CJMorgan:"what is the colloquial term for a promiscuous man that is the equivalent of "slut"?"

"Butch": if humping legs indiscriminately counts. Oh, hold on, you said "man" - as you were...

Pelican, bullying is bullying, but there are degrees. A difference of degree does not render the analogy invalid.

I don't know if the humiliation is any greater simply because one reads it on the internet instead of seeing it on a public wall or hearing it first-hand.

Would CJMorgan be more humiliated by my pointing out his remarkable resemblance to a small canine of dubious parentage and unsavoury habits here or if I were to do it among a group at a social gethering, say a barbecue? What if it was in a more formal setting, such as a work meeting or a meeting of the Greens? I'd suggest that the harm done would potentially be considerable in the latter cases, but does not even exist in this setting on the 'net.

Bullying implies a power differential, not just name-calling. If that exists, then the medium is largely irrelevant.

I stand by my earlier comment that noone here would be upset if this had been a page about boys caught tossing off in the dunny and certainly MTR would not have written about it.

The male equivalent of nymphomanic is a satyr. Or in modern parlance, a lucky bastard.

Mens' attitudes towards promiscuity are very different to women's.

As non PC as it is, there is a very strong biological imperative for the difference in behaviour which probably drives social norms.

While the term slut is not an effective slur for boys there are plenty of other handles that work and are used on Facebook and other social sites.

If MTR is railing against women being called sluts, the only really effective counter to this is women not caring about being called sluts, and then it will be as useless as for boys.

Anti
My point was that the medium is relevant given as I said previously that a bully in a schoolyard can be dealt with.

A few names on a website without knowing the source is impossible to bring to account.

True, bullying is awful for the victim whether face to face or over the Net. The difference is the Net is anonymous and there is no accountability for actions and the bullying is likely to continue.

What if a person took out an Ad in the The Australian listing all the sluts they have known by name? I doubt for one the paper would take the listing, so why should the Net be absolved from any of these normal sensibilities and codes of decent behaviour?

Why do we shut our minds to it on the Net but if we were to see it in the paper the effects and outcry would be much greater (IMO).

'Septic: << Would CJMorgan be more humiliated by my pointing out his remarkable resemblance to a small canine of dubious parentage and unsavoury habits here or if I were to do it among a group at a social gethering, say a barbecue? >>

The most obvious flaw in Septic's attempt at a gratuitous puerile insult is that he wouldn't dare try it in any face to face situation. Instead, he does so both cowardly and anonymously on the Internet.

That the Internet facilitates such odious activity by cowards is one of Reist's points. However, I think that the answer doesn't lie in censoring such sites as Facebook - rather, the answer is in the effective socialisation of children, such that they don't think that bullying is OK under any circumstances, online or otherwise.

Clearly, those who engage in cowardly anonymous abuse on the Internet are products of poor parenting and flawed socialisation. Septic is a prime example of a failed adult - undoubtedly his unfortunate children are being socialised in similarly dysfunctional ways.

Fortunately, there's some hope for them, since they spend half their time with their mother, who has obviously some experience in dealing with oafish bullies.

Pelican, what is more impoertant, stopping the bullying or finding someone to blame? The net allows easy regulation of what is published, as Facebook has demonstrated on several occasions and as many responsible ISPs have also shown.

One of the best way to deter graffitists is to rapidly remove any new graffiti that appears. It is not necessary to catch the perpetrators to reduce the problem.

A "slut" ad in the paper would be worse because it persists and is beyond anyone's control once it has been published and distributed. Unless a website is duplicated, once it is removed it is gone.

Butch:"he wouldn't dare try it in any face to face situation."

Well no, I'd not put myself in any situation away from the 'net in which contact with you would be likely to occur. Apart from anything else, Max might take a chunk out of you and catch something nasty.

He's not fond of mindless leg-humpers either.

He must be getting to you CJ. A joke about dogs and you slam his parenting and personal relationships. Oh, that's right, you denounce bullying so it's all ok. Ah, that nice boy CJ the girls always talk about who's never abusive.

pelican,

'The Internet has just allowed a wider audience'
Really? The audience that matters to the kid is the same; Their peers.

Just like going to a nudist beach. Nobody cares about letting it all hang out with people they don't know and will never see again.

I take your point it's not as easily managed, but neither is graffiti on the school toilet walls. If you take the internet away, there is still anonymous bullying to a wide audience of peers. Kids are inventive.