quote: the family treating him like a monster, when he is not a monster but a confused little boy, is ten times worse than what he did, and they should be ashamed.
I wanted to speak to this attitude from a more general position rather than directly to the situation on Need Advice's thread.
What a load of crap.
First of all: parents should always follow their instincts in these situations. How many times do we need to tell each other this-- "If you feel uncomfortable, get out." We even tell our kids this: "If someone touches or speaks to you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, tell an adult. And keep talking to adults about it until one of them listens."
Secondly: The allegation of confusion is not a license. It doesn't make things better when tragedy happens. It doesn't heal wounds, it doesn't dry tears-- it EXCUSES the offender. It degrades the reaction of the protectors. It makes the child ashamed to report it again.
Speaking hypothetically, I don't CARE if the offender is a "confused little boy." I don't care about him at all-- that's his parents' job, and I trust they'll do fine.
In this case, my focus must be to protect my children in the way that I feel is necessary.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wanted to speak to this attitude from a more general position rather than directly to the situation on Need Advice's thread.
What a load of crap.
First of all: parents should always follow their instincts in these situations. How many times do we need to tell each other this-- "If you feel uncomfortable, get out." We even tell our kids this: "If someone touches or speaks to you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, tell an adult. And keep talking to adults about it until one of them listens."
While instincts of parents are often wrong, and I'm not going to concede that parents should always follow them, I do not dispute that parents should edit: not be cautious. That doesn't mean they should overreact.
Part of the problem here, as I see it, is that though you aren't saying so directly, it seems to me that you have already treating this kid as some kind of sex pervert out for kicks, when that may not be what is happening. The kid was almost certainly just goofing around and doesn't really appreciate what he did. 11 is pretty young and most children have very fuzzy views of sex and sexuality. As in, inchoate, and virtually nonexistent. Let's not even talk about 9. He very well may just have been modeling what he saw his parents do, or what he saw on television in a completely non-sexual, innocent way.
Another part of the problem implicit in what you are writing is shielding a child from harm. How much harm did her child do? Do the 3/4 year old neices now need counseling that he tried to 'tongue' them? I don't think so. I doubt they'll remember it in a week unless a big deal is made about it.
This brings me to my main point in my post, that the perception and reaction to an event is often much worse than it actually is. What the little boy did, from an objective viewpoint, is practically meaningless. The 'harm' is completely subjective. As such, the harm can be increased or decreased according to how the children percieve it. Treating it as something much worse than it really is makes it into something much worse than it really is and will surely traumatize the kids in ways that the event left alone wouldn't.
Am I saying that the event isn't worthy of notice and the boy shouldn't be treated? That the boy doesn't need extra watching? No, of course not. I think until things sort themselves out, the boy shouldn't be left alone with the girls.
On the other hand, I think this can be done in a nurturing, positive and non-destructive way that helps both the girls and the boy grow. The family treating the boy as what he is, a little boy who made a mistake, and not what he isn't, a sex offender, will help the little boy be healthy and give him what he needs--a loving and nurturing family that wants him to be the best he can be.
quote: Secondly: The allegation of confusion is not a license. It doesn't make things better when tragedy happens. It doesn't heal wounds, it doesn't dry tears-- it EXCUSES the offender. It degrades the reaction of the protectors. It makes the child ashamed to report it again.
I think I dealt with all parts of this one except the last. I'm not saying just to ignore what happened.
I'm not clear on where you are coming from with your last sentence. My point about the family being ashamed wasn't addressed at the neices telling, but the reaction of the extended family to the little boy. I'm all for little people telling adults when something bad happens.
quote: Speaking hypothetically, I don't CARE if the offender is a "confused little boy." I don't care about him at all-- that's his parents' job, and I trust they'll do fine.
Well, if you were one of the adult siblings in question, then you are actively taking a hand in screwing up a little kid. Grats to you.
quote: In this case, my focus must be to protect my children in the way that I feel is necessary.
Cool. I think you the needs of all the children in that scenario can be met without isolating and hurting a little boy.
Further, I think that, as a sibling, shunning your sister in her time of need and treating her child is a pariah is a pretty crappy thing to do. I would expect more from family. At least some discussion about what needs to be done, what you want to happen, that kind of thing, rather than just shunning with nothing said, which is ultimately worse for all parties concerned than the actual event, I think.
I know this thread is going to degenerate into a bunch of 'What Scott said' and 'I agree with Scott'. Dandy. I dont' really want to fight the dogpile, so I'm going to confine my conversation to Scott.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I want to reiterate is that my comment was made in the context of siblings. I wouldn't expect a stranger to extend the same courtesy and let their kids continue to play with her boy.
Of course, if they did, that would be great, but I wouldn't expect it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More than that, I agree with Scott. (Still love the rest of you, though.)
My understanding of developmental pediatrics does not make easy room within the "just confused" range for an eleven year-old to be tonguing someone about 1/3 his age. Doesn't mean he's a monster, mind you, but it triggers my red flags to get the kid more formally assessed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the younger kids' parents were dealing with some intense self-blame for putting their own kids in that situation (after all, isn't that what it is to be a parent? You feel responsible for everything), and that likely makes seeing their sibs highly uncomfortable. Again, not excusing it, just saying I understand the intense initial need to withdraw from contact. It is a huge emotional and social breach to repair, and we generally haven't been trained how to do that.
---
Edited to add: I don't have red flags about experimental play with peers. I don't think it's always something to be encouraged, but it doesn't flag "problem! potential big problem!" for me. It is the element of extreme power and peer imbalance that makes me think twice and twice again.
If the young man wanted to experiment, then his peers should have been his first choice. (As someone said, four-year-olds are generally "icky" to someone at eleven years of age.) I suspect this young man has some difficulty in relating to his peers, probably feels more comfortable with much younger kids, and has normal developmental needs for interaction. That doesn't make him a monster, but it does make him someone who may well make a habit of making bad choices in this area.
This is all conjecture from distance on the internet, of course. I hope there are professionals in this child's life as well as a concerned and loving parent (as is obvious).
posted
Just a question -- because I never really had to deal with these kind of issues with my kids and/or in my childhood. But don't many young children go through an "age of exploration" kinda thing where, perhaps, they kiss or touch others as a point of curiousity, and they just need to be TAUGHT that these things are not appropriate and they shouldn't do it? (or allow it to be done to them?) At what age does that "learning what is right" cross over into "this kid has psychological problems"????
quote: The kid was almost certainly just goofing around and doesn't really appreciate what he did. 11 is pretty young and most children have very fuzzy views of sex and sexuality.
I don't disagree, but clearly the kid was exploring these areas that he found uncertain. It would not at all suprise me if he wanted to explore them further. Just because the kid doesn't mean to do harm doesn't mean that harm won't be done.
quote: I would expect more from family. At least some discussion about what needs to be done, what you want to happen, that kind of thing, rather than just shunning with nothing said, which is ultimately worse for all parties concerned than the actual event, I think.
This I agree with.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Just a question -- because I never really had to deal with these kind of issues with my kids and/or in my childhood. But don't many young children go through an "age of exploration" kinda thing where, perhaps, they kiss or touch others as a point of curiousity, and they just need to be TAUGHT that these things are not appropriate and they shouldn't do it? (or allow it to be done to them?) At what age does that "learning what is right" cross over into "this kid has psychological problems"????
FG
Within peer group, I'd say this would be unsurprising.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: He very well may just have been modeling what he saw his parents do, or what he saw on television in a completely non-sexual, innocent way.
Or there may be deeper problems. The fact that a nine year old (mentally) behaved this way toward a four year old is indicative that there ARE deeper issues.
I appreciate having the right to NOT gamble with my children's lives.
quote:My point about the family being ashamed wasn't addressed at the neices telling, but the reaction of the extended family to the little boy. I'm all for little people telling adults when something bad happens.
But you don't concede that what happened was bad. You don't concede that it's any big deal at all, except to say the older boy needs watching when they're together.
IF the girls see this reaction, "Oh what cousin Jimmy did-- he's just confused," THEN they learn that cousin Jimmy is exempt from behavioral standards expected from the rest of the world.
quote:Further, I think that, as a sibling, shunning your sister in her time of need and treating her child is a pariah is a pretty crappy thing to do.
:shrug:
We really only have access to one side of the story.
quote:if you were one of the adult siblings in question, then you are actively taking a hand in screwing up a little kid. Grats to you.
The kid's already screwed up. Obviously.
My first responsability is to see that he doesn't screw up my kids, too. Then I'll help him, but not without making sure my tribe's protected.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The kid was almost certainly just goofing around and doesn't really appreciate what he did.
It doesn't matter to the children he's around that he's confused - it doesn't matter his motivations. Whatever they are, he's doing it, so they need to be protected from him. No need to light the torches, but whatever measures need to be taken to keep my kids away from him are entirely appropriate.
It would a bad parent who didn't protect their kids from those who would hurt them, whatever the motivation.
quote:What the little boy did, from an objective viewpoint, is practically meaningless. The 'harm' is completely subjective.
Baloney. Pretending something isn't wrong when it isn't doesn't make it not wrong.
quote:At what age does that "learning what is right" cross over into "this kid has psychological problems"????
I'd say the age difference is what made it questionable. If it was two eleven-year-olds, that would be very different. A four-year-old, though? The power discrepensy is too great for that to be just excusable experimenting. That's not mutual experienting - that's the four-year-old being used in an experiment. That's not okay.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The kid's already screwed up. Obviously.
Scott, I can follow you up to here. That particular attitude is exactly what Storm is talking about and exactly what *will* cause all kinds of problems for both the kid and his victims in this case.
What the kid did was wrong and deeply concerning. It could have tremendous impact on the little girls and, yes, Storm, they should be in counseling over it. A physical violation of any kind at that age is a serious thing.
But the issue isn't nearly so simple as that. We don't know what reaction the younger children had. Whether they hated it or enjoyed it, seeing everyone get in a tizzy and the family cut apart over it sends them the message (at a very formative and impressionable age) that what happened was deeply horrible and needs to never happen again. If they enjoyed it at all, they are set up to hate themselves for it. If they didn't, they are being reinforced in the idea that *all* kissing is bad.
As for the young man himself, while the behavior is definitely inappropriate, there doesn't sound like there was any malice there. There are things to be concerned about for sure, but with the steps his parents are taking, I'd say he's far from "screwed up"... but calling him that will make him so in short order. The fastest way to perpetuate misbehavior is to label the actor as bad or broken. Once he or she believes that, getting them back to reality is a long hard road. I know. I've walked it. Well, most of it, anyhow.
Once you toss that kind of label out, the only reasonable step is to declare war, because you aren't going to get them back after you've as much as said you're giving up on them... and even if you aren't, make no mistake that's what they hear.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I toss that label out because I'm not connected to the situation in any way but through a tenuous, virtual discussion. I guess I felt I could afford to be flip.
quote: The fact that a nine year old (mentally) behaved this way toward a four year old is indicative that there ARE deeper issues.
Possibly. I wouldn't say that it's by any means definitive.
quote: I appreciate having the right to NOT gamble with my children's lives.
You've got it.
quote: quote:My point about the family being ashamed wasn't addressed at the neices telling, but the reaction of the extended family to the little boy. I'm all for little people telling adults when something bad happens.
But you don't concede that what happened was bad. You don't concede that it's any big deal at all, except to say the older boy needs watching when they're together.
IF the girls see this reaction, "Oh what cousin Jimmy did-- he's just confused," THEN they learn that cousin Jimmy is exempt from behavioral standards expected from the rest of the world.
I would phrase it,'He's just confused, but what he did isn't appropriate.' I don't really see how this exempts anyone from any behavorial standards.
quote: quote:Further, I think that, as a sibling, shunning your sister in her time of need and treating her child is a pariah is a pretty crappy thing to do.
:shrug:
We really only have access to one side of the story.
Well, since that's all we obviously have to base our discussion on, I'm not sure what your statement means.
On the other hand, I would never shun my family under any circumstances, so YMMV.
quote: quote:if you were one of the adult siblings in question, then you are actively taking a hand in screwing up a little kid. Grats to you.
The kid's already screwed up. Obviously.
This is a fundamental point on which we disagree, but even if it is true, you don't have to help.
quote: My first responsability is to see that he doesn't screw up my kids, too. Then I'll help him, but not without making sure my tribe's protected.
As I said, I think how we help children perceive events sometimes screws them up even worse than the events themselves. I think the best way to not screw up your kids is to not freak them out, keep the extended family together in such a way that the prodigal son is monitored while he's around the girls.
At base, having a loving family creates healthy children. Having a neurotic, distrustful family is not healthy for children, imho.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, I agree completely. Thanks for posting all of that--you expressed all of that more articulately and in more depth than I likely would have.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The kid's aunts and uncles can't. They might cause all kinds of damage to any of a number of people if they don't handle this delicately.
Yes, they need to protect their daughter. All I'm saying is there is more to it than just ensuring that doesn't happen again, and, being his relatives, they *are* in a position to cause damage to the boy as well.
Further Edit: Reviewing your comments, it doesn't sound like we ultimately disagree in principle... just on some practical points.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having a neurotic, distrustful family is not healthy for children, imho.
I don't think that the family's reaction to the situation described in the Need Advice thread has been neurotic.
I don't think an appropriate reaction to this situation can be anything BUT distrustful. Since trust of a type was broken (doesn't matter how or why-- it was), distrust follows in order to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
quote:I would never shun my family under any circumstances, so YMMV.
While it's a popular word in this thread and in the other thread, it's not something that's bourne out by the statements made by NA; from what I gather, NA's kids are not being invited/allowed to visit their cousins; NA herself is not being asked to babysit; NA's brother will not let his daughter attend a concert with NA's son, chaperoned by Grandma; they are still seeing each other, because NA says that the boy can only be around his cousins when Brother is there to see them.
That's not shunning. It looks like caution, to me. The first two items seem to indicate that MAYBE (purely conjecture) the Brother's family worries that the behavior exhibited by the eleven-year-old has been influenced by the parents (i.e., "What if my in-laws are abusing their son, and he's acting out on my children because of it?")
My main concerns, apart from NA's thread are these:
1) That parents NOT be made to feel guilt over protecting their children in situations like this. Parental instinct should not be ignored. It can be informed and changed later-- but for the immediate, it's best to follow your gut.
2) That children, wherever they are in the discussion, be shielded from the higher, family political discussions that occur. I *think* Storm Saxon and I agree about this.
3)Parents ultimately know what's best for their children, and their wishes should generally be honored.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I toss that label out because I'm not connected to the situation in any way but through a tenuous, virtual discussion. I guess I felt I could afford to be flip.
I'm probably wrong.
No offense, Scott, because I respect you immensely, but no, I don't think you could afford to be flip, in this particular discussion at this particular point. At the point in which I read it, the quoted remark make me jump and actually look back to see who had posted what I just read because it sure sounded serious and I couldn't believe that would come from you in that way.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can only speak to my general impression of how her family was treating her. My sense was that she was giving the highlights and that the general truth was that they were avoiding her and working off of kneejerk reactions, rather than what was best for the family. Perhaps I misunderstood. If I did, pardon.
Fundamentally, you and I disagree on how much harm has actually been done by the 11 year old. I absolutely refuse to discuss this as it's just going to make me angry. Let's just leave it at that we disagree, o.k.?
To your number 1, I think guilting out the parents might not achieve anything, either. My feelings about how her family was treating her and her son were only being expressed on this forum. That is, in NA's situation, I"m not for anyone feeling guilt. I'm for everyone getting along, communicating, and working to have a whole, happy, healthy family.
As to number 2, my viewpoint is that children should be shielded from harmful communication and discussion, but on the other hand, knowledge is always good.
I am a firm, firm, firm believer in talking things out. This is by nature and by principle. So, I think, maybe, what I would like to see is the parents get together and talk things out with an eye to healing, so that everyone understands where everyone else stands, and what needs to happen to achieve healing. Make a plan.
From there, I think the children should be brought into it and, in a non-emotional way, explain things to them, why what happened was wrong, why it can't happen again, why the 11 year old boy made a mistake, mistakes happen, but for right now, everyone plays outside in plain site. No playing alone or there will be consequences.
As to number three, it's pretty clear it's just an ideal. You note this by using 'generally'. I generally don't disagree, myself, but that ideal surely isn't going to keep me from me thinking that sometimes parents do the wrong thing.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fundamentally, you and I disagree on how much harm has actually been done by the 11 year old. I absolutely refuse to discuss this as it's just going to make me angry. Let's just leave it at that we disagree, o.k.?
Okay. I will note, however, that I never mentioned harm done by the 11 year old at all. So I don't know how you know I'm disagreeing with you on this point.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All your posts seem to depend on the idea that some significant harm was done by the 11 year old, do they not?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Just a question -- because I never really had to deal with these kind of issues with my kids and/or in my childhood. But don't many young children go through an "age of exploration" kinda thing where, perhaps, they kiss or touch others as a point of curiousity, and they just need to be TAUGHT that these things are not appropriate and they shouldn't do it? (or allow it to be done to them?) At what age does that "learning what is right" cross over into "this kid has psychological problems"????
FG
(Without seeing if there are any responses)
Yes, they do. And if you make them feel horrible about it, you can cause serious emotional issues and CREATE psychological problems. The worst thing you can do when children have become curious is actively try to shame them instead of just teaching them.
quote:All your posts seem to depend on the idea that some significant harm was done by the 11 year old, do they not?
No. They hinge on the idea that parents have the right to rationally protect their children from perceived threats, and that society/culture should support them in this endeavor.
pH: I agree. CT's qualifications on the subject (near the top of this page) are right in line with what I think.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, no one is going to disagree with that Scott.
The key point here is 'rationally'. So, have we not been discussing whether or not the parents' reaction is appropriately in line with the percieved threat?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were in such a situation, I would not be quick to take at face value the parent's assurances that their child has no evidence of abuse, and that he's merely confused. Their words would carry little weight, as I've seen too many parents lie to themselves about the nature and severity of the problems their children have.
Considering the damage that could be caused by an error in judgment, I'd much rather be over-cautious than under.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This brings me to my main point in my post, that the perception and reaction to an event is often much worse than it actually is. What the little boy did, from an objective viewpoint, is practically meaningless. The 'harm' is completely subjective. As such, the harm can be increased or decreased according to how the children percieve it. Treating it as something much worse than it really is makes it into something much worse than it really is and will surely traumatize the kids in ways that the event left alone wouldn't.
I agree completely. I don not agree however, that the little boy was treated as a monster or sexual pervert.
The parents' reaction of removing their kids from a potentially harmful situation is...rational. It doesn't sound like the family is running around telling the neghbors he is a sexual deviant. They just want stronger boundries in response to a specific incident.
The mom of the boy should still show him love. The family should do stuff with her family. However, if they only want to do stuff in public when they are there, I think that is appropriate. It might be overkill, but they are thinking about their children. How is that monstrous?
As the kids plays with older kids and if people don't react so strongly to his face, there is a very good chance this will all fall by the wayside. It is minor as a single incident.
Establishing boundries can only help the 11 year old. I don't see evidence of him being treated like a monster or sexual predator.
My neighbor doesn't watch her kids very well. In one incident her 2 year old was running around outside while the mom was inside.
Based on that incident, I don't let T. play at their house unsupervised. I either go there or invite their kid to our house. I don't think that family is monstrous, but I am not going to let my kid be in an environment where he might end up running around outside unsupervised. We live in an apartment complex--not a house with a fenced yard.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me reiterate-- there is every chance that grave damage could be done to the 4 yr old in this case. I don't know that it has, but there is absolutely danger that it has. Please, please note that this is totally separate from the relative innocence of the 11 yr old. It's entirely likely that neither of them understands what was done and why it was wrong.
But it is absolutely essential to understand that there is far more... FAR MORE... to seeing to the well being of the victim than "making sure that boy is never alone with her again." Everyone, both here and IRL, seems to be focusing on the 11 yr old and the risk he presents. THAT is what concerns me-- both in that the 11 yr old is subject to phrases like Scott's unfortunate word choice (imagine being 11 and hearing that from a beloved uncle, knowing he meant you) and in that no one seems concerned that we have no idea what messages are being sent to and what steps are being taken for the 4 yr old beyond keeping her from being alone with the 11 yr old.
The danger, at this time, especially given the actions of his mother (parents?), is not there.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mostly agree with Storm and Jim-Me here. I'm only eighteen, but in so many situations (some revolving around me) I've seen adults treat incidents as if there is one victim that must be protected, and one offender that must be shunned.
My parents and most parents I know don't have the attitude I have: that of trying to heal wounds, broken trust, and help EVERYONE.
I know from personal experience what it's like to feel ashamed, to feel broken. I've been called screwed up from my own mother. It hurts a lot, and even right now, I kind of feel like I've already failed at being a person, at only 18 years.
I guess my point is: ALL children involved should be gradually allowed to communicate, though under heavy supervision, and hopefully the entire family will be able to come together as it was before. It is definitely necessary to protect the younger children; but that doesn't mean you have to make the 11 year old feel like a bad person. I firmly believe that there's a way to make everyone involved feel okay again. I believe so, because several times I wish the adults in my life had had that point of view Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with you asking that particular question at this particular time because I was about to post who I agreed and disagreed with and now if I do it just looks flippant after your post. So there.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with a lot of people here about a lot of things. I rarely discuss it anymore, though.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with your assessment of Storm Saxon's statement as a load of crap.
I believe that the idea that parents should follow their instincts needs to be tempered with the idea that parents should educate their instincts, and not see abusers lurking in every corner.
quote: Secondly: The allegation of confusion is not a license. It doesn't make things better when tragedy happens. It doesn't heal wounds, it doesn't dry tears-- it EXCUSES the offender. It degrades the reaction of the protectors. It makes the child ashamed to report it again.
That's all well and good, but it's completely irrelevant to this case. No tragedy occurred here. A confused kid played inappropriately. There were no woulds or tears, exept any that the parents caused. The idea that treating this kid like a confused kid who needs more supervision and perhaps some counseling, instead of shunning him and his family like monsters, will make children ashamed to report real sexual abuse is hogwash. Children are ashamed to report sexual abuse when they are held responsible for being abused. That's not really relevant to this case at all. Treating something that was not abuse as if it were does not make children more trusting of adults.
quote: I appreciate having the right to NOT gamble with my children's lives.
I find this statement hyperbolic. Don't leave the little ones alone with this boy. Everything else the parents have done is overkill. If the kid goes to a concert with his cousin and four adults, or whatever it was, that's plenty of supervision.
quote: But you don't concede that what happened was bad. You don't concede that it's any big deal at all, except to say the older boy needs watching when they're together.
This applies to me as well. You are correct, I concede no such thing.
quote: IF the girls see this reaction, "Oh what cousin Jimmy did-- he's just confused," THEN they learn that cousin Jimmy is exempt from behavioral standards expected from the rest of the world.
I disagree. Cousin Jimmy is not exempt. This child was educated about why what he did was wrong, he is receiving counseling, and he no longer enjoys the level of trust that he did before--to be considered responsible enough to watch his young cousing. Those are his consequences, and they are more than sufficient for the offense in this question.
quote: We really only have access to one side of the story.
Of course. So? We're speaking hypothetically, then, assuming this side of the story is the truth. *shrug*
For what it's worth, I disagree with Kat as well, but she didn't ask me to elaborate.
quote: I don't think an appropriate reaction to this situation can be anything BUT distrustful. Since trust of a type was broken (doesn't matter how or why-- it was), distrust follows in order to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
The child's mother did not break a trust, but she is being treated with distrust as well. And withholding trust from the boy does not necessitate, for instance, avoiding his family at church.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
The big disagreement here is over the magnitude of the boy's inappropriateness ('inapproprate' as an indicator of concern-- not as an indicator of actual, quatifiable harm). CT summed up my concerns in this area:
quote:My understanding of developmental pediatrics does not make easy room within the "just confused" range for an eleven year-old to be tonguing someone about 1/3 his age. Doesn't mean he's a monster, mind you, but it triggers my red flags to get the kid more formally assessed. .... If the young man wanted to experiment, then his peers should have been his first choice. (As someone said, four-year-olds are generally "icky" to someone at eleven years of age.) I suspect this young man has some difficulty in relating to his peers, probably feels more comfortable with much younger kids, and has normal developmental needs for interaction. That doesn't make him a monster, but it does make him someone who may well make a habit of making bad choices in this area.
Please keep in mind that *I* never called him sexually deviant, or a monster, or anything beyond 'screwed up.' Because, sorry-- an eleven year old tonguing a three year is indication, to me, of having some issues that go a little deeper than being two years immature.
The idea that such a common and deep social taboo was broken based solely on "He was modeling his parents," seems to me to be very shaky.
quote:The child's mother did not break a trust, but she is being treated with distrust as well. And withholding trust from the boy does not necessitate, for instance, avoiding his family at church.
There's more going on in this story than NA has told us-- she's said so herself. I say this NOT to imply that she's trying to make herself and her family out to be angels, but to show that there's obviously more to the story. I acknowledge the fact that we don't know everything about the situation, and refrain from judging attitudes until I know more about what created them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that the idea that parents should follow their instincts needs to be tempered with the idea that parents should educate their instincts, and not see abusers lurking in every corner.
Agreed. I don't see evidence of that paranoia in this particular situation.
quote:
Scott R said: Secondly: The allegation of confusion is not a license. It doesn't make things better when tragedy happens. It doesn't heal wounds, it doesn't dry tears-- it EXCUSES the offender. It degrades the reaction of the protectors. It makes the child ashamed to report it again. ______________
Icarus replied:
That's all well and good, but it's completely irrelevant to this case.
Mmmm... maybe. A lot of people seemed to be using "He's just a confused kid," argument. I wanted to make sure that we didn't start debating whether or not his confusion should enter into the equation of whether or not the parents should protect the girls.
quote:
Scott R said: I appreciate the right to NOT gamble with my children's lives
Icarus said:
I find this statement hyperbolic.
Now in context, I said:
quote:The fact that a nine year old (mentally) behaved this way toward a four year old is indicative that there ARE deeper issues.
I appreciate having the right to NOT gamble with my children's lives.
I don't think it's hyperbole at all. By 'lives,' I didn't mean life or death.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've refrained from entering into this thread cause I'm not a parent, nor really a kid anymore. So it doesn't really effect me.
But I think I'd probably side with the side of over reaction. Is what he did wrong? Yes. Should he be punished for it? Yes. Is "he was confused" an excuse? No.
But I don't think cutting him off from the rest of the family like that (note, I didn't say completely) is all that necesary. When I was a nine year old, I had no idea what tounging meant. It wasn't until much much later that I learned the implications of that action. I knew kissing on the mouth was something that adults did and something I didn't want to do (I considered it gross), but I really had no idea what the social meaning of it was.
My guess would be that he saw people tounging each other on TV. Then he probably just thought "we're playing house, they did this in the house on TV" and added it into the game not realizing what it meant. I don't think anything more than an explanation of what it is, and why doing that was so very wrong and some form of serious (but not too serious) punishment is needed.
I don't think he needs to be that closely supervised for that long. Maybe keep an extra eye on him for a while to make sure the lesson stuck, but viewing him as a threat? Come on...
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: My guess would be that he saw people tounging each other on TV. Then he probably just thought "we're playing house, they did this in the house on TV" and added it into the game not realizing what it meant.
Sounds like an excellent reason for him to not be watching TV.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My guess would be that he saw people tounging each other on TV. Then he probably just thought "we're playing house, they did this in the house on TV" and added it into the game not realizing what it meant.
I'm having a hard time imagining a nine-year old that doesn't know that tonguing a four year old is wrong.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ]I'm having a hard time imagining a nine-year old that doesn't know that tonguing a four year old is wrong.
Me, as well.
That is, this is a young man chronologically at the age when most are entering sixth grade, and yet this was not just a kiss on the cheek, not just a hug, but tonguing a preschooler. A preschooler. That isn't something that he has seen modeled on television, I hope.
Again, I don't think (given what information we have) that this young man is a monster. I do have some confusion about what "confused" would mean in this scenario -- that he didn't know what his tongue was doing? That he knew, but didn't consider it wrong at all (and so would have, presumably, been just as likely to do this to the preschooler in front of her parents)? That he thought there was likely something untoward about this behavior, maybe without being clear on the details, and so chose to do it somewhat secretively to see what it was all about?
There are many potential meanings of "confused" here, some of which seem more plausible than others. Regardless, either he didn't know it was wrong (which is a real problem, given his age), or he knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway (also a problem). But I don't think these are unsolvable problems, and I don't think it necessarily portends anything about who he will be as an adult. Rather, they say volumes about what he needs now in order to grow into the person he and his parents want him to be.
I also think that we as a culture tend to be highly uncomfortable about acknowledging the sexual nature of children. This young man is a sexual creature, by definition. That doesn't mean he has to be involved with another person, but that his body and nature is geared toward making sense of himself and the world in that aspect. I worry that our own discomfort in acknowledging that gets smothered under the blanket level of "just confused," in part because it makes us so uncomfortable to deal with it.
Additionally, I think that discomfort arises in part because we have difficulty (as a culture) in distinguishing between an individual "being sexual" and "being sexual to/for me." But that's a whole other thread.
I think there is a lot of room for growth and development among all members of the family. On the other hand, I'm quite aware that this sort of issue treads on some very deep taboos (unlike, say, just encouraging a younger family member to jump off a high object). This is weighty stuff -- sexuality, gender issues, familial taboos, parental protection in a world full of potential threats and death, what have you -- so I'm not at all surprised that the adults involved are reacting in a hyperprotective and perhaps a bit squirrely way. I think it's probably pretty easy to say from the outside that I wouldn't react that way, but probably much harder to say if one really is in the situation.
----
Mind you, once again, I don't think the young man is fundamentally evil or flawed. I do think he faces some particular challenges which may put him at additional risks for some problems, lesser risks for others. Same as anyone, actually. I am glad he has adults watching over him extra closely.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Scott R: ]I'm having a hard time imagining a nine-year old that doesn't know that tonguing a four year old is wrong.
Me, as well.
Wrong in what sense? To you, a fully developed sexual person, you fully know what it means to tongue someone.
Does an 11 year old fully understand? No. I didn't.
quote: During the course of playing he kissed the girls on the mouth with his tongue.
By the way, I have my doubts as to whether he really 'french-kissed' the toddler, or was just licking her. While I'm not exactly clear what kissing on the mouth with tongue actually means, quite frankly, the mechanics involved, and the sensation, make me doubt that the toddler was involved with it--as in, opening her mouth and letting it happen.
quote: I also think that we as a culture tend to be highly uncomfortable about acknowledging the sexual nature of children. This young man is a sexual creature, by definition. That doesn't mean he has to be involved with another person, but that his body and nature is geared toward making sense of himself and the world in that aspect. I worry that our own discomfort in acknowledging that gets smothered under the blanket level of "just confused," in part because it makes us so uncomfortable to deal with it.
My use of the word confused has nothing to do with my squeamishness about sexuality in children and everything to do with the fact that, at 11, his sexuality is still, as I said, very much developmentally inchoate.
One of the things that irritates me about this thread is that many are projecting an adult knowledge of sexuality onto an 11 year old. While it is all well and good to acknowledge that children are sexual creatures, it is wrong to import to them a level of sexual maturity and what is 'wrong' beyond their years.
I'm sure you wouldn't do this, CT.
edit: What I was trying to say was that I know you're not intentionally doing this, but I just wanted to kind of clarify the impressions I was getting from the thread.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way, I have my doubts as to whether he really 'french-kissed' the toddler, or was just licking her. While I'm not exactly clear what kissing on the mouth with tongue actually means, quite frankly, the mechanics involved, and the sensation, make me doubt that the toddler was involved with it--as in, opening her mouth and letting it happen.
I see this as minimizing the event and/or blaming the toddler. Are you saying that if the toddler was french-kissed, it was because she let it happen?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
