posted
No, I'm trying to say that I doubt it happened for the reasons that I gave. Sorry for not expressing myself well.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: 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.
*smile
I am perfectly willing to assume you are giving me every benefit of the doubt and are unwilling to ascribe untoward projections to me. That, I can certainly rely on.
As well, I feel relatively secure in my own training in developmental pediatrics and physiology. It has been an extensive part of my work life for the last eight years or so, and I have made good effort to stay up to date in that area of my continuing education.
Of course, we can agree to disagree. We can also continue to respect and appreciate one another, as I do you.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you interested in the resources I reference and use in assessing and addressing adolescent sexuality, or are those irrelevant to you? (Or, perhaps, do you just want to drop the whole thing because I am coming off as more than a touch arrogant and kind of pendantic?)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Some judgments are also based on more evidence than others, no?
The thing is, I am willing to be wrong. Really, I am, although I do take some convincing, especially if it is in an area in which I have been formally trained. And my training in this area is based on years upon years of collated and peer-reviewed research.
Biased? Yes. As you say, all facts come with a point of view. I am, however, much more comfortable myself with relying on facts that have been through a formal vetting process and which have been put forth empirically to allow reality a chance to resist them.
Different kids will have different experiences, and developmental pediatrics mainly speaks of the aggregate, not the individual. We also each have our own memories and experiences that may bias 1) who we identify with in this scenario and 2) which judgments about it are more or less palatable.
*shrug
That's the way it goes. I don't, however, think I have been intimating anything in this thread that is either untoward or unsupported in the literature. Whether someone chooses to disagree with me or not is another matter, and I am not going to presume any suppositions why. Not my place, not worthwhile, and I'm not interested.
However, if anyone reading is interested in further reading or references, I am more than willing to dig them up and make them available.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My last was posted before your last couple.
So, now you want to provide sources and facts rather than being passive-aggressive. If you want to dialogue, let's dialogue. If you want to be a catty bitch, do that. Make up your mind. Don't pretend like I've blown you off when on the first page when I did nothing but respectfully give you my opinion, which, oh my God, wasn't quite in line with yours. The horror!
Yes, I would be interested in seeing them. If you want to post them, super. Great.
Quite frankly, I don't really disagree with what you're saying and I dont' see that I said anything untowards, so I'm not clear on where this attitude is coming from.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what CT is saying makes a great deal of sense. I think that keeping an eye on the kid is absolutely correct. I think counseling is a darn good idea. I understand the impulse to protect our children.
I do think that it is heartbreaking that this boys extended family seems (from the other thread) to be so willing to write him off at 11.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't, however, think I have been intimating anything in this thread that is either untoward or unsupported in the literature.
I never said you were wrong. Anywhere. At worst, I've intimated that I don't agree completely with you. Again, I don't think anything I said on the first page was disrespectful in any way. I don't get where you are coming from on this page.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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 think what you're ignoring is that kids have a very good grasp on social taboos. They don't have much of a clue why their private areas are always supposed to be covered or why mouth kissing is something they're not supposed to do. But they do know that they're not supposed to.
Saying that an 11 year old (9 mentally) did not understand the sexual implications of what he was doing is something that most people in this thread probably agree with. Saying that the same kid happened on this completely by accident is where I think a lot of the disagreement is coming from. He undoubtedly knew it was taboo and he did it anyways. That, not some hidden sexual desire for the kids, is what's scary.
[Edit: When I posted this, I didn't see that there was a second page. Sorry for posting in the middle of something.]
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: My last was posted before your last couple.
So, now you want to provide sources and facts rather than being passive-aggressive. If you want to dialogue, let's dialogue. If you want to be a catty bitch, do that. Make up your mind. Don't pretend like I've blown you off when on the first page when I did nothing but respectfully give you my opinion, which, oh my God, wasn't quite in line with yours. The horror!
Yes, I would be interested in seeing them. If you want to post them, super. Great.
Quite frankly, I don't really disagree with what you're saying and I dont' see that I said anything untowards, so I'm not clear on where this attitude is coming from.
Storm, I didn't realize I was being passive-aggressive, although that is often the sort of thing it is hard to see in oneself. I also was not aware of cattiness or (forgive me the coyness, but just in case) b****iness, but again, that is the sort of thing which is often more visible to others than to oneself.
Regardless, I apologize. The proof of passive-aggressiveness and the rest is in the eating, I think, and if that is what it tastes like, then it is what it is.
I had no problem with you disagreeing with me. Wen you addressed me in particular (as below), I did feel the need to clarify with specifics.
quote: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.
This is my profession. It is a matter or personal and professional pride to be accurate and thorough, especially in areas that are so ... hmmm ... emotionally dicey? And I was trying to bend over backwards and make it clear that I was not intending anything personal in my response -- however, that can clearly come off (or be intended as, frankly) intimating the exact opposite. (I wonder if that was what set off bells for you? I wish you could see my face and read my body language when I "speak" here. On my side of the screen, it is much more hesitant, measured, and cautious than I believe it comes across. TomD has mentioned something along these lines after we first met in person, many years ago.***)
Nonetheless. *smile
I do have developmental textbooks packed away at home, but I'll try to find online versions or free-access review articles in the major journals. Often Pediatrics makes developmental or public health stuff available without charge, especially if it is a consensus statement or conference summary.
It will have to wait until I catch up on work, though, but I will find time before the weekend.
----
***I wonder, too, if I have some excessive wordiness in these responses on this thread because of the really delicate nature of the material. I am acutely aware that somewhere out there, the original poster is likely following the thread, and that this thread was probably started as much as a real and justified request for support as for information. I think that being excessively wordy and nuanced can also seem (or be used as) a way of saying things without taking responsibility for them. That was not my intent -- at least, not consciously so.
---
Edited to add: Hey, thanks, kmboots, rivka and Ela! Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think what CT is saying makes a great deal of sense. I think that keeping an eye on the kid is absolutely correct. I think counseling is a darn good idea.
Which is the same thing I said at the beginning of the thread. Again, I don't really disagree with her.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect what we are all experiencing together is just the fallout of trying to talk about some very intense and emotionally-laden things. I doubt anyone is acting in bad faith at all.
(Throw in my own tendency to perseveration and pendacity, and you get a vile mix. *grin
Off to work now. No worries, here, and I hope none remaining for those involved in the thread.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think what CT is saying makes a great deal of sense. I think that keeping an eye on the kid is absolutely correct. I think counseling is a darn good idea.
Which is the same thing I said at the beginning of the thread. Again, I don't really disagree with her.
And I wasn't disagreeing with you. My main point was the heartbreaking one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It has been argued extensively on this board that children do not 'understand' sex and sexual behavior like adults do. Do you or do you not agree with this? If you agree with this, then you agree with me and what I wrote at the bottom of the first page, which doesn't disagree with you, as far as I can tell.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, read what I wrote and see what is there. What I wrote wasn't some attack on your knowledge of pediatrics.
quote: Storm, I didn't realize I was being passive-aggressive
Please don't be angry, but I don't really believe you. I do appreciate the olive branch, and of course, I too, apologize for adding to the mix. Perhaps we can both strive to work harder to more clearly communicate in the future.
I don't want you to do some extra research on my behalf. I'm not really clear on why you think I need to see it. Don't worry about it. As I said before, I don't exactly disagree with you, so there's no real reason for it.
Giving me a few bits of research wouldn't be anything like a comprehensive overview of what, from what I understand as a layman, is an incredibly politicized and partisan field of study.
I do take comfort in the fact that all the other links you've shown to educate me, both on and outside the board, have supported what I've said, though. So, I know that the experts agree with me every now and then, and I'm not totally out of line in the opinions that I've had.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It has been argued extensively on this board that children do not 'understand' sex and sexual behavior like adults do. Do you or do you not agree with this?[italics added for clarity]
What I "hear" when I read this statement is that "children's behavior is not sexual because they do not have an adult understanding of sexuality; i.e, it may look sexual, but it isn't" not that "children may not have an adult's understanding of sexuality, but their behavior may still be driven by their own sexuality, which is real and ever-present for them as for adults." This, too, is the difference that comes out for me in "just confused."
I'm not trying to trap you -- honest. I'm trying to be clear about what I do and do not agree with. Which is what you mean by the italics, or is it something altogether different?
quote:Please don't be angry, but I don't really believe you.
I understand that, thus the apology above. It is meant sincerely.
quote:I do appreciate the olive branch, and of course, I too, apologize for adding to the mix. Perhaps we can both strive to work harder to more clearly communicate in the future.
Always a good goal.
quote:Giving me a few bits of research wouldn't be anything like a comprehensive overview of what, from what I understand as a layman, is an incredibly politicized and partisan field of study.
I am in a similar dilemma as above. On one interpretation, I can agree with this -- on another (specifically, another connotation), I wouldn't. That is, the field isn't a free-for-all. There are areas of controversy, but there are also generally acknowledged expert resources, developmental milestones, and behavior characteristics by age group.
For example, toddlers masterbate. This is normal behavior. It is not "understood" by them in the same way it is "understood" by adults who masterbate***, but it is nonetheless sexual. It is self-pleasure. That is highly disconcerting for me to come to terms with, and I think it is for most people. I think most people don't know about it, actually, in part because we don't discuss it. I think we would prefer to call it "not really sexual behavior, even if it looks like it," or as "they don't know what they are doing." Well, they don't have a theory about it, but doubtlessly it feels good, and that is why they do it.
And it is generally accepted in the field that the typical 8-to-9 year old is becoming increasingly aware of his or her own sexuality, as well as being well aware of taboos (as noted by Amaneucer earlier). To say this isn't an adult awareness could mean "it isn't really an awareness at all (just confusion)," or "it is a true awareness that should be respected and acknowledged as it develops," or anywhere in between.
quote:I do take comfort in the fact that all the other links you've shown to educate me, both on and outside the board, have supported what I've said, though. So, I know that the experts agree with me every now and then, and I'm not totally out of line in the opinions that I've had.
Storm, I'm not sure what you are saying. That is, I agree you are very smart, well-informed, and often right about things (!), but I don't know whether your referent in this paragraph for "what I've said" and "the opinions I've had" is for pediatric things in general, other things in general, or whether these specifically refer to the claims made in this thread. Help me?
-----
***Mind you, I don't think most adults have an adult understanding of sexuality and sexual behavior, as it were. The notion of an "adult understanding" feels very vague to me, and so I am not comfortable with agreeing or disagreeing with claims relying on it without clarification or further explanation. Perhaps that is why I continued to talk about it rather than just agreeing with you, [even if we do agree. I am more Dagonee than TomD in my style, especially as regards my own areas of training. Just like Dagonee and law, I guess].
posted
I did not see anybody call into question CT's knowledge of pediatrics, but I got the implication, perhaps incorrectly, that her experience and training indicated that anybody who disagreed with her was wrong. I think that's what Storm was objecting to--though, as he has said, he doesn't feel that he really disagrees with her.
I have a lot of training and experience working with children aged ten through eighteen as well, though certainly not from the pediatric angle. There are a few people on this board who have worked with more children than I have, but not too many. I also have direct experience with sexual molestation, and have read extensively on the subject, though not for about fifteen years or so. I have also worked directly with victimized children, through the United Way and through two different DCF departments. This doesn't, of course, mean that I am right by virtue of my experience and education, but since the issue of qualifications seems to be coming up as a measure of the value of our opinions, I figured I should throw mine on the table.
I am not willing to do homework as a condition of my participation in this thread. That is not because I believe I am wrong and that my opinion cannot stand up to scrutiny. This is not because I "don't care." This is not because I'm intellectually dishonest. This is not because I am speaking/posting from out of my nether reasons. Rather, this because I come to Hatrack as a release from work. While I am here, there is work that is not getting done, and I justify that to myself because I feel that I need to take moments off when I can steal them. But for me to put hours of research into Hatrack when other tasks are waiting to be done would be wrong. If we were sitting around a table in a restaurant having this conversation, we would not find it unreasonable for someone to have an opinion and be willing to defend it, but not be willing to invest time reading someone else's sources.
I also think I agree with CT on many facets of this issue. I think, though, that the areas where we disagree—and there are some—are very nuanced. And so I think we are each going to have to try very hard to understand what the other has and has not said, or we will run the risk of misunderstanding each other and possibly hurting each other's feelings. I don't want that, because I think the world of CT. I also have, in the past, been shunned online by people who have posted in this thread in disagreement with my position, on prior occasions when I didn't support the "right" person in a confrontation, or when I criticized the "wrong" person. Since these are also people I think highly of and care for as on-line friends, I'm treading dangerous waters here, because I don't want to close off any lines of communication. But since I hold what I believe is the minority opinion on this thread, I believe it is more important than usual for me to express myself.
quote: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 think this is a good summary of the possibilities. I don't believe that the young man did not know what he was doing was inappropriate. I believe "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?" is probably dead on. And there should be a loss of trust for the child and an increase in vigilance, and consequences. I think that the most likely scenario was that he was curious about this whole adult notion of kissing on the lips, or with tongues, and wanted to know for himself what it was all about--maybe he wondered how people could do such a disgusting thing. He probably figured, probably correctly, that any girl he proposed experimenting to would freak out on him. So he decided to experiment with someone who would not have anything to say about it. So he did something he knew he was not supposed to do, and he sought out a young child to do it with because of the power imbalance, or, to use less sinister terms, because he thought he could then investigate without anyone knowing. Totally inappropriate and deserving of a response.
But the asumption that I see coming from poster after poster, based on the remedies that they call for and the way they describe the boy's actions, is that the boy is actually attracted to younger children. I don't see that assumption being questioned, and I don't think it's at all merited. I'm all for being and protecting my children's "lives," and so I'm all for ensuring that this child does not play alone with his cousing in the future. But there is simply no basis for any action further than that, because, much as acting out with younger children is not the typical pattern of behavior for nine- to eleven-year-olds, there is no pattern of behavior observed here. What we have is an unfortunate and inappropriate incident. We do not have cause to believe this boy is a young pedophile, or that he has deep-rooted psychological issues. Believe me, I can tell you from experience that kids do the strangest damn things, and they don't mean what we as adults interpret them to mean.
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 agree with you entirely, but whereas this leads you co conclude:
quote: 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.
I draw the exact opposite conclusion from the same premise. I feel that people's discomfort is leading them to see monsters where there isn't one. And I am not uncomfortable with the topic or acknowledging the sexual nature of all people.
By the way, I actually think therapy for this incident is probably an overreaction, but I think it's probably a good idea from the standpoint of it being better to be safe than sorry. That goes with the assumption, though, that it's the kind of therapy that explores whatever the kid is actually thinking and feeling, rather than having, "So, Billy, why do you like to touch little girls?" as its starting point.
-o-
As an aside, I think Stormy is clearly not "blaming the toddler." I'm not sure I can find a more polite way to say it, so I'll just bite the bullet and say that it is patently ridiculous, and not at all based on the ideas he expressed. This may be a case of what I was talking about, where we see the disagreements but not the nuances, and so we put the people who disagree with us on the extreme opposite side of the issue whether they belong there or not. So just for the record, let me categorically state that I also don't blame the little girls, I don't hate women, I don't think toddlers who take off their diapers are asking to be raped, I don't think groping toddlers is okay, and that I also oppose whatever else you think is monstruous. 'kay?
By the way, while I'm on the topic, I find more than a little uncomfortable the suggestion that where we are on this issue is merely indicative of whom we identify with.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, the thing about you applying your knowledge of developmental psychology and pediatrics to what this child knows or does not know about sexuality is that developmental psychology deals in averages. And people don't necesarily follow the mean. (This is why I have a problem with psycology. People apply its finding often in the way people apply biological or chemical findings, when people just don't work that way.)
I can tell you that I didn't learn what french kissing was till sometime in high school. I didn't know the meaning of the word masterbate till late middle school. It never even occurred to me that when people kissed each other on the mouth they were doing anything with their tongues, I just kinda assumed kissing each other on the mouth was something grown ups did.
It is entirely possible the child in question had no clue what french kissing was. I can see a million different situations where the action seen as french kissing by an adult appeared completely harmless and meaningless, or possessing of some other meaning, to the children involved.
Even if the child is more aware of his sexuality than I was at that age, that doesn't mean he views french kissing as a sexual act. Even now, when I know other people view it as intensely sexual, I don't really get that sort of enjoyment from it.
Hence I think this is all a huge overreaction. I think the child needs to be taught the meaning of french kissing, and why doing what he did is such a taboo and in a way that'll stick (IE punishment). But I don't think the rest of the family needs to shun him or keep such hawk eyes on him as if he's a sexual predator.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think keeping an eye on him is appropriate simply because the price of error here is huge. But it doesn't have to be done in an extreme, judgmental, and ugly fashion. It's enough to say that he can't play unsupervised with the kids anymore.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Ic, I said this better earlier so here:
quote:keep such hawk eyes on him as if he's a sexual predator.
...translates to...
quote: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?
Which futher translates to:
I think they should keep an eye on him sure, as you should any time when dealing with you kids, and maybe a bit extra for a while to make sure he learned. But I don't think the level of supervision mentioned, which was just about treating him as a budding sexual predator, was necesary.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did not see anybody call into question CT's knowledge of pediatrics, but I got the implication, perhaps incorrectly, that her experience and training indicated that anybody who disagreed with her was wrong.
I likely give off this vibe. I do have issues about some of these things. (We can go into them in another thread, if anyone is so inclined -- honest offer -- but it is likely more a reflection on me and where I am than anything else.)
quote:But the asumption that I see coming from poster after poster, based on the remedies that they call for and the way they describe the boy's actions, is that the boy is actually attracted to younger children. I don't see that assumption being questioned, and I don't think it's at all merited.
You may not believe me, but that never occurred to me as a tenable interpretation (as you say, this isn't a pattern of behavior). If it had, I would have addressed it.
quote:That goes with the assumption, though, that it's the kind of therapy that explores whatever the kid is actually thinking and feeling, rather than having, "So, Billy, why do you like to touch little girls?" as its starting point.
For sure.
quote:As an aside, I think Stormy is clearly not "blaming the toddler." I'm not sure I can find a more polite way to say it, so I'll just bite the bullet and say that it is patently ridiculous, and not at all based on the ideas he expressed.
I'd certainly agree with you again, here.
quote:By the way, while I'm on the topic, I find more than a little uncomfortable the suggestion that where we are on this issue is merely indicative of whom we identify with.
It occurs to me that what I said might be taken to imply that those more sympathetic with the young man were themselves identifying with the desire to experiment sexually, or with those of less power, or what have you. It isn't what I intended.
For context: I have a history (half-remembered) of calling my brother a "heifer" and then running to hide behind my mother, who then told my brother that "she doesn't know what it means." I was quite gleeful (I do remember this part), as I knew exactly what I was doing -- and I knew it would drive my brother into a rage to be called a "young female cow." There were other times, I'm sure, when I took advantage of this supposition by adults, especially since I was somewhat precocious. (And while I understand that the young man in question is emotionally immature as per his parent's report, I don't take that to say anything about his cognitive development, or whether or not he has a delightful and loving nature, or whether ot not he has a plethora of kind, generous, and moral qualities. I just take it to refer to his ability to modulate his own emotional responses in an age-appropriate manner.)
I don't like remembering my own cunning and deviousness, and I know that I tend to project those parts of myself I least like onto others. Nothing enrages me like my own faults, and it seems that I have often in the past fought my own demons by seeing them in others and attacking them there. (I do not -- do not, do not, do not -- intend this to be a veiled stab at anyone else. I am, truly, speaking of myself here, primarily for context of this particular musing referenced by Icarus.)
I was wondering how much of my lack of sympathy (at least relatively speaking) was due to my seeing parts of myself in this young boy, or parts of those who didn't (this is getting quite Freudian here) evaluate me in an appropriately negative way in those that were more sympathetic to this young man.
----
Edited to add: And, to clarify, I didn't say our opinions were "merely" a matter of who we identified with, but that "We also each have our own memories and experiences that may bias 1) who we identify with in this scenario and 2) which judgments about it are more or less palatable." I can see how in context my listing those two things, juxtaposed, could reasonably be interpreted to imply that 2) is derived directly from 1). What I meant was that the biases to some extent were likely there, and to some extent likely affected one another. This, to me, means that it's worth acknowledging as a potentially confounding factor -- not as a criticism of someone else's conclusion or ability to reach it on justified grounds. Just to clarify. (I should have worded it differently.)
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: All your posts seem to depend on the idea that some significant harm was done by the 11 year old, do they not?
I haven't posted, but I do have a strong opinion on this, based on personal experiences.
It doesn't matter how much harm is done at this point to those girls...the POTENTIAL for harm is far greater in this situation because he IS family. I don't fault the other parents at all. Give it some time, and continue therapy for him, and see what develops. Things will probably get better with time, as no further harm would be done with these types of precautions in place....which is why they are being used.
If my parents had listened to their own hearts about a neighborhood kid when we were growing up, a lot of pain could have been avoided all around. They didn't want to overreact, and they wanted to be fair, but looking back there were plenty of signs all over the place.
It wasn't my parents fault at all, they did what they could at the time. Had they any real warning they would have reacted differently, so I am not second guessing them at all...but because of what happened in my neighborhood I am far more likely to react proactively to avoid these situations with my children.
I have been on the other side of this, sort of.....I love kids. I always have. I was the only boy I knew how liked babysitting, and I did it for a few years. After this boy in my neighborhood was caught, I stopped getting calls to babysit. Not because of anything I had done, or any complaints because of my behavior, but because I was a 13 year old boy who loved kids.
Only one family was honest with me, and I treated them poorly for years after because of it. I was hurt, and disturbed, and angry. But even then, while I didn't agree with them at all, I understood why they made that decision. They tried to apoligise years later, right before I moved, but by then it was too late.
I wish I had done the same about Ricky, even though we had known him for most of our lives.
I would rather hurt someones feelings than risk the safety of my family ever again. Even though I know what it felt like to be the one hurt.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think that Stormy was blaming the toddler. I think that saying that what the kid did probably wasn't actually tonguing her because the toddler "let it happen" sure sounds like it.
If you're being careful about the message being sent, then someone who has been on the recieving end of unwanted attention hearing that it only happened because they let it sure sounds like blaming them. Don't make the incident out to be worse than it was, but also don't explain it away by saying that it couldn't have been bad because the toddler would have stopped it. That is putting way too much responsibility on the four-year-old to control the eleven-year-old's behavior.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: CT, the thing about you applying your knowledge of developmental psychology and pediatrics to what this child knows or does not know about sexuality is that developmental psychology deals in averages. And people don't necesarily follow the mean.
Indeed. I refer you back to my acknowledgment of this previously, way back many posts ago.
I'm well aware of that, you know. (I don't mean to sound catty, mind you -- it is, however, amusing to me that I be reminded of this as if it weren't something I was familiar with.)
quote:It is entirely possible the child in question had no clue what french kissing was. I can see a million different situations where the action seen as french kissing by an adult appeared completely harmless and meaningless, or possessing of some other meaning, to the children involved.
Even if the child is more aware of his sexuality than I was at that age, that doesn't mean he views french kissing as a sexual act.
Of course. As I said before, we don't know what his individual experience was.
I was speaking against the mindset that kids his age in general don't have sexual impulses, or do not understand taboos, or are "just confused" (in the former sense referenced before). There are all kinds of interpretations possible, some more likely than others. And we are speaking of likelihoods (as we all are, given that we do not know this child), it makes sense to make references to averages, no? [To clarify: not to diagnose this child, but for purposes of general discussion]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that saying that what the kid did probably wasn't actually tonguing her because the toddler "let it happen" sure sounds like it.
I thought Storm said that because he didn't want to be too graphic. My understanding of what he was saying is that French kissing, in its actuality, requires two people. The boy likely licked her or possibly even put his tongue in her mouth, but it seems unlikely that she did anything reciprocal that would make it truly French kissing.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with that premise. It's not French kissing unless it's mutual? That's the defense??
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think when people say "French kissing" they conjure up a different image than what most likely happened with the kids. I think it's fine to keep calling it French kissing, Storm was just pointing out the discrepency. Or at least that was my take.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: [QB] It has been argued extensively on this board that children do not 'understand' sex and sexual behavior like adults do. Do you or do you not agree with this?[italics added for clarity]
What I "hear" when I read this statement is that "children's behavior is not sexual because they do not have an adult understanding of sexuality; i.e, it may look sexual, but it isn't" not that "children may not have an adult's understanding of sexuality, but their behavior may still be driven by their own sexuality." This, too, is the difference that comes out for me in "just confused."
I'm not trying to trap you -- honest. I'm trying to be clear about what I do and do not agree with. Which is what you mean by the italics, or is it something altogether different?
It’s the second.
See below regarding ‘just confused’.
quote:
quote:Please don't be angry, but I don't really believe you.
I understand that, thus the apology above. It is meant sincerely.
quote:I do appreciate the olive branch, and of course, I too, apologize for adding to the mix. Perhaps we can both strive to work harder to more clearly communicate in the future.
Always a good goal. [Smile]
quote:Giving me a few bits of research wouldn't be anything like a comprehensive overview of what, from what I understand as a layman, is an incredibly politicized and partisan field of study.
I am in a similar dilemma as above. On one interpretation, I can agree with this -- on another (specifically, another connotation), I wouldn't. That is, the field isn't a free-for-all. There are areas of controversy, but there are also generally acknowledged expert resources, developmental milestones, and behavior characteristics by age group.
For example, toddlers masterbate. This is normal behavior. It is not "understood" by them in the same way it is "understood" by adults who masterbate***, but it is nonetheless sexual. It is self-pleasure. That is highly disconcerting for me to come to terms with, and I think it is for most people. I think most people don't know about it, actually, in part because we don't discuss it. I think we would prefer to call it "not really sexual behavior, even if it looks like it," or as "they don't know what they are doing." Well, they don't have a theory about it, but doubtlessly it feels good, and that is why they do it.
It's not disconcerting to me at all, as my mother has a degree in childhood education and was manager of a daycare for many years, so our dinner table conversations were often quite different than other households. All this to say that I've known that toddlers masturbate and hump/pleasure each other on occasion for some time.
As well, I grew up reading what I wanted to read, which sometimes meant the 'New Wave', very sexual SF authors like Harlan Ellison, Samuel R. Delaney, and John Varley.
So, there isn't a lot that is shocking for me in sex. I dont' say this as some kind of 'gotcha' or badge or anything, just to give a kind of frame of reference for me.
(By the way, I also grew up deeply, deeply, deeply involved in religion, so this doesn't mean that I don't get embarrassed. I do. Shocking is a different matter, though. )
In any case, we are speaking here, it seems to me, of what is normal and healthy, almost entirely in a social sense, though the biological does, of course, come in.
A such, we are speaking of what actions are appropriate; when; what they mean, not in the context of the absolutely quantifiable and measurable, but in the context of what is subjectively and emotionally qualifiable and, thus, there is a large degree of subjectivity for a lot of reasons regarding what and when are 'normal' and 'healthy', both because those who are doing the measuring have strong feelings about the subject and because those doing the relating do, too.
So, what would your literature really say about what the little boy did? Even assuming that he did, in fact, hold the little girl's head and french kiss her for reasons of sexual gratification, in what way is this absolutely bad or good, healthy or unhealthy? 1 unit of naughtiness to 2 units of loneliness? 5 units of passion to 95 units of curiosity? Is there a cross section of 11 year old french kissers that we can compare in the same situation and such that the comparison is predictive and presecriptive? I don’t see it. This may be one of those things where you could educate me, though I would guess that what your literature would say, because it seems to me that that is all that can almost certainly really be objectively said, is that most 11 year olds are *here*, but what would this mean in this individual little boy's case? What conclusions could we honestly draw at this distance that aren't perfectly obvious to the lay person, ie that he isn't in sync with what is 'normal'? That he is confused about what is appropriate?
I get that there are certain trigger behaviors that indicate that certain things *may* have happened and to be on the lookout for. I get that there are certain living arrangements and life backgrounds which *often* lead to certain behaviors but, again, at this distance, what does it all really mean without knowing the little boy?
quote:
And it is generally accepted in the field that the typical 8-to-9 year old is becoming increasingly aware of his or her own sexuality, as well as being well aware of taboos (as noted by Amaneucer earlier). To say this isn't an adult awareness could mean "it isn't really an awareness at all (just confusion)," or "it is a true awareness that should be respected and acknowledged as it develops," or anywhere in between.
True. It would seem to me that all that can be said is that the person isn't doing what most 11 year olds do, that they are confused as to what is appropriate. Again that word. I think confusion is a perfectly good, neutral word to describe the situation that we are discussing. Do you think there is a better one or is it just that it needed elaboration?
I get the feeling that I’m missing something, that something needs elaboration…..
What I’m trying to say is that it’s perfectly possible, if not probable, the kid didn’t understand either that what he did was wrong because he is a child or the depth of the wrongness as he would as an adult. Which you’ve acknowledged yourself….
I think part of what I’m responding to in your posts is the very strong feeling that, even though I’m sure you wouldn’t dream of saying it directly, you are operating under the belief that this is a ‘bad kid’. Something about the way you talk about him raised my hackles. To be honest, I get this feeling about a lot of what you write—that something is ‘bad’.
I totally loathe long, extended debates about what the meaning of ‘is’ is, so to speak, so I don’t want to debate what you’ve written with you, and Bob knows I could very well be wrong. I guess the bottom line is that I have a really strong dislike of looking at things through a conflict perspective, and there are aspects of your posts that, to me, seem like they sometimes don’t look at both sides of an issue because you see, know there is, a victim that needs help and you want to save them. It makes it really hard for me to trust what you’re saying because I totally see you not as someone who is dispassionately looking for truth, but as someone who is out to save the world.
What sucks is that there really isn’t a way for you to rebut this in words. Hrm.
Again, I will try to be more conscious of how I approach your posts and be fair to them.
quote: quote:I do take comfort in the fact that all the other links you've shown to educate me, both on and outside the board, have supported what I've said, though. So, I know that the experts agree with me every now and then, and I'm not totally out of line in the opinions that I've had.
Strom, I'm not sure what you are saying. That is, I agree you are very smart, well-informed, and often right about things (!), but I don't know whether your referent in this paragraph for "what I've said" and "the opinions I've had" is for pediatric things in general, other things in general, or whether these specifically refer to the claims made in this thread. Help me?
I get the feeling that there is some level of disagreement between you and I over what the 11 year old kid should know, sexually, as to how naughty french kissing, licking, whatever is. That is, your totally comment that “Indeed. Some judgments are also based on more evidence than others, no?” and others lead me to believe that you don’t believe that some of my comments have merit. I guess I’m just being Mr. Passive-Aggressive myself and asserting that, hey, I’ve been right before! Could be, again!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I don't share your interpretation of Storm's post. I think he is questioning the eye-witness account, not the definition of french-kissing or of victim.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Puts head in hands after reading some of what's come after in this thread while he was writing*
I never thought I would say this, but I am so burnt out on serious threads. God bless America, give me fluff. Lovely, vacuous fluff.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's Amancer's interpretation of his post - I never questioned the definition of French-kissing.
Is there really a question as to whether or not the tonguing took place? I didn't get that impression at all.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I am just trying to put imagine myself in the situation needsadvice described, parsing what she wrote, and not seeing things necessarily pointing to 'french kiss'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Further, how did you get your first french kiss? If, like me, your partner didn't announce that they were going to do it, and you had no idea what was happening, it felt kind of icky and weird and you pulled your head back. It wasn't something you wanted more of at that time.
You know what I sometimes did when I was a kid? Pretended. I pretended I was a dog, or an ape, or a cat, or whatever. When I pretended I was those things, I would run around and really *be* those things. When I was a dog, I would wag my 'tail', bark, and lick people. Not sexually, because I didn't really have much of an understanding of sex, *despite* the fact that in retrospect I was a sexual creature, but just because playing was fun. I might have, in the throes of playing with another child, licked her on the mouth or the nose or something because there was, in fact, nothing to it.
I have such a fear that the same thing is happening here. I guess part of my empathy for the child is a kind of 'There but for the grace of god go I'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I can sympathize with the desire for fluff now. I have my head in my hands, too.
I don't want to leave it like this, but I do want to be accomodating (but I don't want that to be passive-aggressive). That is, I have no strong desire to debate details (or defend my honor ) at this point, but I am willing to continue discussion about 1) the literature, 2) this case, or 3) me. (I mean that literally, by the way -- if as a poster I am exceedingly annoying to you, I am happy to discuss it. I am also well aware of many of my faults, though less aware of others.)
On the other hand, if none of this is productive or interesting at this point, I'm perfectly willing to let your last post stand as an end to our discussion. I may not be overjoyed to read it, but it certainly can stand on its own merits. (Which is not to be passive-aggressive, just an acknowledgment that your words don't have to be interpreted by me to be of their own merit.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really appreciate what CT and Icarus said about people projecting themselves into this situation and I think it has a lot of merit.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's one of the reasons I have referred to this as an "emotionally-laden" or "tense" topic. It seems prone to raise up all sorts of associated reactions.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It occurs to me that what I said might be taken to imply that those more sympathetic with the young man were themselves identifying with the desire to experiment sexually, or with those of less power, or what have you. It isn't what I intended.
By the way, I honestly didn't think that was what you intended. I just wanted to separate myself from the inference.
-o-
Kwea, I think this situation is vastly different from the details you've shared with me about the situation your family dealt with. In that situation, there was a pattern of harmful behavior. In this situation, there is not; there is an isolated, harmless incident. In that other situation, the perpetrator was much closer to being an adult; in this one, the perpetrator is also absolutely a child. If we react to a child as if there is something wrong with him, he will believe that there is. If a child believes that there is something wrong with him, there will be. And that observation is one you can take to the bank.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not exceedingly annoying to me, CT. Everyone, and I mean everyone, on this board is annoying to me at one time or another, and you're no exception.
Conversely, I really enjoy everyone on this board at one time or another, and you're no exception.
All I was trying to do was examine how things had gotten to the state they had gotten to in this thread and part of that was examining my feelings about your posts and being honest with you about them. It's probably not the most productive thing in the world, but it's a bad habit I have, almost certainly an aspect of the whole add thing.
Do as you will with what I've written. It's up to you.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's just let it stand, then.* We can always pick up the discussion at another time if either of us get a wild hair.
For what it's worth, I do enjoy speaking with you as well. I also find everyone annoying at some point or another, particularly when I'm under additional stresses.
---
*This satisfies my own peculiar pleasure in self-laceration and abnegation. I am drawn to both a terribly high opinion of myself (including an unwarranted sense of high virtue, such as today, when I revel in clearing aside swathes of mundane paperwork -- good girl! Virtuous woman!) and a glee in self-recrimination. It isn't healthy or pleasant, but it is what it is. Oh, the glories of contradiction.
I encourage more people to be frank with me about my annoying habits, particularly in public. *grin
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: in this one, the perpetrator is also absolutely a child
I think that premise, is the one that is not totally agreed upon by the persons in this thread.
I think that the way the toddlers' parents are treating the parents of the 11 year old is the real problem. It appears that a lot of the interaction in the situation *has* been passive agressive between the adults. In other words the adults aren't behaving like adults. (Not that this is uncommon in families.) I am doubting the depth of closeness that was in the family to begin with, based on the brother's treatment of the mother etc. Maybe it *appeared* to be close, but if the relationships were actually healthy the family would have banded together to support each other emotionally, on the phone if nothing else while their children are "taking a break" from each other. Instead we see things fracturing apart, harm occuring to the grandparents generation, and lots of other "stuff" happening.
I think that this incident simply brought a lot of other family issues that were simmering under the surface to a head... well somewhat, cause the adults in the family are still exhibiting patterns of avoidance.
All of the parents involved have the primary duty towards their children. But maintaining healthy relationships with the other adults in the family should also be a priority, that isn't neglected while protecting the children.
In fact the children will be *better* protected with healthy communication taking place among the adults.
I'm not saying that the kids don't have issues that need to be dealt with, but the parental patterns aren't indcating a particularly healthy generation either.
I'm definitely unclear as to the adult expectations for the kid as well.
We have a child who is physically 11 year old but emotionally a 9 year old looking after 4 year olds. In general, I'd say an ordinary 11 year old would probably be up to the task. I'm not sure that, in general, 9 year olds are up to that same task. So how was the kid acutally percieved and treated?
An 11 year old with the emotions of a 9 year old, probably experiences unequal power in "peer" relationships already, because he doesn't quite match up with his peers. In other words more "normal" peer-on-peer experimentation isn't going to be within his grasp anyway. The physical disconnect between his growing body and his emotions make something like this considerably more likely to happen IMO. Of course that is 20/20 hindsight.
Trying to model or explain a relationship of balanced power will be difficult for this child. Especially because it's going to be hard for him to *experience* balanced power relationships with peers given his emotional delays. The behavior of the adult generation of this family doesn't lead me to believe that balanced power relationships have been adequately modelled there either, in order to give him a fighting chance to get it right anyway.
quote:First of all: parents should always follow their instincts in these situations.
I couldn't disagree more with this. Parents instincts in many situations can be really really bad. Many parents tend to overreact when they percieve a threat to their child. I see parents who justify hurtful, spiteful and genuinely selfish behavior on behalf of their children. I can't see that it is any more justifiable to hurt someone to benefit your child than to hurt someone to benefit yourself. If you are hurting other people, particularly other children, to protect your child then you need to seriously rethink your behavior.
I find the "I have to protect my child and to heck with everybody else" attitude to be extraordinarily selfish and am astonished that people who would never justify that sort of selfishness on their own behalf, will justify it on behalf of their children. What you teach your children when you do this is not simply that you love them, but that it is good for them to place their own needs and wants above the needs and desires of others.
That doesn't mean I think parents should expose their children to unneccesary risks to avoid hurting someone's feelings. I simply think that there is always a middle ground. In this case, it would seem completely reasonable to allow these children to continue to interact as long as they were never left without adult supervision. That arrangement is one which could work to benefit all the children and adults involved.
[ November 08, 2006, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to complain, because I've never watched an episode of Lost, and so I don't care, but I totally didn't parse that you meant a spoiler for the TV show titled Lost until afte I'd read it all, because "lost" is a fairly common word in its own right. I wasn't sure how a spoiler could be lost, until I figured the whole thing out. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
