posted
"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.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Things will work out.
