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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
What Stormy said. I agree with him.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I agree with Storm.
Dogpile on SCOTT! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
<3 Storm Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Love on Scott, too, now.
<3 Scott.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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).
[ November 07, 2006, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
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
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Scott R.
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I totally agree with Scott R here.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jim-Me:
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Edit: This was to Scott
*You* can.
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Jim-Me:
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
All your posts seem to depend on the idea that some significant harm was done by the 11 year old, do they not?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think they reacted rationally.
Quantifiable harm done isn't a factor in my evaluation of the situation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with Jim.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
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 Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That was very sweet, Saephon. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'll just repeat myself from the other thread: I agree with Storm Saxon entirely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Does anyone disagree with anyone over anything any more?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I disagree with a lot of people here about a lot of things. I rarely discuss it anymore, though.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Scott, I thought it was clear by implication that I disagreed with you.
(Or were you joking?)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not joking.
Where do you disagree with me, Icarus?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Where to begin . . .
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Icarus:
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Further:
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.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Good grief.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, I'm trying to say that I doubt it happened for the reasons that I gave. Sorry for not expressing myself well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, yeah.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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?)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Facts all come with points of view. *shrug*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I dont' see that I said anything untowards, so I'm not clear on where this attitude is coming from.
While I do not see what attitude you are reacting to. I think CT has been perfectly reasonable and not at all passive-aggressive.
I have to assume that you are reading into her words something that (IMO) is simply not there.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.]
[ November 08, 2006, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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! Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
CT,
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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].
[ November 08, 2006, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.)
[ November 08, 2006, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
<amusing French kissing story>
I was always afraid to let boys French kiss me because I thought kissing with tongues was oral sex.
</amusing French kissing story>
-pH
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree with that premise. It's not French kissing unless it's mutual? That's the defense??
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yes, thank you, Icarus.
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'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: <amusing French kissing story>
I was always afraid to let boys French kiss me because I thought kissing with tongues was oral sex.
</amusing French kissing story>
-pH
And that stopped you? Oh, honey...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yes, Kat. Read her description.
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'.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I really appreciate what CT and Icarus said about people projecting themselves into this situation and I think it has a lot of merit.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I will be whoever you want with your annoying habits, CT. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Icarus said:
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.
All my opinion of course,
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Excellent points.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't see that it is any more justifiable to hurt someone to benefit your child than to hurt someone to benefit yourself.
I can, but I don't know how to explain it to somebody who doesn't already see it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Try MPH. If you can't explain it, perhaps it is because your wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find the "I have to protect my child and to heck with everybody else" attitude to be extraordinarily selfish.
LOST SPOILER!**
Its the main reason I despise Michael now in the 2nd-3rd season of Lost.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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. Posted by NeedAdvice (Member # 9852) on :
"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"
BannaOj - this is what hurts the most I think. That the relationship that I thought we all had is not. I used to think we had this really great family, we loved each other, supported each other etc. But I'm starting to wonder if it was really all I thought.
It is interesting. One brother doesn't really talk to me about it but was VERY upset (as he should be) but didn't want to try to talk to me because he didn't want to overreact. He wanted to get a little distance and evaluate as it went on. His wife explained all this. She acts nicer to me than the other sis-in-law. Granted I don't see her as much as the other anyway because they go to a different church but the feeling/vibe I get from her is more loving and concerned than the other. In fact after we first found out she made it a point to come over and see how I was handling things and said she wasn't as concerned about my son because she knew he would be okay given some time, counseling and maturity. She was more worried about me. That speaks volumes when I compare it to the behavior of the other sibling family involved.
This whole thing just sucks.
The counselor is very good though. They do a lot of talking and role-playing etc about boundaries and why they are important. He is very good with my son and it is helping a ton. I can see differences in his attitude in general.
Anyway. Just some more thoughts from the world of crazy. I think thats where I live now.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In the interest of full disclosure of where I'm coming from - the following post is by someone who has an intensely emotional response to this issue because of personal experience. You have been advised of my potential personal bias here.
quote: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.
I think that is an admirable goal to work toward, but I do believe in the short term it's not an overreaction for the parents of the girls to not want any contact with the 11 year old. I would, as a parent, err on the side of caution and not have contact with the 11 year old if I were one of those parents. I'm sorry if that ruffles feathers, but I just know that's how I'd react too. I would be willing to work toward re-establishing contact, especially since the 11 year old is getting therapy and treatment, but I would definitely suspend any contact, supervised or no, in the interim.
I honestly don't know what lengths I wouldn't go to to protect my kids from the hell, shame, and pain that go along with sexual abuse. Causing some family strife and problems with my siblings is definitely not something I'd balk at, though.
quote: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
I don't think this necessarily follows. I love my brother, dearly, but if he or his son ever abused one of my daughters I can assure you I'd cut off contact with him immediately before I'd put my girls at risk. I have a duty to protect them, and I KNOW, I KNOW what sexual abuse can do to a person. I
Doesn't mean I don't love my brother, just means that my duty and responsibility to my kids trumps that sibling relationship. Right or wrong, it just DOES.
That may be selfish, maybe some of you consider it an overreaction, but considering my own personal experience, I don't have a problem with the parents' actions in this at all.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Again, though, I don't believe any sexual abuse has occurred here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Me, either. Again, the whole thing just doesn't really add up in my head.
NA, I have a question. Did your son 'french kiss' the girl, or was he licking her on the lips in a playful way? Was he actually kissing them? Did anyone actually see what happened?
quote: During the course of playing he kissed the girls on the mouth with his tongue. Nothing else happened. My dad found them in the back yard and had a funny feeling so he talked to the two mom's and then came to me to tell me what happened.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Parents instincts in many situations can be really really bad. Many parents tend to overreact when they percieve a threat to their child.
And many parents don't. It's a lot better to err on the side of caution, and let your instinct be informed later.
In this case, there was not a 'perceived threat.' The threat, as has been pointed out, was actualized.
quote:
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.
And no one on this board has been arguing in favor of hurting one child to benefit another. Why do you address this point? It's completely disconnected from the thread.
quote: If you are hurting other people, particularly other children, to protect your child then you need to seriously rethink your behavior.
I've had occasion to think on my behavior. I come to the same conclusion: that the "hurt" that their child receives from being disassociated with my child (or family) is not nearly as great as the "hurt" my child receives by being introduced to sexual behavior before they are ready to understand it.
It has even been insinuated on this board that the boy's behavior is mitigated by the fact that the children he kissed will not remember the incident. SPEAKING TO THE LARGER POINT, AND NOT TO THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT: This is a fairly sickening point of view. I hope that those of you who have raised this opinion do not hold it as a general principle.
quote: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.
Specifically, the attitude of 'to heck with everybody else' has never been expressed here. 'To heck with the child that put my child in X situation,' has been, mildly, by me.
I don't find the attitude selfish at all. Before I dump on your opinion, I want to understand it a little better: do you mean to say that parents have the obligation to consider other children's FEELINGS as equal to their own children's PROTECTON?
quote: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.
Heck yes. In this realm of discussion, for this particular set of criteria: Good Lord in Heaven, may it always be so. I want my children to always place their beliefs on the privacy of their own bodies before the wants and needs of others.
Even if those others are just confused little boys.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just because the only thing that is known is the kissing on the mouth doesn't mean that is the only thing to ever have occurred. Now, I don't know the situation and I'm not making any judgment calls about something I'm not familiar with, I just know that as a parent, my fear would be that this isn't the only incident, just the only one we know about. So, my inclination would still be to suspend contact until I was completely confident that was the only thing that had ever happened.
Usually when sexual abuse is discovered the extent is far greater than first thought. It may be years before the whole truth is known. So, I would automatically assume there was more I didn't know about until it was proven otherwise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I want my children to always place their beliefs on the privacy of their own bodies before the wants and needs of others.
I completely agree.
I can't believe someone is saying that hurting someone's feelings by rejecting them is so heinous that a person should be willing to put their bodies and psyche in known danger to avoid doing it.
quote: Further, how did you get your first french kiss?
I was 18 years old and he asked my permission first. I would wish that experience for everyone - I never felt taken advantage of.
As long as we are projecting our experiences... I hated dating for years because I was told that I didn't have the right to make someone feel rejected by refusing to go on a date with them if they asked. I actually believed that, for which I want to kick the people who told me that. It made dating awful. On the other hand, fortunately, I never heard that my body as well as my time existed in order to make other people happy, so I have no hang-ups about that.
Discounting the harm that can happen, even from "just French-kissing" is enormously dangerous.
[ November 09, 2006, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: So, I would automatically assume there was more I didn't know about until it was proven otherwise.
As do many people. As have others on this board.
And *that* is precisely the problem -- some people are assuming this boy as, and treating him like, a sexual predator for something that, while definitely problematic behavior, has many other possibilities than "this boy is a sexual predator".
Stigmatizing an 11 year old like that is a sure way to ruin a life and may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm very glad that the boy has, apparently, a good counselor, because in addition to getting to the root of the behavior, the counselor should be able to help the boy deal with the rejection of his relatives.
These parents absolutely should be protecting their daughter. I reiterate that ostracizing this boy does not accomplish that in any significant way and does harm to the boy.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I can't believe someone is saying that hurting someone's feelings by rejecting them is so heinous that a person should be willing to put their bodies in psyche in known danger to avoid doing it.
Good thing no one is saying that, isn't it?
quote: Discounting the harm that can happen, even from "just French-kissing" is enormously dangerous.
Discounting the harm that can come from labeling an emotionally immature 11 year old as a sexual predator is, I would dare say, equally dangerous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The parents' first responsibility is to protect their children. That doesn't mean to ostracize the kid, but it does mean that cancelling events where the kids will come into contact without the parent being there is NOT over-reacting - even if it does make the 11-year-old feel bad.
In the choice between the 11-year-old feeling bad and placing one's own child in known danger, I can't believe there's even a question of what would be the responsible action.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So, my inclination would still be to suspend contact until I was completely confident that was the only thing that had ever happened.
Just out of curiosity, what and how long would that take? How could you ever really be confident?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
and, for full disclosure, while I have posted it publically here before-- yes I am projecting hugely into this situation. I have had the unfortunately probably-not-unique experience of being both children in this story. I was molested on several separate occasions by older children when I was a small child *and* I was punished and ostracized by my family for it.
And this brings up another point regarding protection. The danger of sexual predation is widespread. Keeping the boy away from them is not going to protect them from others. It sounds like it was "discovered" by an adult. The young girls need to be taught (and I'm not saying they haven't been... just emphasizing that this is very important) to speak up when someone approaches them in that way. They are likely too small to actually physically defend themselves, but they need to be taught to tell a parent about it right away.
edited to change bolded word
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That doesn't mean to ostracize the kid, but it does mean that cancelling events where the kids will come into contact without the parent being there is NOT over-reacting - even if it does make the 11-year-old feel bad.
That's not the action which has been described in the thread in question.
quote:In the choice between the 11-year-old feeling bad and placing one's own child in known danger, I can't believe there's even a question of what would be the responsible action.
And, again, you are the only one making that opposition. Quit building straw men *and* understating the messages being sent to the 11 year old. We are talking about far more than "making him feel bad" here.
Edit to add: To be clear, no one has suggested ignoring the situation or leaving the girls with the boy unsupervised. No one.
[ November 09, 2006, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Just out of curiosity, what and how long would that take? How could you ever really be confident?
I don't know. I would certainly make sure the first time the 11 yo was around my daughter again they were well supervised, and I would be hard pressed to ever let them be alone again.
I want to be clear that I don't want to label someone a sexual predator - I said fully that I didn't know the situation and I would never do that without full knowledge, which I can't get from a bulletin board. I just wanted to talk from the perspective of the parents, because I sensed some dogpiling on people who 1) aren't here to defend themselves 2) probably have a different view of the situation since there are 2 sides to every story and we're only hearing one and 3) probably just want to do what is best for their children.
quote:Stigmatizing an 11 year old like that is a sure way to ruin a life and may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not suggesting the child wear a scarlet "SP" on his shirt. I'm not suggesting you say to him "Your cousins can't play with you anymore because you're dangerous and nasty and evil." The mother in this situation needs to handle it properly, and personally I commend her for getting him counseling. I'm sure she's smart enough and creative enough to handle the explanations in a way that doesn't do lasting harm to her son, and most likely the counselor can help with that too.
But what I want to be clear about is this: whether or not the child turns out to be a sexual predator (and I certainly hope not and wish NeedsAdvice and her son all the best) is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the parents of those toddlers.
quote:The danger of sexual predation is widespread. Keeping the boy away from them is not going to protect them from others.
Of course. But just because they might be in danger from others doesn't mean you don't act to protect them from someone you have a strong reason to believe might be a danger in the here and now.
Question to others - if you balk at the parents treating this like a serious threat because the person doing the kissing was 11, how old would the kisser have to be before you'd consider the parents' actions appropriate? 16? 18? 20? 30? Never? Just curious.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:These parents absolutely should be protecting their daughter. I reiterate that ostracizing this boy does not accomplish that in any significant way and does harm to the boy.
I think that we're falling upon our own lack of information. It would be great to have the other parents' point of view so that they could defend their reasoning in this specific instance.
However, we DON'T have them here. And so, we have to debate the subject by proxy. This means debating possibilities that may have no connection with the actual, specific instance.
There COULD be more going on in the girls' parents' minds than just the kiss; they could feel that NA's family has always been a little off, and this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back. They could feel that everyone in the family kowtows to NA and her needy kid, and that it's time for someone to take a stand, and this is that time. They could be worried about NA and the things that her family would be doing to influence an eleven year old boy to tongue a four year old, and that's why they're ostracizing them at church.
Allowing the possibility that the girls' parents are reacting rationally is a big key to my argument. I feel that they mostly have acted rationally and reasonably-- but I allow that I may be filling in the blanks of their behavior with my own point of view.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I'm not suggesting you say to him "Your cousins can't play with you anymore because you're dangerous and nasty and evil."
But *they* are, from what we've been told, saying that. Maybe not in as many words, but by refusing contact with the entire family, they are saying "what you did was so wrong, we're not even going to sit next to your family in church or let you come to the concert with a 10 year old and 4 adults (to cite specific examples).
quote:But what I want to be clear about is this: whether or not the child turns out to be a sexual predator (and I certainly hope not and wish NeedsAdvice and her son all the best) is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the parents of those toddlers.
No it isn't. But he is their nephew and they can contribute to the problem or contribute to the solution. Right now their purported behavior is contributing to the problem.
quote:But just because they might be in danger from others doesn't mean you don't act to protect them from someone you have a strong reason to believe might be a danger in the here and now.
Treating the family as pariahs does nothing to protect the children. Again, NO ONE is suggesting that they be left unprotected.
quote:Question to others - if you balk at the parents treating this like a serious threat because the person doing the kissing was 11, how old would the kisser have to be before you'd consider the parents' actions appropriate? 16? 18? 20? 30? Never? Just curious.
Good question. First, let me restate, again, that I absolutely *do* think the parents should treat this as a serious threat. Taking the threat seriously does not preclude-- in fact it more nearly *demands*-- treating the 11 year old with compassion and understanding to get to the root of the behavior and change it.
Now I'll answer your question with a question: at what age are you willing to just give up on the child and hand him over as irrecoverable?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think that we're falling upon our own lack of information.
Absolutely. I am choosing to address what information we have been given without making suppositions about what we don't know about NA and what her family feels.
NA can't give us the complete picture. She herself has said there is more to the family's situation than this incident. However, since we have no knowledge of what else *is* involved, I think it better to deal with what we do know than speculate about what we don't.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I can't believe someone is saying that hurting someone's feelings by rejecting them is so heinous that a person should be willing to put their bodies and psyche in known danger to avoid doing it.
quote:In the choice between the 11-year-old feeling bad and placing one's own child in known danger, I can't believe there's even a question of what would be the responsible action.
These are rather severe and insulting distortions of the opinions expressed in this thread. If we can't stick to people's actual posted opinions and to the merits of this situation, then this thread isn't worth the time I've been putting into it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:at what age are you willing to just give up on the child and hand him over as irrecoverable?
Never. But keep in mind that I'm not posting from Needs Advice's perspective. I don't need to think about what her views or her side is, she's here and can do that herself. I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of the people we're not hearing from but that people are plenty willing to speak badly about - the parents of the toddlers. Like Scott said, I'm assuming they are rational and are doing what they think is right and I think the vitriol expressed in their direction is over the top. I could be wrong - perhaps they are all jerks who just hate this 11 year old and think he deserves to be made into a pariah. I rather doubt it though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:These are rather severe and insulting distortions of the opinions expressed in this thread. If we can't stick to people's actual posted opinions and to the merits of this situation, then this thread isn't worth the time I've been putting into it.
As long as this sort of civility is extended to people on both sides of the argument, then I agree.
I'd love to have my opinions actually discussed in terms of what I said rather than what you all think I said.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. I don't think it is appropriate to, say, avoid the family at church.
2. I think not allowing the daughter to go to the concent is completely appropriate.
I am very leery of any suggestion that someone should consider someone else's feelings over their own safety or the safety of their children. I don't think ostracizing is a good thing, but if that's the inevitable result of not allowing their children to be around him, then it's unfortunate but the parents aren't to blame for that.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Like Scott said, I'm assuming they are rational and are doing what they think is right and I think the vitriol expressed in their direction is over the top.
I don't believe that saying that someone is "overreacting" is vitriolic.
As I said to Scott, I prefer to work with the information we do have, rather than speculate. I can totally assume that the parents are doing what they think is right, but to assume that *any* parent would be rational when confronted with a molestation of *their* child might be a stretch. This is admittedly deeply colored by my own experiences. I have no doubt my parents thought what they did to me was "right". I also have no doubt that, even in 1972, had the authorities found out about what they did I would have been removed from their custody.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 1. I don't think it is appropriate to, say, avoid the family at church.
2. I think not allowing the daughter to go to the concent is completely appropriate.
Thank you for clarifying.
quote:I am very leery of any suggestion that someone should consider someone else's feelings over their own safety or the safety of their children.
For the third time, I have yet to see anyone make that suggestion and, as Icarus points out, it's a pretty damning accusation to make. Can you cite what you are speaking about?
Scott, you may have been misunderstood in this thread, but likewise, I have yet to see anyone characterize you as saying anything remotely as offensive as "it's more important that an 11 year boy old feel good about himself than a 4 year old girl be protected from unwanted sexual behavior."
Posted by NeedAdvice (Member # 9852) on :
Someone asked if anyone had seen what happened and the answer is no. Honestly I can't even remember exactly what the mother that speaks to me says her daughter told her. I highly doubt it was french kissing as most adults think of it but no one really knows because none of us saw it. My 11yo has talked to his dad about it (he doesn't talk to me much unfortunately - which is not unusual because many children feel more comfortable with one parent over the other) and he says he kissed them but thats it.
Anyway. I'm too emotionally exhausted to try to think through all the various points and questions. I know my brother's perspective is different than mine and it did help to see those perspectives through the eyes of others. I also appreciate the people who tried to take a balanced approach and those approaching it from my perspective. Its a terrible situation and if I could ever go back in time I'd do anything to prevent it. But I can't and there isn't anything I can do to make it better short of making sure my kid is okay.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jim:
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.
This might be some of the vitriol that Belle is addressing. There's a lot of it in the other thread. (*I* wouldn't call it vitriolic, personally; I'd call it misinformed, or uninformed, or unsympathetic)
Jim, no offense, but I'm not sure how your situation is analogous to NA's son's-- you were the offended, not the offender; and we don't know whether NA's brother is punishing his daughters for the actions of their cousin. Can you explain why you feel it is analogous?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've avoided posting on this because I think most people have made good points - Scott, CT, Storm, Jim-Me, and several others. I think the truth of the matter contains elements from all the points these people have presented and don't feel capable of synthesizing a coherent statement.
I will say that I will not fault parents for making a decision to keep their children away from another child who has raised warning flags of this type, even if the facts as presented would not raise those flags with me. I trust intuition greatly and think it a valid way to measure risk, even with its known inaccuracies. To the extent the criticisms of the parents' decisions arise from "we don't know what the situation is or the amount of risk" I think those criticisms are invalid. (Note: Storm and others, I don't think this is the extent of your criticisms and I think there is validity in the remaining portion. I am commenting on a small portion of them.)
That said, the concerns raised by Jim-Me and others about ostracization are very valid. Discretion is the minimum duty of one acting on intuition against potential threats, because there's a difference between simply exercising one's inherent right to choose with whom to associate and spreading information which cannot be substantiated about the person who has raised warning flags. I also think, without proof of actual threat, that the costs of avoidance should be borne by the worried parents, not the remainder of the extended family.
In a family setting, when certain choices of avoidance are not really optional or would convey information that could be ostracizing, the duty is on the parents to minimize the intrusiveness of their avoidance. For example, at a wedding, keeping the 4 year olds in sight the entire time would prevent risk. Making attendance conditional on the other boy not being invited would be wrong.
I even agree that supervised visits are likely a good idea, although with my own child I would possibly wait until I received some reassurances from progress in a therapy. However, I won't fault the parents, who have far more information than we have, for disagreeing with that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Try MPH. If you can't explain it, perhaps it is because your wrong.
You didn't exactly explain your position. You stated your basic opinion - "I can't see that it is any more justifiable to hurt someone to benefit your child than to hurt someone to benefit yourself" - in several forms, but the only actual reason you gave for that opinion was this:
quote: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.
Granted, it's true that this is more support for your opinion than MPH gave for his. He was very up front about his rhetorical capabilities in this regard. But you shouldn't act as if this is an explanation that gives your opinion any more credibility than MPH's. For example, there's not even an attempt to weigh this harm against other possible harms in the general sense. You've presented a comparison that applies to the specific situation, but that's no more detailed than statements made by MPH and others throughout this thread.
So perhaps before you take MPH's admission of rhetorical limitation as evidence for the superiority of your opinion on the matter you should examine whether you've actually met the standard you're applying to his opinion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Someone asked if anyone had seen what happened and the answer is no. Honestly I can't even remember exactly what the mother that speaks to me says her daughter told her. I highly doubt it was french kissing as most adults think of it but no one really knows because none of us saw it. My 11yo has talked to his dad about it (he doesn't talk to me much unfortunately - which is not unusual because many children feel more comfortable with one parent over the other) and he says he kissed them but thats it.
Interesting. This comes across as different than what you had put before. I'm not sure if it impacts how I see the situation or not.
But, just so I understand, you're saying that no one actually saw it, and that the four year old told someone about it?
quote: Anyway. I'm too emotionally exhausted to try to think through all the various points and questions. I know my brother's perspective is different than mine and it did help to see those perspectives through the eyes of others. I also appreciate the people who tried to take a balanced approach and those approaching it from my perspective. Its a terrible situation and if I could ever go back in time I'd do anything to prevent it. But I can't and there isn't anything I can do to make it better short of making sure my kid is okay.
Things will work out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I don't believe that saying that someone is "overreacting" is vitriolic.
More has been said that merely that they were over-reacting.
Storm Saxon said what they did was
quote:ten times worse than what he did, and they should be ashamed.
They've been accused of "screwing up" their nephew:
quote:Well, if you were one of the adult siblings in question, then you are actively taking a hand in screwing up a little kid.
Their position has been called extreme, judgmental, and ugly.
quote:But it doesn't have to be done in an extreme, judgmental, and ugly fashion.
I won't repost Rabbit's statements because they've already been reposted, but she insinuated they were selfish and compared them to parents she said were spiteful and hurtful.
And Jim-Me, you yourself referred to the fact that they could be potentially stimatizing a boy and that it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I know you didn't mean it this way, that could be misconstrued as meaning that the parents of the toddlers would be in some way to blame if the boy does become a sexual predator.
Also, I have a hard time seeing what is the real crime here on the part of NA's family. NA said the one brother had already been curtailing his activities with the family before this ever happened, so his avoidance of her family may well be unrelated, it apparently started before this incident.
quote:Its hard to explain how we are being shunned. One brother and sister in particular will see us at church and not sit with us - despite sitting with us all the time before this. They avoid us if possible. If I bump into the moms at the library a look passes between them before they come sit with me at storytime...
So they don't sit next to you at church...maybe they have some new friends at church they'd rather sit with? Maybe they looked askance at each other because they didn't like the dress you were wearing that day at the library. Maybe they were planning to sit somewhere else and your arrival put them in an awkward situation that had nothing to do at all with the incident. You don't know for sure, and because you're hurt and upset by what happened, you may be hyper-sensitive right now and YOU may be over-reacting.
Again, we have one side of the story only. I really don't think the parents of the toddlers deserve some of the things that have been said about them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reading through this thread, I keep thinking, "but he's their nephew! And he's only eleven!"
I've been trying to imagine how my family would handle something like this. One thing I can be sure of is that we wouldn't split apart. It would be a problem for all of us to solve together, to talk about frankly. All of us would be involved in whatever counseling happen with the nephew, all of us would be involved in supervising the kids. I can't imagine anything that would make me stop seeing my nieces or nephews. Certainly not something that, while potentially harmful, doesn't seem to be malicious.
I don't think that my family is unusually close, but we were all raised to know that nothing we could ever do would be bad enough to make our family stop loving us. We do, I think, have an advantage in that conversations about wierd or sexual stuff - or anything really - has always been fair game.
I don't mean to sound preachy or smug here. As I said, I don't think my family is unusual - but I do think that this note of "family" has been missing from this conversation.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Jim, no offense, but I'm not sure how your situation is analogous to NA's son's-- you were the offended, not the offender; and we don't know whether NA's brother is punishing his daughters for the actions of their cousin. Can you explain why you feel it is analogous?
None taken.
I was complicit and unresisting. I didn't know what I was doing or the significance of it (things strongly suggested by NA's description of the story). So, from my perspective, it wasn't a violation but something *I* did. So when my parents spanked me and told me what I did was wrong I received a strong message that there was something inherently evil and ugly about me-- the same messages NA's son is getting when a favored uncle refuses to spend time with him or his family, even in public places like church. In fact, the messages NA's son is getting are probably stronger because he was, without question the aggressor in this case and because it's a persistent, long term snubbing (over 4 months now) that extends beyond him (I would not be surprised if, even though he's emotionally immature, he is sensitive enough to realize his mother is suffering because of what he did, as well).
My punishment was pretty much it-- a lecture the first time, a spanking and a lecture the second time, and a few hours of being stuck in my room for being bad both times. The only long term punishment was that I was forbidden to play with the older boy again, which didn't stop him and others from catching me on the way to Kindergarten and further molesting me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Some good points Belle, up to here--
quote:Originally posted by Belle: So they don't sit next to you at church...maybe they have some new friends at church they'd rather sit with? Maybe they looked askance at each other because they didn't like the dress you were wearing that day at the library. Maybe they were planning to sit somewhere else and your arrival put them in an awkward situation that had nothing to do at all with the incident. You don't know for sure, and because you're hurt and upset by what happened, you may be hyper-sensitive right now and YOU may be over-reacting.
I said I was trying to avoid speculating, but if I *was* going to speculate on unknowns like the mindset of the other family I would think it very unlikely that they had other reasons for behaving like this suddenly come up after their daughter had been violated (which, one more time, for clarity's sake, IMO she was).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jim-me:
I think the way that you were treated as a child was terrible. You should not have been blamed or punished. You should have been protected from the offender.
The boy's uncle, in NA's situation, has the opportunity to help the boy. He could ameliorate the situation by socializing and building the child up. From my virtual perspective, it'd be a Great Hearted Thing to do.
But I don't know that I'm comfortable condemning him for not doing it. And I do not blame him at all for keeping his daughters away from the boy.
************
[EDIT]"You should have been protected from the offender." It's not enough, certainly, to remove you from the situation where you were, or could be, molested. "Protection" in this case, means additionally, that the child has confidence in his parents' love; assurance that they will never abandon him, physically, mentally, emotionally, etc; that the child is given the support and education to defend himself.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Jim-Me, I agree it's highly likely that the reason they're doing those things is the incident, but I wanted to point out that speculation can work in both directions.
And, I probably didn't make this as clear as I meant to, but I would not describe such actions as shunning. Shunning would be, when NA was spotted in the library, the family turning their backs and walking out. What should be noted is that NA is not saying her family did not sit with her at the library, only that a look passed between them first. A look is shunning? I don't think so. *
I would think the family members were being over the top toward NA if they would have gotten up, announed to the library - her son is a pervert! and then stormed out. They didn't do anything close to that. They sat with her...that isn't shunning. And honestly, my own husband and I don't always sit next to each other in church because we're busy doing other things or get caught up talking to other people, I don't think seating arrangements in pews are something to get too riled up about.
* Edit to add: Not that a look can't be harmful, I'm sure it is and I'm sorry NA feels hurt by her family. But a look is not that unbelievable of a response here, I'm sure the other family members do feel uncomfortable. It sounds like they are being reasonable, mature adults because even if they're uncomfortable enough to share a look between them, they still obviously care about their relationships with NA because they do sit with her. If they were simply writing off NA and her son completely, then they probably would truly shun them, not share a look and then sit down.
[ November 09, 2006, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*points up* what kmb said.
quote: I am very leery of any suggestion that someone should consider someone else's feelings over their own safety or the safety of their children.
I don't think that is what anyone is saying.
I think what is being advocated is that they should consider 1)the saftey of their children *and* 2)the feelings of other family members.
Neglecting #2, in this case, appears to work to the detriment of goal #1.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(double post) AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Neglecting #2, in this case, appears to work to the detriment of goal #1.
How?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe it is because I do NOT see the girls' parents as equally responsible for their nephew as they are to their daughters. It is good to be all part of that family, but I don't think it is a failing on their part to think of their daughters first, and to possibly go overboard in their protection of her.
So, condemning them for not paying as much attention to the boy as to their own child seems off to me. They aren't under any obligation to.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:So, condemning them for not paying as much attention to the boy as to their own child seems off to me.
I've lost count, but I'd guess this is the fourth or fifth time that someone has had to point out to you that no one has said that.
Do you not get that you keep hammering an argument against a point not a single person has made?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think we are going to disagree on that, kat. I love my nieces and nephews. It isn't a question of obligation or responsibility. I am not going to stop loving them, no matter what they do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As Stormy taken back what he said earlier about shunning because worse than the original incident?
Of course you keep loving your nieces and nephews - I'm not advocating that anyone not. I am saying that if there has to be a choice - and there may be in their minds - I'm not going to condemn a parent for choosing their own child's safety.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am not going to stop loving them, no matter what they do.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that, either.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
JT:
Storm Saxon and others here have faulted the brother's family for not socializing as they did before, with the boy.
That's what I think katharina is addressing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that saying that the parents aren't "under any obligation" to consider their nephew is an odd way to talk about someone who you love. Love, to me, would be stronger motivation to consider him than obligation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am saying that if there has to be a choice - and there may be in their minds - I'm not going to condemn a parent for choosing their own child's safety.
I think you guys (kmb and kat) are cross-posting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots, did you bother reading what I said? I didn't say they weren't under obligation to pay attention, but that they aren't obligation to pay as much attention as they do to their own child.
There is a huge gulf there. If you're upset about something you feel I am not addressing, then misquoting me is not the way to fix that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that saying that the parents aren't "under any obligation" to consider their nephew is an odd way to talk about someone who you love.
That's not what she said. She said they aren't under any obligation to "pay[] as much attention to the boy as to their own child."
Very different than having no obligation to the boy at all.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Storm Saxon and others here have faulted the brother's family for not socializing as they did before, with the boy.
That's what I think katharina is addressing.
That may be her intent, but it's not what she's saying. She's saying she doesn't expect anyone to value a nephew over a child -- no one even intimated otherwise.
I know you see the difference between this:
quote:So, condemning them for not paying as much attention to the boy as to their own child seems off to me.
this,
quote: I am very leery of any suggestion that someone should consider someone else's feelings over their own safety or the safety of their children.
and what you said. And I would hope she does, too.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:These are rather severe and insulting distortions of the opinions expressed in this thread. If we can't stick to people's actual posted opinions and to the merits of this situation, then this thread isn't worth the time I've been putting into it.
As long as this sort of civility is extended to people on both sides of the argument, then I agree.
I'd love to have my opinions actually discussed in terms of what I said rather than what you all think I said.
Different people's opinions on this thread are nuanced, as I acknowledged earlier, and it's easy to get specifics mixed up, and attribute to you a view that someone else has expressed, or simply believe you expressed something that you did not. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I have done this to you. However, has your view been distorted into something vile? Has it been suggested that you oppose preventing children from being raped? That you believe victims of sexual crimes are in fact to blame? That you are in favor of casually endangering children? I have not seen where your point of view, or that of anybody who has agreed with you, has been distorted in such an ugly manner. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone on both sides has agreed that there should be supervision from now on, and counseling for the child (though we don't all agree on why there should be). What we seem to disgaree about is how much supervision of this boy's interactions is necessary, whether this boy deserves to be completely cut off from his "victim," and whether the parents of the toddler have behaved in an ugly manner in other social situations, such as the incident in church. Those are the areas of disagreement I have seen. Where does someone (who debates in good faith) get from any of those that we would ask our children to subjugate their bodies for the sake of not hurting someone's feelings?! Frankly, the more I think and write about it, the more pissed off I get. The idea that I personally am insensitive to sexual abuse and not interested in preventing it is outrageous. Where have you been smeared thus?
Frankly, the people in agreement with me seem to have some criticisms for the parents of the toddlers, whom we admittedly do not know. The people in agreement with you seem to also have criticisms for us, whom you do know, albeit only virtually. And that has actually not changed since I made my post that you quoted, although the specific thrusts of the criticisms we have received has. (And our views are still being misconstrued, deliberately, I believe, to reflect as negatively on us as possible.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that in this family's response, there has been a lack of what I would consider normal family behaviour/feeling. I don't get the feeling that anyone in that family except NA, is heartbroken about not seeing their nephew. If my nephew (God forbid) was sick enough to become a serial killer, I would still love him, write to him, pray for him, visit him, grieve for him.
And kat, I am not upset. I understand that you are not claiming that the family has no obligation to consider the boy - just less obligation to consider him. What I am saying is that "obligation" strikes me as an odd word to use when taling about or actions toward those we love. "Obligation" doesn't factor into it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I am very leery of any suggestion that someone should consider someone else's feelings over their own safety or the safety of their children.
Those remarks, I believe, were made to counter arguments similar to Rabbits':
quote: 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.
and
quote: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.
and
quote: 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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Many remarks have been made, and continue to be made, that I find distorting. And in the absence of a clear target, my natural presumption is they apply to all of those whom the writer is arguing with. *shrug* It sounds like you don't agree with my complaint, or you do feel that the same mischaracterization of you has occurred.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Icarus--
I want a clear, clean discussion.
I'm not going to try to argue who's more offended by having their POV misunderstood and vomited back all over them.
I acknowledge that distortion has occurred on both sides.
I'm committed to making sure that *I* don't do it.
Is that enough for the two of us to continue talking about this topic?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Jim-me:
I think the way that you were treated as a child was terrible. You should not have been blamed or punished. You should have been protected from the offender.
Scott, thank you for saying so. The really sad part is that it took me 30 years to figure that out.
This is why I am so sensitive to the remarks and attitudes towards the boy. Not because he is beyond blame or punishment, but because these kinds of things can and do affect people for lifetimes. Away from the situtation, with an *empathic* description of it, we have people showing prejudices against him. Belle has flatly stated that she assumes there is more damning behavior that hasn't been revealed yet. Your own remark was flip and retracted, but the underlying attitude behind it is there in the population at large and I would bet large amounts of dollars to donuts that the boy is feeling it, if not hearing it, outright.
Any hint of sexual predation or even "deviancy" in our society is greeted with horror and, often, violence. I firmly believe that has a lot to do with why it remains such a hidden and secretive crime and why victims often feel stigmatized as well.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I'm always late to threads.
It's possible that some of the "barrier" to understanding here is exactly what kmboots is addressing: families are different. I can't conceive of not being part of my nephew's life. I even breastfed him. My sister's kids, they are like mine — at a slight remove. At camp this summer with all of our kids, my sister and I had some really really difficult conversations about how to make vacation work for our two 15 year olds, both with bipolar. My beloved nephew sometimes scares me. Males with bipolar seem dangerous — ARE dangerous — when they are raging. So we had some hard conversations about making everyone feel safe and BE safe, conversations where we were both teary and refusing to look at each other.
But … this boy is of me and mine. I don't remember who said they had the right to keep their tribe safe. Some of us self-identify a larger tribe than others. That's not to say we are right or you are right; it's just a barrier to understanding that I don't think people are seeing.
When I think of my tribe, my nephew is PART of it. Does that make sense?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Any hint of sexual predation or even "deviancy" in our society is greeted with horror and, often, violence. I firmly believe that has a lot to do with why it remains such a hidden and secretive crime and why victims often feel stigmatized as well.
You may be right.
I don't really see myself as capable of being able to mentor someone who abused my child. I may be able to forgive-- hopefully I'll never face this situation-- but for now, I think assisting the abuser is beyond my capacity.
I recognize that NA's situation may not be one of outright, definite sexual abuse. I don't think I'd react as her brother has done, given the same circumstances of family closeness and habit.
EDIT: for clarity's sake, by "assisting the abuser," I mean to say, "helping the abuser/offender become normal, happy, and stop the abusive behavior." I was not implying that mentoring the abuser is equal to assisting him in abusing more children.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you, Sharpie. That is what I was trying to say. I wish all the best for your "tribe" in what must be difficult circumstances.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's a lot better to err on the side of caution, and let your instinct be informed later.
Better for whom? Once again I find this to be a very self centered attitude. Children who are very close to me, who I feel a responsibility to protect, have been deeply hurt by self righteous parents who just wanted to protect their children
As a Christian, I am certain that the commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves must include loving our neighbors children as we love our own children. While I understand that ones stewardship for ones own children is unique, when parent instincts justify hurting others to protect their children then those instincts are immoral, particularly when the parent refuses to consider alternatives that are less hurtful.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Better for whom? Once again I find this to be a very self centered attitude. Children who are very close to me, who I feel a responsibility to protect, have been deeply hurt by self righteous parents who just wanted to protect their children
Did those parents let their instincts become better informed later? You seem to be assuming that Scott's maxim can't be done without hurting others or being self-righteous. I think that's an untenable assumption.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't feel that a parent has as much obligation to a nephew as they do to their own child. There is certainly some obligation, but nothing close to the obligation they have to their own child. If any way their own child is put in danger by being around another kid, even if the kid is the nephew, then I think it is the parent's responsibility to protect their own kid.
Even if it makes the nephew feel bad.
No shunning the whole family, no shouting the reasons, no taking it out on the grandparents, but I reject the idea that the girls' parents are remiss for staying away if they feel their own children would be in danger otherwise.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To address Scott R's question to me from the previous page... Me:
quote:I think what is being advocated is that they should consider 1)the saftey of their children *and* 2)the feelings of other family members.
Neglecting #2, in this case, appears to work to the detriment of goal #1.
ScottR:
quote: How?
I believe that open communication and discussion of the issues between the *adults* involved will lead to better protection for *all* of the children involved in this situation. However that open discussion cannot take place without consideration for the feelings of all family members.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rabbit:
I want you to know I've seen your post. I'm unable to respond civilly right now.
AJ:
That makes sense.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
katharina:
quote:No shunning the whole family, no shouting the reasons, no taking it out on the grandparents, but I reject the idea that the girls' parents are remiss for staying away if they feel their own children would be in danger otherwise.
I agree. Would you then agree that the girl's parents are being remiss, not as parents, but as family members and human beings for the bolded bit above?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Need Advice:
quote: BannaOj - this is what hurts the most I think. That the relationship that I thought we all had is not. I used to think we had this really great family, we loved each other, supported each other etc. But I'm starting to wonder if it was really all I thought.
*hugs* Been there. Done that. Have the T-shirt.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just to throw this out, and I am not trying to shut down conversation, but it seems like people are repeating themselves. Perhaps it would just be easiest and most practical to agree to disagree and move on?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, yeah.
quote: You lie!
*lick* Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't really see myself as capable of being able to mentor someone who abused my child. I may be able to forgive-- hopefully I'll never face this situation-- but for now, I think assisting the abuser is beyond my capacity.
That's certainly understandable.
quote: Even if it makes the nephew feel bad.
Kat, do you honestly not see the difference between making a little boy feel bad and making a little boy feel like someone so horribly broken that his whole family is tainted by him?
quote:it seems like people are repeating themselves
I feel like I've been repeating myself a lot... but I also feel like the things I am repeating are worth repeating.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We talked about this, Mr. Saxon.
Go find Kate.
*shudder*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:do you honestly not see the difference between making a little boy feel bad and making a little boy feel like someone so horribly broken that his whole family is tainted by him?
I think what we're arguing now is the extreme choices. I think that kat's saying that if such an extreme choice MUST be made, a parent should always choose to protect their own child, no matter how horrible it's going to make someone feel.
The extreme has not happened in NA's case, as far as we know.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I feel like I've been repeating myself a lot... but I also feel like the things I am repeating are worth repeating.
That's cool.
Rivka,
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Do you wink your eye at me, sir?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Maybe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott is right - I'm arguing that if there MUST be a choice, then the parent is beholden to choose their own child. To do otherwise is to betray that trust and obligation. The obligations of a parent DO outweigh the obligations of an aunt, an uncle, or a neighbor. And, if the occasion calls for it and this one does not, a spouse.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
That makes sense, Kat, but it's an artifical construct at this point.... as Scott's last line indicates.
If you had said "even if it causes the nephew psychological damage" or in any similar manner addressed the point I've been harping on since declaring caring for the girls and caring for the boy an obviously false opposition, I wouldn't have nearly as much problem with your post. It's been your steady refusal, evidenced by your word choice, to acknowledge that there is a danger to both the children involved in this incident which has me continuing to reiterate that you should not minimize the potential damage of the actions here. In fact, if you're going to take the attitude of "I will protect my own regardless of the consequences to yours", it behooves you to achieve and demonstrate an understanding of those consequences.
The bottom line is this: It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious. Why even set up the opposition in the first place? Why argue that point?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because the adults may and apparently do view the danger and the steps needed to protect their children differently.
If the girls' parents view it differently, then I will not condemn them for staying away from the nephew, even if it is hurtful to the nephew.
There have been other Hatrackers who have posted about abuse and how their extended families wanted them to come to family parties and pretend like nothing had happened, in order to get along. It felt like a minimization of their hurt. Maybe not in this case, but there certainly can be cases where a child can feel betrayed by their parents because their parents want to act like it never happened in order to keep the peace.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In fact, if you're going to take the attitude of "I will protect my own regardless of the consequences to yours", it behooves you to achieve and demonstrate an understanding of those consequences.
I don't think kat has actually taken this attitude for this not-extreme case.
quote:Why argue that point?
Certain people have seemed to insist that the girls' parents should put the boys' feelings/safety on the same level of importance as the girls' safety.
quote:It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious.
See, when reading a statement like this, my initial reaction is to open my eyes in disbelief and say, "Whence These Flowers?! You're off your chum!"
Then I realize that I don't actually know what you mean by this phrase:
quote:It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious.
At first glance, it makes it seem like you're arguing that even if the boy's action was worse (worse as far as the actual action, and worse in terms of the boy's understanding of his own actions) than what it was, the girls' parents have a responsibility to make sure he's not going to be traumatized for his own actions.
I don't concede that they do.
(And I don't think it's "easy," by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's valuable, and good-hearted, but not easy)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Because the adults may and apparently do view the danger and the steps needed to protect their children differently.
Which is precisely why I am being critical of them. Protecting their daughter in this instance is actually advanced by considering the emotional impact on, and interests of, their nephew. Again, opposing those interests is needless and destructive.
quote:If the girls' parents view it differently, then I will not condemn them for staying away from the nephew, even if it is hurtful to the nephew.
There have been many assertions that the girls' parents are protecting their children. AJ has specifically delineated where the parents have crossed even your far less stringent line of "how far is too far". When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
quote:There have been other Hatrackers who have posted about abuse and how their extended families wanted them to come to family parties and pretend like nothing had happened, in order to get along. It felt like a minimization of their hurt. Maybe not in this case, but there certainly can be cases where a child can feel betrayed by their parents because their parents want to act like it never happened in order to keep the peace.
That *is* a minimization of their hurt and a betrayal. It's also irrelevant to this discussion. I believe this is the 7th time, now, that it has been clearly stated that NO ONE has suggested that ANYONE should pretend like nothing happened. For you to continue to argue that point is not only bad faith, but has been clearly labeled as offensive by Icarus. Continuing to cast people in something that they have already clearly repudiated is not only pretty bad form, but in this case downright insulting and been called so by at least three of us, now. Do you plan to stop?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
Well, until I know the full story, I don't plan on ever condemning them.
I don't think that you (or AJ, or anyone) can say in this specific instance that the parents are definitely hurting their children by hurting the nephew-- you just don't have the information that you need in order to make that judgement.
I think it's well within your right to assert that in general, X applies, and Y makes things better, and if you want Apples, you should give Oranges. But you seem to be asking kat (and others) to find fault with specific human beings without allowing that such a judgement cannot be made fairly because of the lack of information.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Then I realize that I don't actually know what you mean by this phrase:
quote:It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious.
At first glance, it makes it seem like you're arguing that even if the boy's action was worse (worse as far as the actual action, and worse in terms of the boy's understanding of his own actions) than what it was, the girls' parents have a responsibility to make sure he's not going to be traumatized for his own actions.
I don't concede that they do.
What I mean is, even if the boy's actions were worse, as far as the actual action, the girls' parents help their cause of protecting the girls by making sure their nephew is not completely cut off from their family.
What I mean is, that caring for someone, especially a family member, does not mean turning a blind eye to their problems.
What I mean is that it is absolutely inescapable that the aunt and uncle will have an influence of some sort on the nephew and that it is better for the girls if they make that influence a constructive and helpful one.
They don't have to ignore what he did. In fact, it would probably be good for him to see that they are angered and upset by it as long as they make it clear that they are still pulling for him to do better. Tell him that he has done wrong and they are, as a consequence, going to restrict his access to their family and that he has lost some of their trust.
Avoiding his mom at church and telling him that they'll come visit soon and not doing so are *not* constructive methods of dealing with this in any way, shape or form. They don't restrict the boy's access to the girls. They don't express anger or punishment for the action in a manner that allows for apology, contrition and hope of a continued or eventually renewed relationship. They are destructive actions... and thus ultimately not in their daughters' best interest. the only thing these actions do is send the message "you are a dirty little boy and we don't want to be around you."
For those of you that keep harping on protecting your own child at all costs and who can't seem to get your heads around how helping a child aggressor is good for the victim as well, what advice would you have for NA were it her own 4 yr old daughter who was kissed by her 11 yr old son?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: But you seem to be asking kat (and others) to find fault with specific human actions because such a judgement can be made fairly with the information we have.
is how I would say it...
Specifically, what I am further asking Kat to do is quit making unsubstantiated implications that anyone on this thread is arguing that the situation should be ignored (and it would be nice if she would apologize for so doing) and to acknowledge in her further arguments that we are talking about more than "hurt feelings" here with regard to the 11 year old.
Edit: also I should allow that Kat *has* publically found fault with at least two of the actions in question, herself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They don't restrict the boy's access to the girls. They don't express anger or punishment for the action in a manner that allows for apology, contrition and hope of a continued or eventually renewed relationship. They are destructive actions... and thus ultimately not in their daughters' best interest. the only thing these actions do is send the message "you are a dirty little boy and we don't want to be around you."
I don't grant this premise: "They are destructive actions... and thus ultimately not in their daughters' best interest."
quote:For those of you that keep harping on protecting your own child at all costs and who can't seem to get your heads around how helping a child aggressor is good for the victim as well
Speaking generally:
I think we need to define the limits of 'helping.' Supporting the offender in couseling? Yes. Helping the offender by being open with him and his parents about our concerns? Yes. Gradually letting the offender back into our home? Maybe, depending on the circumstances of the offense, and the feelings we have about the offender now.
quote:what advice would you have for NA were it her own 4 yr old daughter who was kissed by her 11 yr old son?
I'd make sure the two were seperated, that they were never alone together. I'd show my son that I still loved him and I'd express confidence in him that he could choose to do what's right.
But there are a lot more relationships in NA's situation than in your theorhetical one. Four adults, (at least) three kids vs 2 adults and two kids. Those relationships throw other things into the mix that muddy the waters.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*trying to figure out in what context my name has been invoked and why*
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jim-me:
If you don't mean the case specific to NA, do you think you could use more general terms?
quote:When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
That way I won't assume you're asking me to condemn real people who I don't know over a real situation whose limits I can't determine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
AJ:
quote:I don't think that you (or AJ, or anyone) can say in this specific instance that the parents are definitely hurting their children by hurting the nephew-- you just don't have the information that you need in order to make that judgement.
Because you said:
quote:I believe that open communication and discussion of the issues between the *adults* involved will lead to better protection for *all* of the children involved in this situation. However that open discussion cannot take place without consideration for the feelings of all family members.
My mistake. I *think* this is generally true. I shouldn't have invoked you.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To further clarify, while I think the general statement I wrote is more universally true (and I'm glad you (ScottR) agree with it)...
I guess I had more in mind showing consideration of each others feelings at the parent-aunt-uncle generational level than the feelings of the kids themselves. If respect for feelings at that level can't be communicated, the kids are somewhat screwed anyway, cause they've got crappy role models as parents.
AJ
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Jim-me:
If you don't mean the case specific to NA, do you think you could use more general terms?
quote:When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
That way I won't assume you're asking me to condemn real people who I don't know over a real situation whose limits I can't determine.
I *do* mean the case specific to NA, but I do not mean to generally condemn the aunt and uncle as bad people. What I *do* mean to do is say that their specific actions, while understandable and human, are wrong. What I should have said to Kat, to be more clear, was: "why, when you have already said these things are wrong in general, are you having a problem with saying that someone is in the wrong in doing them?"
You, as far as I know, Scott, have not yet conceded that avoiding the family at church, placing the parents in the middle of the conflict, or failing to visit the nephew after saying they would, constitutes needless or harmful behavior towards the nephew or that harming the nephew, in this case, is detrimental to the safety of the daughters. The latter is an assertion I haven't supported very well, because, frankly, I have no hope of making the relatively esoteric case for that when I can't even make the (IMO fairly obvious) case that the actions above listed in no way protect the daughters and are harmful to the nephew.
Now, you haven't disagreed with me that they might harm the nephew... so the nesxt step in the conversation is where I ask, "how does avoiding the family at church, placing the mother in the middle of the fight, or breaking promises to the 11 year old protect the daughter in any way?"
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: katharina:
quote:No shunning the whole family, no shouting the reasons, no taking it out on the grandparents, but I reject the idea that the girls' parents are remiss for staying away if they feel their own children would be in danger otherwise.
I agree. Would you then agree that the girl's parents are being remiss, not as parents, but as family members and human beings for the bolded bit above?
AJ
I referenced you making this post. I'm not sure if that's where your name first came in, but it's the only place I have mentioned you, I believe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The kittens were incinerated by my work place's firewall.
/derail.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: "how does avoiding the family at church, placing the mother in the middle of the fight, or breaking promises to the 11 year old protect the daughter in any way?"
I don't know. I allow that the brother may have his reasons though, and that they may be good ones.
I don't understand why condemning them, specifically, is so important to you. I still assert that no judgement can be made until we know why they did what they did.
"Placing the mother in the middle of the fight..." For a minute, I thought you meant NA. I think you mean NA's mother-- the grandmother, correct?
In any case-- with a family as involved with eachother as this one seems to be, aren't they ALL kind of in the middle of it?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: "how does avoiding the family at church, placing the mother in the middle of the fight, or breaking promises to the 11 year old protect the daughter in any way?"
I don't know. I allow that the brother may have his reasons though, and that they may be good ones.
I don't see how it can possibly keep their daughters safer. I do see how it can be damaging to their nephew. Until someone shows me how it does the former effectively enough to be worth the later, I will maintain that they are wrong actions.
quote:I don't understand why condemning them, specifically, is so important to you. I still assert that no judgement can be made until we know why they did what they did.
Because unless there is a remarkable circumstance which no one has been able to describe, the actions are causing harm without accomplishing what their defenders are saying they are accomplsihing. I want these actions condemned for the same reason the nephews actiona *are* being condemned-- because they are wrong.
quote:"Placing the mother in the middle of the fight..." For a minute, I thought you meant NA. I think you mean NA's mother-- the grandmother, correct?
yes.
quote:In any case-- with a family as involved with eachother as this one seems to be, aren't they ALL kind of in the middle of it?
Which, I believe is the point that Kate and Sharpie have been trying to make... that they shoul;d be working through it together. From NA's description, the Broither is asking the mother to choose sides in this-- the antithesis of being in it all together.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB]
quote:
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.
And no one on this board has been arguing in favor of hurting one child to benefit another. Why do you address this point? It's completely disconnected from the thread.
Strangely, I thought this is exactly what you and others on this board were supporting. In the case that spawned this thread, the parents in question were doing things like refusing to sit with this family in church, adults were refusing to play games with the boy, parents were refusing to let a different child attend a concert with him where 4 family adults would be supervising. Those actions offer no protection for any child in question, they are simply hurtful and spiteful to the nephew. Perhaps if you can explain to me how it protects a child for her father to refuse to play with the offending child, then I might understand your point. As it is, what I see is parents justifying hurting an 11 year old boy needlessly.
quote:I've had occasion to think on my behavior. I come to the same conclusion: that the "hurt" that their child receives from being disassociated with my child (or family) is not nearly as great as the "hurt" my child receives by being introduced to sexual behavior before they are ready to understand it.
If you reverse the roles and make the son who did the kissing yours, would you choose to disassociate him from his cousin to protect her from being exposed to sexual behavior she wasn't ready to understand or would you choose some appropriate middle ground. That is the crux of this discussion. If the boy were your son, how would you respond?
quote:Specifically, the attitude of 'to heck with everybody else' has never been expressed here. 'To heck with the child that put my child in X situation,' has been, mildly, by me.
I don't find the attitude selfish at all. Before I dump on your opinion, I want to understand it a little better: do you mean to say that parents have the obligation to consider other children's FEELINGS as equal to their own children's PROTECTON?
I thought I'd addressed most of this in my first post. When I said
"That doesn't mean I think parents should expose their children to unneccesary risks to avoid hurting someone's feelings."
Let me further state that I don't think it is in the best interest of either child to put a young child in a situation where they are likely to be hurt in any way by an older child.
I think it is in the best interest of the 11 year ofld boy who was involved in the incident to learn that his actions were unacceptable and why. I think it is in his best interest to learn that there are consequences to doing things like this. But that lesson won't be learned if teh consequences far exceed the severity of his act. When that happens, all children learn is that they can't expect to be treated justly by the adults who love them and that isn't a lesson any child should be taught.
I don't know whether this boy’s act was just naive experimentation or an indication of a more serious problem. I think his parents should be trying to find out what's really going on so that an appropriate response can be found. I think they deserve the support of their extended family in doing this. Reacting as though the boy is a sexual predator and ostracizing him, which is what this extended family is doing, is disproportionately harsh and is likely to result, at a minimum, in unhealthy attitudes toward kissing for all the children involved. I can understand parents taking reasonable precautions to protect both children so that no similar events occur, but I can see no reason why allowing the children to react under supervision does not satisfy this. Since all the additional measures which have been described exceed what is needed to protect the children, I can only see them as hurtful and spiteful.
It disturbs me greatly to see otherwise rational people defend such hurtful behavior with the argument "I have to protect my own children" because what this family is doing far exceeds the needs of protection.
My point was that the adults involved in this incident should ideally be considering what is best for all the children involved and not just their own children. The attitude that you must take care of your childs needs before you can care about the welfare presents a false dicotomy. The cases where there is not solution that will be beneficial to all the children, or at even one that minimizes the harm done to any child are truly rare. If parents are looking for solutions rather than ways to justify their instincts, they can usually find a way to handle such situation that doesn't require hurting other people. In the long wrong, I think parents who do this do a better job parenting their own children than those who instinctively protect their own child first before thinking of others.
[ November 09, 2006, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't understand why condemning them, specifically, is so important to you. I still assert that no judgement can be made until we know why they did what they did.
No one here is fighting to specifically condemn this family since we don't even know who they are. What people here are arguing is that the action which has been described to us is objectionable.
Many of us are of the opinion that unless there is some important extenuating circumstance that we don't know and haven't been able to imagine, this boy's uncle and extended family are being excessively cruel.
What you seem to be arguing, is that the parents instinctive desire to protect their child is for you sufficient to justify their hurtful behavior to their nephew and his family. You trust parents instincts to protect their children to be a good guide for ethical behavior and so you are willing to give these parents the benefit of the doubt even though all the evidence suggests that they are hurting a child and their sister without need.
My problem is that I have personally seen far too many cases where parents use the excuse of protecting their children to justify truly attrocious treatment of others. Given my experience, I am unwilling to grant that parents "instincts to protect their children" should be trusted at all to result in ethical behavior.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't desire and try to protect their children. What I'm saying is that those desires don't necessarily equal ethical behavior. In fact, those desires very frequently lead to unethical behavior which is why parents in such situations need to step back and consider their response from a larger perspective than "I have to take care of my child first".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I've had occasion to think on my behavior. I come to the same conclusion: that the "hurt" that their child receives from being disassociated with my child (or family) is not nearly as great as the "hurt" my child receives by being introduced to sexual behavior before they are ready to understand it.
But if you believe the golden rule, then you must also ask yourself if you were the parents of the boy, what would you want done. If I were his parents I would be concerned that he might be developing ways of interacting with other people. I would be trying to find out if this was an aberation or a pattern. If I felt this might be a developing pattern, I would want to find ways to reinforce more healthy resonsible behavior. I would also think that he needed opportunities for healthy interactions with other children in order to develop better responses. I would be concerned that he needed love and support from those around him so that he didn't fall into a pattern of secrecy and shameful behavior. Wouldn't you want those things if he was your son?
And if you consider those things, don't you think that you can find some way to help this child while still providing reasonable protection for your own?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jim-me:
Hmm... I just don't think we're going to get any farther in this discussion. You are more or less correct: I DO give the parents the benefit of the doubt, while it appears you do not.
The right of parents to act immediately on their instincts is important enough to me that I won't cede it in any but the most extreme cases-- and I don't think this case is extreme by any measure.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The right of parents to act immediately on their instincts is important enough to me that I won't cede it in any but the most extreme cases-- and I don't think this case is extreme by any measure.
To *have* the right to do something is not the same as to *be* right in doing it.
Also, now is probably a good time to remind you that I entered this discussion saying I was with you up to the point where you wrote the 11 yr old off. I don't feel that we are that far apart... and perhaps you are right, this is as close as we will get.
I do hope I have been clear that I am not saying the aunt and uncle are bad people, but that some of their actions are, as Rabbit put it, objectionable. I hope I have also been clear that I'm not feeling any animosity from you, Scott, nor do I hold any towards you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Indulge me.
The following is a long excerpt from a story I wrote for the Writer's of the Future workshop. It addresses some of the issues that we've been talking about here-- trust, protection, loving care.
To set the scene: Tara and Mike Sharp are the parents of Scotty (~16), Jack (~10), and Zandy (~2). Jack has been having a rough time of late-- he's been defacing property in the home, and returned home this afternoon with a black eye and bloody nose. He told his parents he'd gotten in a fight with his best friend, but refused to explain what the fight was about.
His parents, after arguing privately about what should be done about his recalcitrance, agree to let the discussion go.
quote: Tara dreamed that her boys were yelling at each other, and woke up and found it was true. In the grogginess between full alertness and half-sleep, she realized that at this rate, they’d wake up Zandy, and maybe even Mike, they were being so loud. Quickly, she stepped out of bed, shushing them from all the way down the hall.
Scotty was laying on top of his younger brother, glaring at him—a long scratch ran down the side of his head. And something else, too—she couldn’t quite see it from the door to Scotty’s room, but. . .
“Get off!” Jack yelled, and the room rang with his tenor voice.
“Prescott, get off your brother right now!” It scared her a little, this woman-mother voice she’d somehow learned in the sixteen years since Scotty’d been born. This naming-of-full-names voice, the voice of the queen-mother-goddess. Scared her and thrilled her a bit. “Jonathan Lorenzo, what are you doing in your brother’s room?”
Scotty answered for him, “This, Mom, look!” He turned his face and pointed. A line of red was drawn along his skin, from the neck of his t-shirt, passing over his cheekbone, angling back to his temple, and then disappearing into a thicket of blonde hair. “He drew all over me! All over me!”
Scotty pulled up his shirt to show the red line along his ribs, over his stomach., and his voice was harsh, “He was trying to pull down my shorts when I woke up.”
Tara swallowed, watching both her boys. She came close to them, wondering, wondering what she should do, what could she say to this. She saw tears in Scotty’s eyes, and now he wouldn’t look at her, saw him biting his lip, clutching at the blankets to his bed. And Jack, still and quiet, those wide hazel eyes looking at his brother, at her—there was fear and wonder in those eyes, too. And a red Sharpie in his hand. The cap was by his foot. Tara started to say something, but her woman-mother voice wouldn’t work. The goddess within failed her, went scrambling back to. . . someplace sane, she supposed.
“Let me see,” she said, and turned Scotty’s face toward her. The line was not a solid line, as it had appeared from the door. Tiny markings—symbols, delicately drawn.
“Jack, what is this?”
“I don’t know,” he said. Too quickly, she thought. He had been expecting the question.
“Awful quiet in here,” Mike said, coming in the door. “What’s—“
Tara saw his eyes take in them all. Saw them widen, saw them harden, saw them stare at the marker, and move back. Back to her, as if to say, ‘I told you, I told you.’ But he didn’t say anything, and the hard look was gone from his eyes. Or hidden. “What’s going on, boys.”
They both tried to answer at once, but Tara wasn’t watching them any longer. She’d heard something at the door to Scotty’s room, a little sigh, the fall of a little footstep, and her head was turning to see Zandy standing there.
Standing there naked, her little body covered in those red symbols, in Jack’s symbols, so they crossed her like ropes or veins, standing there naked and rubbing her eyes with one hand, and sucking on her other hand’s fingers.
What would you do in this situation?
In the story (at the time, I needed a plot device to get Jack out of the home-- I realize now this probably WOULD NOT HAPPEN, and everything having to do with the psych. hospital will have to be re-written before being at all plausible), Jack is sent to a psychiatric hospital for three weeks for evaluation.
quote: “He cannot baby-sit ever again,” the man said. Tara thought he was a psychologist, but she wasn’t sure, and her eyes couldn’t focus on his badge. She couldn’t even think of his name, though Dr. Loew had told her that this man would come in his place today. “Not Alexandra, not any child. Do you understand, Mr. and Mrs. Sharp? Jonathan is to have absolutely no time alone with children younger or smaller than himself.”
Jack. You should call him Jack, Tara thought, because Jonathan is our name for him, our private name to call him and make him recognize us. Mike shifted next to her, clearing his throat.
“He didn’t do anything,” Mike said, but the words were dull. They seemed weak, somehow. He’d said them so often the last three weeks.
The man looked at Mike. Tara remembered his name now—Brendholm. Igor Brendholm, a terrible, monster movie name. Like Boris Karloff, very Old World, very…creepy. Igor Brendholm said, “He undressed your young daughter while she was sleeping, and painted her. He attempted to do the same with Prescott. That’s not nothing. Dr. Loew has recommended that Jonathan come home, but you need to face the facts: we may be dealing with a child predator. If you want to protect your children, and the rest of the neighborhood. . . well, you need to take a look at this honestly.”
And what could they say to that? Nothing. And so Tara sat there, and wished that Mike would hold her hand, but he sat still and staring at this Dr. Igor Brendholm, his hands folded underneath his armpits like he was cold. So she moved her hands. Slid her left hand between his lower back and the bench, and felt his muscles trembling there, felt her husband as he breathed. He did not move away from her hand. That was something, then. Something they could build on.
And Mike’s voice was stronger when he spoke again, “We’ll be honest about this—but you be honest, too. I don’t know what is wrong with Jack.” He emphasized ‘Jack,’ as if to make it clear that was what this stranger, this outsider, this interloper, was to call their son. We are still the ones who name him for others, Tara thought. Until he can name himself, we name him. “And you don’t know what’s wrong with Jack. You don’t know why he did what he did. . . you aren’t even sure how he did what he did. If you knew he was a predator, if Dr. Loew even suspected that Jack was a danger, you’d keep him here. I’d tell you myself to keep him here.”
“We may not know, Mr. Sharp, but there are warning signs.”
“Which, after three weeks, we’re as aware of as you.” Tara moved her hand from Mike’s back, to his knee. And she felt him put his rough hand over hers there. “We will watch out for them. We will be safe with Jack.”
Dr. Brendholm seemed to ready to say something further, reconsidered, and then stood up. “I’ll go get him.”
She didn’t breathe until he had left. Three weeks. The police, the psychologists, the social workers, it was like a mire of people and questions and probings. . . They’d taken Zandy and Scotty away for a week, put them up at foster homes while every sort of question and test was run on Mike, and then on Tara. The house had been so . . . silent. It was hell, being in a home that was habituated to the sound of children, and yet thrust into silence. No child to breathe in the air, no child to snore softly, or sing, or squeal, or whine, or beg, or complain. She even missed their complaining.
And then, suddenly, the doors Igor Brendholm had disappeared through swung open, and Jack was there with them. She had scooped him up before she even realized she had moved. It was so good to put her arms around Jack, to feel the weight of him in her arms, the softness of his belly under his shirt against her and the strength of his arms around her neck, and the smell of the shampoo in his hair, the smoothness of his cheek against her cheek. To feel Mike there as well, holding Jack as she held Jack, holding her too, and they, all of them together. . . It was the opposite of the silence in their house.
“You smell like burritos,” Mike said, laughing and swallowing a tremor in his voice.
“Yeah, that’s what I had for lunch. Look what Khalid made for me as a going home present!” He pulled a wooden flute from his pocket and gave it a whistle. “Give it a try, Dad!”
And so they walked to the car, and Mike held Jack’s clothes while Tara held Jack’s hand.
But Tara saw how Jack touched the baby seat next to him when he got in. Kind of. . . hesitating. Like he was asking permission from something inside himself. So when they were all buckled in she said, “She doesn’t remember, Jack. She doesn’t remember anything.”
Mike threw her a look.
Jack took a breath, and looked outside. He rubbed his eyes, wiped his hands on his pants. “Does Scotty hate me?”
“We’re a family, Jonathan Lorenzo. Families don’t hate each other.” Mike started the car.
“Yes, they do.” Jack’s voice was barely a whisper. “Two boys I met—they said they used to hear their dad beat their mom with his belt. And so they hated him so much, they stuck a screwdriver in his gut, but that didn’t stop their dad from taking his belt and beating them, so that now one of them talks funny, and the other one can’t move his left hand.”
Tara felt fear crawling up her spine. What other things had her boy learned about these last weeks? She said, “Jack, it’s true. Sometimes, people in families do terrible things to each other. Sometimes, you’re right, they don’t love each other. Sometimes they hate each other.
“But that’s not us, honey. Your dad and I love you so much, we would never do those things to you. We would never hurt you, or abandon you, or. . . any of those things. That’s what our family is about. We love you.”
Silence for a moment, then, “I love you, too.”
It didn’t make things easy, or better, those four words. But it got them home. It got them through that first night. It got Scotty and Jack talking again, and teasing each other, a little.
And when Tara and Mike sat down with Scotty and asked him if he would consider allowing Jack to move into a bunk bed into his room, those four words, and a little coaxing from Dr. Loew, got him to say yes.
Mike and Tara's actions are about how I would react to this situation.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'll give you my thoughts after taking some time with it.
Very good writing, though.. I can say that after once through.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sniffle*
I should know better than to read anything of Scott's at work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I should know better than to read anything of Scott's at work.
Ha.
If you want, I'll send you the whole thing. It's not polished. I wrote it all (43 pages) in one sitting, with no sleep. I never want to do it again.
The excerpt above-- that was hour 4, I think.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, please!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The right of parents to act immediately on their instincts is important enough to me that I won't cede it in any but the most extreme cases-- and I don't think this case is extreme by any measure.
I'm curious as to why you believe that parents have a "right" to act on their instincts. It's not something I've ever heard expressed that way. Certainly our society recognizes a parents right to decide what's best for their children with in certain bounds, but the right to decide and the right to act instinctively are not synonymous.
Up to your statement, no one had said anything that touched on parental rights. No one has suggested that these children should be taken from their parents or that the parents should be forced to continue interacting with the boy. These parents have the right to decide who their 4 year old should associate with for any reason what so ever and no one has a legal or ethical right to force them to do otherwise. But as Jim-Me so aptly pointed out having the right to decide does not imply that every decision you make is morally or ethically correct.
To me, your arguments imply that you strongly believe that parents "instincts" will most often lead them to make moral and ethically correct choices. Therefore you think parents should follow their instincts even when those instincts violate generally accept ethical norms and that it is unethical for others to question the parents judgements.
My problem with your point of view, is that my personal experience has shown over and over again that parenting instincts frequently lead people to make unethical decisions. A parents instincts to protect and benefit his/her child have a clear biological orgin. From a strictly evolutionary perspective, people have strong instincts to protect their children for the same reason they have instincts for self preservation and instincts to have sex. Once you have a child, survival of your genes is more strongly dependent on survival of that child than it is on your own survival so it is only expected that humans would have strong instincts to protect their children and seek advantages for them. The problem is that this instinct to take care of your own doesn't arise from any more noble principle than your instinct to take care of yourself. They are in fact one and the same.
That doesn't mean that these instincts are wrong. What it does mean is that unless you accept the Nietzian view that survival==ethical, there is no more reason to expect that peoples parenting instincts will lead to ethical choices than to believe that their sexual instincts will lead to ethical choices. Thats why parents decisions for their children need to be based not just on their instincts but also on sound moral and ethical principles. Whenever parents instincts lead them to make a choice that otherwise violates their ethical and moral principles, those parents need to step back and reconsider their options. It is no more ethical to put the welfare of your child ahead of the welfare of other peoples children than it is to put your own welfare above the welfare of others.
[ November 10, 2006, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Stop getting in the way of my self-aggrandizement, Rabbit.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I thought your story was lovely. I think your parents are good people.
The problem I have with NA's story is that her family is not handling it that way. I wish they had. In NA's family (not her, but her siblings)this:
quote: “But that’s not us, honey. Your dad and I love you so much, we would never do those things to you. We would never hurt you, or abandon you, or. . . any of those things. That’s what our family is about. We love you.”
isn't what is happening. NA's son is being abandoned by his family.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:To *have* the right to do something is not the same as to *be* right in doing it.
I agree with this statement.
It is true that parental instinct may sometimes lead parents to do hurtful things. In my experience, however, it is a valuable tool for keeping children safe.
When the danger has passed that caused the parental instincts to assert themselves and remove the child from perceived danger-- THEN it is acceptable to reevaluate and perhaps ask forgiveness from anyone you may have hurt.
I think I've implied this already. Something about informing instincts back on page 3...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Therefore you think parents should follow their instincts even when those instincts violate generally accept ethical norms and that it is unethical for others to question the parents judgements.
What's the generally accepted ethical norm being violated by the actions taken by the parents as described in the other thread?
Scott has reiterated, several times now, that the instincts should be followed until additional information can be determined. We don't know the additional information the parents have. We do know that there are literally thousands of data points - each and every interaction with this child - that inform the parents' decision to act as they are acting. We also know that we don't have access to any of those data points.
My problem with this kind of condemnation and questioning is that I've seen it lead people to ignore instincts (I prefer intuition, but insticts will do) that were correct but not fully articulable. And I've seen the violent results - in one case, the deadly results - at first or second remove of people who were talked out of taking steps that couldn't be "justified" by anything other than a creepy feeling based on lots of little indicators.
I know people have said that they aren't condeming these parents in particular but only these parents as represented by the Need Advice's posts. That's an artificial construct without meaning. Every situation will have those thousands of data points underyling it. No matter how honest and complete the account of events have been, NA has left out much of what informed the parents' decision, because much of what informed that decision is probably not known to them at an articulable level.
Society as a whole tends to denigrate intuition in general and feelings of possible danger in particular. I'm convinced that this denigration leads people to ignore the very powerful mechanism we have and creates danger. It also creates fear, rather than lessening it.
Clearly, the more drastic an action informed by intuition, the more time and effort must be taken to verify the intuition before acting. But, when the action is one that is both ethical and legal to take, condemning them absent better information - even when the condemnation is second hand and couched as being aimed at a facsimile of the person acting - is dangerous and irresponsible.
Scott started this thread because the parents' actions were called 10 times worse. I've seen people on this board suggest that telling someone who gives a creepy vibe to no longer contact the creeped out person is being unfair if they don't have stronger indications of danger. I see the condemnation of the parents-as-presented as the same type of behavior.
Ending contact is not such an extreme action that it should be condemned by those who don't have a clue what's actually going on. I'm not entirely sure what Scott means by "act immediately on their instincts," but I do know that his balancing mechanism - the extremity of the response - is the correct one. Sure, we don't want and can't tolerate someone who pulls a gun whenever they get a little creeped out. But when the extent of the actions is merely an exercise of the inherent right of association, this condemnation is misplaced and potentially dangerous.
The ethics of how these parents are acting depends entirely on their perception of the threat. Since you can't evaluate that in this case, you can't judge the ethics of their action.
The reason extreme actions can be judged is that we can start from the assumption that the risk is as bad as the parents' think it is and then judge the act against that risk. If we use that calculus to analyze the parents' acts, it's clear they are not in excess of the worst case risk.
Therefore, until you have any credible reason for knowing their assessment of the risk is wrong, questioning their judgment is little better than a guess.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I think that, when the threat is neither lethal nor immediate, the world would be better if our instincts were more often tempored with common sense and compassion, especially when judging an eleven-year old who is part of one's family.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I think that the world would be better if our instincts were more often tempored with common sense and compassion, especially when judging an eleven-year old who is part of one's family.
You don't know that they're not so tempered. That's pretty much my whole point - we don't know what they know, because much of what they know is not something easily conveyed in language. In this case, we wouldn't know their side even if it could be conveyed with language, because they haven't given it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you don't know that they are. We all are talking about bits of information; none of us has the whole story. This is true of most of what we discuss on internet fora.
Is your suggestion that we not discuss it? Deciding that we don't have enough information to decide either way is one thing. I would be fine with that. Deciding that, because we don't have enough information to judge, we have to assume they did the right thing, is another.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And you don't know that they are. We all are talking about bits of information; none of us has the whole story.
In this situation we can't have the whole story because of the way threats are processed by people. Firther, I haven't said that they are acting in a manner tempered by compassion.
quote:Is your suggestion that we not discuss it?
No, my suggestion is that more credence be given to the information these parents have that we don't.
Oh, and not outright say that the parents are acting 10 times worse or that supporting others' reliance on instinct and intuition in certain situations means one "think[s] parents should follow their instincts even when those instincts violate generally accept ethical norms."
quote:Deciding that, because we don't have enough information to judge, we have to assume they did the right thing, is another.
And neither Scott nor I have said that. I have not assumed they did the right thing. I have said that there is not enough information to declare what they did to be unethical. I have also said that giving someone the benefit of the doubt who has acted out of instinct in response to a threat perceived by them does not mean necessarily one has unethical principles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor is there enough information to declare what they did was ethical. Or if it was compassionate. We don't know what exactly happened in the original incident either, but we are judging the kid.
Dagonee, in anything we discuss, we are never going to have all of the information. All we can do is form our opinions on the information we have. Saying that we can't form an opinion on the parents because there may be stuff we don't know about doesn't make any more sense than saying we can't form an opinion about the kid because we didn't know what he was thinking either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nor is there enough information to declare what they did was ethical. Or if it was compassionate.
I'm really not sure how many times I have to say that I haven't said it was ethical or compassionate. Would you please give some indication that I'm not saying it was either?
quote:We don't know what exactly happened in the original incident either, but we are judging the kid.
No, we aren't judging the kid. The parent's haven't really judged the kid, either. Rather, they've decided that it's not worth the risk to their children to associate with this child any longer. Judging risk is very different than judging the person. There is no presumption of innocence when we're talking about whom to associate with.
quote:All we can do is form our opinions on the information we have. Saying that we can't form an opinion on the parents because there may be stuff we don't know about doesn't make any more sense than saying we can't form an opinion about the kid because we didn't know what he was thinking either.
Again, I don't think we can form a meaningful opinion about the kid. That's close to the heart of my point. You and I have the luxury of not having to take action based on whatever opinion we do form. The parents in this situation do not have that luxury. They have to decide whether to allow their children to associate. They are forming an opinion as to whether the association is worth the risk - and risk is a concept that by its nature contains the possibility that no danger at all exists.
I haven't made myself clear. I'll try to do so later. The essence of my argument is that giving the parents the benefit of the doubt is essentially holding judgment in abyance, whereas condemning them or saying they made the wrong choice is not.
Further, it is fiction to think that we can judge some sort of hypothetical based solely on NA's version of events. NA's version of events are incomplete and leave out crucial information - not from malice or even ignorance, but simply from the inherent inability of one person to communicate conclusions intuited by someone else. It's as meaningless to discuss whether their actions are justified based on the events recounted to us as it is to judge whether a shooting was in self-defense when all we know is that the person shot was in someone else's house after midnight. There are simply too many unkowns.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Nor is there enough information to declare what they did was ethical. Or if it was compassionate.
I'm really not sure how many times I have to say that I haven't said it was ethical or compassionate. Would you please give some indication that I'm not saying it was either?
Okay. But what I think you're saying is that, without all the information, we have to give the parents the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was.
quote:
quote:We don't know what exactly happened in the original incident either, but we are judging the kid.
No, we aren't judging the kid. The parent's haven't really judged the kid, either. Rather, they've decided that it's not worth the risk to their children to associate with this child any longer. Judging risk is very different than judging the person. There is no presumption of innocence when we're talking about whom to associate with.
And I think that there should be some presumption of salvagability when one is discussing your eleven-year-old nephew. That is what I am trying to say. This isn't some stranger. This kid is part of their family. The recognition that he is a kid and he is family is what I think we are missing here.
quote:I haven't made myself clear. I'll try to do so later. The essence of my argument is that giving the parents the benefit of the doubt is essentially holding judgment in abyance, whereas condemning them or saying they made the wrong choice is not.
I think you are clear. And I think we disagree. I think that giving them the benefit of the doubt is making a judgement as well.
There are too many unknowns about everything - both in RL and in discussions. We can't ever know all of the facts about anything. We still form opinions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay. But what I think you're saying is that, without all the information, we have to give the parents the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was.
No, I'm specifically NOT saying that we say that it was ethical or compassionate. Jeez, how many times do I need to say it?
There's a difference between "benefit of the doubt" and saying someone made the right decision. A huge difference.
quote:And I think that there should be some presumption of salvagability when one is discussing your eleven-year-old nephew. That is what I am trying to say. This isn't some stranger. This kid is part of their family. The recognition that he is a kid and he is family is what I think we are missing here.
Changing the conditions under which one will interact with him is not saying he isn't salvageable..
quote:I think you are clear. And I think we disagree. I think that giving them the benefit of the doubt is making a judgement as well.
There are too many unknowns about everything - both in RL and in discussions. We can't ever know all of the facts about anything. We still form opinions.
SInce my point is that these unknowns are qualitatively different then I haven't made myself clear. I'll try later.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is possible that we mean different things by "benefit of the doubt".
Saying, "we don't have enough information to know either way", is different that saying, "we don't have enough information, so we should give the parents the benefit of the doubt." I don't have a problem with the first; I do with the second.
Changing the conditions underwhich one will interact with him to what NA has described is pretty harsh from an uncle to a nephew.
edit to add: not sure how much longer I will be here and still no computer at home. I'll look forward to Monday?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, Your insistence that we should not condemn these parents because we don't know all the facts is well taken but I don't think anyone here has been doing that.
I, at least, have been responding to Scott's leading statement.
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.
In this case, my focus must be to protect my children in the way that I feel is necessary.
I have stated repeatedly that I think this position violates the spirit and letter of the golden rule. Parents clearly have unique responsibility to their own children but that responsibility does not obviate them of their responsibility to care for others even in worst case scenarios.
All my comments have taken into account what I see as the worst case scenario in our hypothetical story. The worst case scenario in this hypothetical story is that the 11 year old boy is sexual predator who will molest children if given the chance. I have never condemned any of the parents actions which can be reasonably seen as trying to prevent a child from being molested. What I can't imagine, even in this scenario, is an ethical reason for adults in the extended family to shunn this child and his family. Perhaps my imagination on this issue is insufficiently vivid, but no one else here as suggested a reason that might justify this response either.
I think Scott's story suggests and interesting perspect. What if the two children involved had been syblings rather than cousins? I can't imagine that you or Scott would condone the parents thinking only of the little girl and not caring about the boy "at all". I would expect loving parents to react as they did in Scott's story, attempting to show love and concern for both children while taking all reasonable precautions to protect both children.
My point is that the golden rule requires the same level of concern for both children whether or not we are their parents. That doesn't mean that our actions would be the same if we are not the parent because a parent has unique rights and responsibilities in this situation. If you were the parent of both children you would have an entirely different set of options to choose from than if only one child is yours. But while those practical considerations must influence our actions, they should not influence our motivations. It is simply unethical not to care about both children.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:All my comments have taken into account what I see as the worst case scenario in our hypothetical story. The worst case scenario in this hypothetical story is that the 11 year old boy is sexual predator who will molest children if given the chance. I have never condemned any of the parents actions which can be reasonably seen as trying to prevent a child from being molested.
Then I misunderstood what you were saying - this puts your posts in a different light. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
quote:What I can't imagine, even in this scenario, is an ethical reason for adults in the extended family to shunn this child and his family. Perhaps my imagination on this issue is insufficiently vivid, but no one else here as suggested a reason that might justify this response either.
Now this I still have a very different opinion on, but I don't think this is an ethical opinion so much as a practical one. I have a vivid imagination in this regard and some very scary, true stories of almost-public molestation. The corner of a room with 8 adults and 10 kids is enough opportunity, especially with a four-year old.
In a large family gathering - at least as I am used to them, which is very chaotic - I can picture numerous chances for predation to occur, short of a leash-like arrangement on the 4-year olds. I can see arrangements that would pretty much guarantee* abuse would be detected, but not arrangements that guarantee* it could be prevented.
*Guarantee is not used to indicate 0% chance - I know that's unobtainable because of the many possible ways harm could occur. Let's just say I can't think of measures short of total avoidance that would have stopped some real-life instances I've heard of.
Once the decision that such events must be avoided has been made, it's very easy to make the step to avoiding the more structured interactions such as church, for two reasons: 1) if their church services are anything like ours, there's often a period of time before or after where there's a kind of free-for-all mixing of of kids and adults, which does create opportunity, and 2) if one did try to keep the children totally separated outside the presence of the boy, I think it would be almost impossible not to say things in front of him that would be hurtful.
Again, though, this is a very different type of disagreement and not one I'm nearly as invested in as an ethical point.
quote:But while those practical considerations must influence our actions, they should not influence our motivations. It is simply unethical not to care about both children.
I agree with this general statement. However, I think it can lead to a place where the only active considerations need by one's own children if one has reason to believe another responsible party is looking after the other child. I'm not sure we're interpreting Scott's statement the same way. It seems to me that he feels justified in focusing exclusively on his children because he has faith in the boy's parents to focus on him.
quote:It is possible that we mean different things by "benefit of the doubt".
Saying, "we don't have enough information to know either way", is different that saying, "we don't have enough information, so we should give the parents the benefit of the doubt." I don't have a problem with the first; I do with the second.
We must be using different definitions. Here, we know one thing for sure: the parents making the decision know more than we do.
Until Rabbit's last post it had not occurred to me that one would think the parents' actions to be overwrought if it were known that the boy would molest if given the chance to do so. If you agree with that stance, then we may be using the same definition of benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I can't imagine how we would be.
(That doesn't mean we aren't, just that at this point I can't think of a scenario that has us both using the same definition, agreeing that the parents' actions would be justified if we knew would molest if given the chance, yet disagreeing that the parents should get the benefit of the doubt.)
quote:Changing the conditions underwhich one will interact with him to what NA has described is pretty harsh from an uncle to a nephew.
I agree. What I disagree with is that we are at all capable of evaluating the other half of the harm/benefit equation that must be balanced when taking such harsh measures.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rabbit:
Read the whole thread, please. Your interpretation of my intial statement falls flat when taken along with the other statements I've made on the subject.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott R, I have read the whole thread. Perhaps you should do the same. If you had, you would realize that my most recent post was a response to Dagonee. It was an attempt to clarify that the correct context of my comments in this thread was not as response to NA original thread but as a response to your tangent as stated in your opening post. In quoting your initial comment, I did not intend to indicate that I hadn't read or understood your further discussion but my intent was specifically to explain to Dag the context of my statements.
[ November 11, 2006, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)