012 at 6:46 am |

    What I find disturbing about the page is that most pictures are of girls smoking and drinking, and the men running this page think this is all it takes to call a girl a ‘slut’. If drinking and smoking makes 12 year old girls sluts, shouldn’t there be pictures of 12 year old boys smoking and drinking being shamed on this page too? For every online picture of a girl drinking, I’m pretty sure you’d find one of a boy as well. Yet, only girls are being shamed. Of course, I’m not implying that they start putting up pictures of boys to shame them, I’m just pointing out the obvious bias of the page owners. After all if 12 year old girls party and get laid, there is a good chance that at least some of the boys they’re doing it with are 12 themselves. Oh wait, boys mature later, so let’s make it, what, 15? No shaming the boys who sleep with underage kids? Only attack the girls? Because boys are totally innocent right?

    1. Partial Human
      Partial Human September 27, 2012 at 8:39 am |

      Silly KS, boys are people, with feelings and reputations and stuff. You can’t shame people, so that’s why girls and women exist!

      1. jt
        jt September 27, 2012 at 6:13 pm |

        @partial

        I think you need a hug. :)

        1. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 10:38 am |

          Nope, I need an end to rape culture and a world where girls and women are not considered to be inferior, targets for abuse, or ambulatory c*nts.

          I want a world where people who dare to point that out are not mocked, vilified, or labelled as “misandrists” (lol, as if that even exists)

          But that takes work. It takes anger and a refusal to take this anymore.

        2. jt
          jt September 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm |

          I know what you think needs to be done, hence the reason I think you need a hug. It must be hard carrying that kind of anger in your soul. :(

        3. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

          Why wouldn’t it be hard to have been the victim of harassment, abuse and sexual assault since the age of eight?
          X!

          Why shouldn’t I be angry that my experiences are apparently the rule rather than the exception?

          One question – are you a man?

        4. debbie
          debbie October 1, 2012 at 11:56 am |

          This comment (and the ones following it) is so not okay.

        5. jt
          jt October 2, 2012 at 11:08 am |

          Youre right Debbie, somethings not okay. Seething anger does nothing for anyone. I think this quote sums it up best.

          “Anger is a hot coal that burns you before you pass it along”

        6. Beatrice
          Beatrice October 2, 2012 at 11:27 am |

          I’m sure some cactus somewhere really needs a hug, jt. Hurry along and give it a nice, firm hug, why don’t you?

        7. Angel H.
          Angel H. October 2, 2012 at 11:27 am |

          jt:

          Go fuck yourself.

          Sincerely,
          one “angry” woman

        8. jt
          jt October 2, 2012 at 11:57 am |

          Hi Beatrice

          I see you and Partial are related.

        9. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune October 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

          By all the gods, jt, just shut up and take your Buddhism Lite somewhere else, mmkay?

  18. Jen
    Jen September 27, 2012 at 9:16 am |

    In general I’m anti-slut-shaming. And the actual name of the group and it’s purported purpose (and some of it’s anti-slut commentary like telling the “pure girls” apart) is pretty shitty.

    But the actual content seems to be really similar to sites like failblog, where it just posts people being ridiculous and melodramatic. And a 15 year old babbling about tits, clits & bongs is fairly absurd.

    So……meh.

    1. Jill
      Jill September 27, 2012 at 9:40 am | *

      The thing is, a lot of the photos actually are really disturbing and sad — pre-teen girls dressed up in lingerie with captions about how “you just hate me because your boyfriend wants to fuck me,” comments about how their boyfriends are great in bed, etc etc etc. There are clearly some issues happening there. But then the photos are reposted to the “12-year-old sluts” group, and commenters go on and on about how these girls are fat and slutty and deserve to die. I don’t want to project too much, but the girls featured in the group strike me as already vulnerable; and either way, they’re kids, and they’re using the kind of “I’m cool” posturing that’s common among teenagers and preteens. And then they’re publicly berated for being “sluts.” When really, they’re kids — and kids who may be having serious problems. And again, either way, public humiliation of children is seriously damaging for those children. As someone who has actually experienced public online humiliation, it was damaging to me as an adult — it took years of space and actual therapy to get over it. I can’t imagine facing that down as a kid.

      1. Partial Human
        Partial Human September 28, 2012 at 10:43 am |

        Thank you.

        These children are being hurt, and anyone who would dismiss that with a “meh” clearly has serious problems.

        That a woman would say it just saddens me so much.

        1. Sarah
          Sarah September 29, 2012 at 1:07 am |

          “That a woman would say it just saddens me so much.”

          Really? Why would it be different if it were a man being ambivalent, exactly?

        2. Andie
          Andie September 29, 2012 at 2:55 pm |

          Maybe because women have to live with this shit everyday, and men don’t. Men’s ambivalence tends to come from a place of privilege, because they generally aren’t affected in the same way… So while just as infuriating, one still has a sense of “well, no wonder…”

        3. Partial Human
          Partial Human September 29, 2012 at 4:11 pm |

          Thanks Andie, you’re right.

          “Sarah” – male privilege exists. White privilege and straight privilege often make their owners blind to the realities of life of POC and LGBT people. Able-bodied and neurotypical people have privilege over people whohave disabilities or are not neurotypical, they can never hope to understand what life must be like without that blanket. of privilege.

          So presumably, as a woman posting on a social-justice geared site, you can easily understand why someone might be shocked to see a poster who’s apparently a member of the same marginalised group as the target of this disgusting campaign, expressing such a callous ambivalence to the feelings of the victims?

          Most men were not raised as girls, have not navigated the world as women. They have never experienced that feeling of a wound that is never allowed to heal, the microaggressions inflicted on an almost constant basis. Even the most sensitive and educated male allies will never lose their blanket of privilege and know what it’s like to feel that cold sting of misogyny on their skin,

          Happy now?

    1. Partial Human
      Partial Human September 29, 2012 at 11:43 am |

      That was awful. The comments were absolutely repulsive.

      For those that aren’t aware, there’s a fifteen year old girl who has run off to France with her 30 year old English teacher. There’s been an absolute media frenzy over it.

      OTOH dozens of girls aged 11+ have been groomed, raped and pimped out for years and their social workers, legal representatives and even judges either criminalised the girls, or handwaved it away with “They wanted it, they consented”.

      AOC is 16 in general, and 18 if in a relationship with someone who has power over them, like a teacher.

      Sadly, working class white girls from the North who are being trafficked from the age of 11 are considered to be active participants in their own abuse, but 15 year old middle class* girls from the South are automatically classed as the innocent victims of predators.

      That’s across the board, the media, the police, social workers, the courts etc.

      That’s one of the reasons this “12. year old slut” meme is so upsetting to me. It’s another way of ranking girls and deciding who is worthy of care, and protection, and respect.

      *It’s not like the US system really, the divisions between the working classes and the middle class are quite starkly defined, but it’s not easy to explain pre-caffeine!

      1. Fat Steve
        Fat Steve October 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

        Sadly, working class white girls from the North who are being trafficked from the age of 11 are considered to be active participants in their own abuse, but 15 year old middle class* girls from the South are automatically classed as the innocent victims of predators.

        Working class “white” girls from the North? I feel fairly sure you didn’t mean to, but comments like that make it sound like you’re buying into the BNP lie that there is a huge problem of Asian paedophile rings up North.

  19. Matthew Cline
    Matthew Cline September 28, 2012 at 4:35 am |

    You put something on Facebook, you no longer own it.

    You Fail Copyright Law Forever.

  20. What’s Happening « Wise Grrrl
    What’s Happening « Wise Grrrl September 28, 2012 at 3:28 pm |

    [...] facebook page. Here plenty of men say that they are fighting back teenage sex when they are really adding to the sexist baggage being put upon girls today. You can sign the petition to bring down this page [...]

  21. dc
    dc September 28, 2012 at 9:00 pm |

    (just had the misfortune to read this.
    it is, like the facebook pages, the kind of thing that totally advances the wholesale promotion of “slut shaming” of women and girls.
    now not just facebook private pages,
    but online DICTIONARIES!?
    wtf…..where does it end?
    I MEAN,F*CK THESE PEOPLE.
    you can’t even stamp it out anymore…there is really something wrong with this so called freedom of speech)
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrubber

    **********serious trigger warning*****************************

    (1.scrubber

    “a scrubber is a female tramp who would satisfy a male’s needs without a second thought.

    A young woman of ill-repute whose parted legs are constantly in the company of men.
    Considered by some to be the junior version of the slapper her dress code is risqué
    and her mannerisms are ungracefully common. As a result of her ‘laid back’ lifestyle
    she very rarely is able to hold down a full-time job and relies on government pay outs
    and funding from then-boyfriends to survive. This financial hardship means she is forced
    to cut back on luxuries such as soap, although she still manages to afford the ‘necessities’ of booze and cigarettes. On occasion when she does hold down a full-time job she will rarely curb her natural habits and is likely to be very famous among her co-workers for being a slut.”)

    *************************************************************************************
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/tos.php
    User Conduct

    Users may not post Content (as defined below) that:
    is unlawful, threatening, libelous or defamatory;
    violates any party’s intellectual property; or
    is detrimental to the quality or intended spirit of the Website.
    Examples of unacceptable Content or behavior on the Website include:
    abuse, harassment, threats of violence, flaming, intimidation of any person or organization, or any other threatening behavior.

    UH HUH

  22. Sepmoh
    Sepmoh September 29, 2012 at 4:09 am |

    Had a quick look at the page. Didn’t see any objectionable pictures (thankfully). The main theme I see running through the page is a genuine hatred for the sexualisation of young girls. This, I understand and agree with. What I do NOT agree with is the misogynistic languange, and denigrating the girls themselves for their unfortunate choices in a way that is nasty and completely fails to understand the role of society in how these girls come to make those choices in the first place. Fighting vulgar with vulgar does not work, and is completely disagreeable, IMHO.

  23. Chester
    Chester October 1, 2012 at 6:40 am |

    I just want to point out that – when I was 18? My biggest frustration was 12-year-old girls who dressed skimpily. My friends and I talked about it a lot.

    Here’s how it would go: we’d be at the mall. We’d see a girl in a sexy little tank top and short shorts and we’d check her out from a distance. Then, as she got closer, we’d realize she was 12 and try to poke our eyes out with our Orange Julius straws.

    As an adult? This doesn’t bother me. But when I was 16~18, I was still very much in the world of teenagers, so I would check out the girls at the mall – yet, I was close enough to be an adult that even looking at 12-year-olds freaked me out.

    Now, there’s some issues of slut shaming and telling women how to dress going on here, but that was my perspective as a teenager. I don’t want to go to the mall in hopes of meeting a girl only to stumble across a 12-year-old in booty shorts. I always felt ambushed by that. I see booty shorts, I think, “There’s a girl with enough self-awareness to get up in the morning and say, ‘I want to show off my butt.’ I respect girls with self-awar- ohmygodshe’s12.”

    18 and 12 are kind of threshold ages – 12 was ALMOST old enough to hit on, yet 18 was JUST too old to date anyone under 16. At 18 and 19, you just kinda go crazy because your age range is the widest its ever been – an 18-year-old can date an adult – 20, 25, 30 if you’re lucky – and an 18-year-old can date teenagers – age of consent permitting, but no one will really fault an 18-year-old with a 16-year-old girlfriend.

    As an adult, I still get annoyed when I see high school girls in their uniforms with the skirts hiked up – but I’m nearly 30 now and I have the wherewithal to control myself. At 18, the world was my oyster, and I would accidentally look at girls that were just too young, yet had very little clothing on.

    So, I don’t exactly agree with the webpage – but at 18, 19? My friends and I were saying the exact same thing, and it wasn’t about hating girls or being a misogynist – it was about a deep, primal fear of being a pedophile. We wanted to be able to look at a girl in teenager clothing and know that she was a teenager – know that she was safe. Realizing that we had just checked out a child was, in its own way, traumatic for us. Should we have been checking women out like that? Maybe not.

    And I think that’s an important difference here – if this were grown men, I’d say, yes, this is bizarre pedophilic slut shaming. But since it’s just two 19-year-olds hardly out of high school? I think they might have a different perspective. That they’ve just gotten frustrated with something they’ve seen in their own world and acted out. Are they wrong? I’d say, yes. Unequivocally these boys are assholes. But. I sympathize with their sentiment, and I think, if they were smarter, they could have expressed this idea in a sensible way.

    1. josielemonpie
      josielemonpie October 1, 2012 at 11:01 am |

      oh FFS.
      it’s not about you and your boner.
      the girls being attacked and shamed on the webpage, and the girls in the “sexy little tank tops” aren’t being sexy at you. god this comment gives me the heebie-jeebies.

    2. EG
      EG October 1, 2012 at 11:13 am |

      when I was 18? My biggest frustration was 12-year-old girls who dressed skimpily.

      Lucky fucking you. My frustrations at 18 included sexual harassment, a close friend of my family being raped at gunpoint, my best friend’s difficulties with her untreated, life-threatening asthma, her problems as a parentless 18-year-old trying to stay in school and hold down a job, and some even more personal difficulties.

      You were upset because sometimes a twelve-year-old would dress sexy? Aw. Sadness for you, buddy. I wonder what that twelve-year-old’s biggest frustrations were? I wonder if they included sexual harassment by intimidating older men, hmm?

      At 18, the world was my oyster, and I would accidentally look at girls that were just too young, yet had very little clothing on.

      How could you handle this traumatic problem? The world was your oyster, and the biggest concern you had was accidentally checking out somebody too young! Oh, the horror! Oh, here’s an idea: deal with the fact that your boner is not the center of the universe, even when you’re 18. The sooner boys learn that, the better.

    3. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune October 1, 2012 at 11:30 am |

      Shorter Chester:

      “Curse those overly young women and their sexual unavailability that magically turns me into a total douchebag creepster!”

      1. EG
        EG October 1, 2012 at 11:34 am |

        No, no, Mac. It’s “Curse those children who taunt me with their sexual appeal that magically turns me into a total douchebag creepster!”

        Asshole (not you, Mac). I remember being 18. 12-year-olds–including girls–looked like the children they were, even from far away, no matter how they were dressed.

        1. Donna L
          Donna L October 1, 2012 at 11:41 am |

          I remember being 18. 12-year-olds–including girls–looked like the children they were, even from far away, no matter how they were dressed.

          Thank you! I distinctly remember going back to visit my high school when I was a 17-year old college freshman, and thinking that even the juniors and seniors (some of whom were older than I was) had started to look like children to me. The 12-year old 7th graders scurrying around underfoot? Infants!

      2. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune October 1, 2012 at 11:35 am |

        Also, this:

        but I’m nearly 30 now and I have the wherewithal to control myself.

        Fascinating. At what age did you acquire this wherewithal? How many women did you sexually harass before it? And I love that you’re still “annoyed” by people who dare to dress sexy for reasons that don’t include your boner. You seem to be under the impression that said boner is important enough to have its own gravitational field. (Spoiler: it doesn’t.)

        1. EG
          EG October 1, 2012 at 11:49 am |

          Right? How dare those teenage girls explore their sexual desire and appeal by dressing in a sexually attractive manner! I can’t fuck them! If it’s not about me, they should wear gunny sacks!

        2. Chester
          Chester October 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm |

          Hey, thanks everyone for missing my point entirely.

          Well, ok, my biggest frustration at 18 wasn’t accidentally looking at girls in the mall.

          My biggest frustration was being a virgin, being underweight, and being bullied to hell and back for it. Actually, if I’m honest, my biggest frustration was my crippling depression from being bullied and the fact that on a Friday night my favorite hobby was sleeping on the floor of my bedroom in the dark crying and wondering what the fuck was wrong with me. So pardon me if I don’t feel all regretful for not thinking about what other people were going through back then. I was kind of on the verge of killing myself, and getting through that kind of took up a lot of my concentration.

          Look. What I’m saying is this: when you’re 18, and you see a little girl in super sexy clothes, it’s a weird thing. Ok? I’m not saying a boy’s boner is the center of the universe. I’m saying that, for him, it’s a WTF moment. Different people process that differently. These boys are obviously reacting negatively, and in a bad way to it. You react to that WTF moment with feminism. They react with male privilege. I get that. But we’re all reacting to a similar, if not the same problem. Jesus fucking Christ, maybe we can talk about things and find common ground. Fuck me for having faith in humanity.

          Look, you want to fix a problem? Understand the people doing it. Try to see things from these guy’s perspectives and understand them as human beings. Then you can try talking to them. If that doesn’t work, hey, yes, by all means, let’s insult them to hell and back.

          Oh, and little girls look different even from far away? Oh, well, I was legally blind without glasses and with glasses, I wasn’t much better. Ok? I notice general shapes from afar, and so that means I look at clothes before I look at a person’s face. It’s an adaptation to my own limitations. I wasn’t just a creeper sitting around the mall. I was a kid. With bad eyes. Just trying to meet someone and have a social life. You know, to stave off the crippling depression and, you know, not kill myself. And when a girl who was too young to know what she was wearing came by, it startled me and freaked me out. Oops, I’m sorry for having emotions and thinking things are a little off in the world.

          So, no, really, thanks for making wild assumptions about me. It’s cool. Fuck me, right?

        3. igglanova
          igglanova October 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm |

          Hey, thanks everyone for missing my point entirely.

          Could you please restate your actual point? Because I found it very well-hidden amidst the navel-gazing (boner-gazing?) whinery.

        4. EG
          EG October 1, 2012 at 10:51 pm |

          So pardon me if I don’t feel all regretful for not thinking about what other people were going through back then. I was kind of on the verge of killing myself, and getting through that kind of took up a lot of my concentration.

          Gee, well, you know what? Take a fucking number. I was depressed to the point of non-functionality. My cousin was near suicidal as well. A close friend of mine made the attempt more than once. And yet we all were also capable of empathy. So get the fuck over yourself and your tragic story. Depression is no excuse for being a sexist asshole.

          Try to see things from these guy’s perspectives and understand them as human beings. Then you can try talking to them.

          I’m sick of seeing things from guys’ perspectives. The world sees things from guys’ perspectives. They don’t need more understanding. They need less. And guess what? This is how I talk to assholes who cyberbully and slut-shame children. If they want to be talked to with respect, they can act like people who deserve respect.

          Oh, and little girls look different even from far away? Oh, well, I was legally blind without glasses and with glasses, I wasn’t much better. Ok? I notice general shapes from afar, and so that means I look at clothes before I look at a person’s face. It’s an adaptation to my own limitations. I wasn’t just a creeper sitting around the mall. I was a kid. With bad eyes. Just trying to meet someone and have a social life. You know, to stave off the crippling depression and, you know, not kill myself. And when a girl who was too young to know what she was wearing came by, it startled me and freaked me out. Oops, I’m sorry for having emotions and thinking things are a little off in the world.

          Get over yourself. You have vision problems? You had a hard time having a social life when you were a teenager? You were cripplingly depressed? Again, you think you’re the only one? Hey, you know those girls walking by you? They also have vision problems, have a hard time having a social life, endure depression. The problem isn’t that you have emotions. The problem is that your main emotion seems to be whiney self-righteous narcissism.

          So, no, really, thanks for making wild assumptions about me. It’s cool. Fuck me, right?

          What I inferred from your comment is that you’re a self-centered jackass. And so far, you’ve confirmed my inference completely. So, yeah, that’s cool with me, and yes, fuck you.

        5. EG
          EG October 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm |

          Longer reply to Chester in mod. Let me sum it up here:

          Get over yourself. You’re hardly the only person here to suffer “crippling depression,” and teenage boys who slut-shame and cyberbully children do not deserve to be dignified with respectful dialogue. Nobody has made any assumptions; you continue, however, to reveal yourself to be a self-centered jackass.

        6. Beatrice
          Beatrice October 2, 2012 at 2:49 am |

          igglanova,

          His actual point, if I’m not mistaken, was that those little sexy minxes who unknowingly tease boys are the real problem.

        7. josielemonpie
          josielemonpie October 2, 2012 at 10:01 am |

          I notice general shapes from afar, and so that means I look at clothes before I look at a person’s face.

          “I know she’s a brownish area, with points!”

          what is so “off in the world” about girls wearing clothes, even clothes that you might find attractive? what is so startling or “freaky” about this?
          I still have no idea what your point is except “Young girls who dress in ways that I call ‘sexy’ are doing it on purpose at me and they are mean mean meanies for being young and attractive. things are OFF in the world when people do things like put on clothes without thinking how it will directly affect ME.”

    4. Fat Steve
      Fat Steve October 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm |

      I just want to point out that – when I was 18? My biggest frustration was 12-year-old girls who dressed skimpily.

      When I was 18 my biggest frustration was my own sense of inadequacy.

  24. Parenting in the face of misogyny | Life V 2.0

    [...] that fear came rushing back to me, like an avalanche, as I read Soraya Chemaly‘s piece at Feministe about Facebook’s newest fuckwittery, the “12 Year Old Slut Meme” page. A [...]

  25. Slut-Shaming 12-Year-Olds | Dr. Courterz: A wannabe-PhD.

    [...] To read more on this story, check out the Feministe article here. [...]

  26. What Is History
    What Is History October 9, 2012 at 8:57 pm |

    There’s a new Change.org petition demanding that all misogynist pages hiding behind the “[Controversial Humor]” be removed:

    Facebook: Ban misogynistic pages, even those labeled “Controversial Humor”

Comments are closed.