Is a child capable of sexual harassment? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 02-08-2006, 11:01 AM

Brockton boy's ability to sexually harass girl questioned

Quote:

By Maria Papadopoulos, ENTERPRISE STAFF WRITER
Brockton parent Leona McNair has taught her two young boys to "high-five" other children while in school to prevent any inappropriate physical contact.

"When you send your kids to school, as a parent you need to teach them what is proper, what is not proper," the 27-year-old homemaker said Tuesday. "You don't touch other kids' bodies."

Her comments came after a 6-year-old boy was suspended from his Brockton elementary school for three days last week after officials said he put two fingers inside a girl's waistband, touching her skin, during a class.

The case sparked debate among parents, educators, psychologists and lawmakers over whether a child that age is capable of sexual harassment.

"It can happen in the sense that a 6-year-old child is capable of saying to himself, 'She doesn't like it when I touch her, so I think I'll bother her,' " said Elizabeth Englander, a Bridgewater State College psychologist and author of "Understanding Violence."

But "when we think of sexual harassment, we think of somebody who is approaching somebody inappropriately as a sexual threat, and a 6-year-old's probably not capable of that level of plotting," Englander said.

The Brockton case is not the first time that a 6-year-old child has been accused of sexual harassment.

In a landmark court case in 1993, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights ruled that the Eden Prairie school district in Minnesota had unlawfully allowed boys to sexual harass a first-grade girl and several other elementary and junior high school girls. Some of the boys, ages 6 to 9, had made lewd comments about the male anatomy and called the girls derogatory sex-related names, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education in Virginia.

The Minnesota case, a generally heightened awareness of sexual harassment and knowledge of the legal implications for failing to address harassment may have contributed to the strict school-district policies that result in a child of a young age being accused of this behavior, experts say.

"It's something you have to address legally," said Sheilah A. Reardon, principal at the East Taunton Elementary School.

In the Brockton case, Berthena Dorinvil, the boy's mother, said he does not know what sexual harassment is and in the wake of the Downey school's action, she wants him transferred to another school.

Meanwhile, lawmakers on Beacon Hill also talked about the case amid debate over a bill that would require children as young as pre-kindergarten to study a statewide health curriculum that would include sex education.

"I find it pretty hard for a 6-year-old to sexually harass someone else. I'll leave it up to school authorities to judge that," state Rep. David Flynn, D- Bridgewater, who has nine children and 21 grandchildren, said Tuesday.

The Brockton public schools' policy defines sexual harassment as "repeated, unwanted, or unwelcomed verbalisms or behaviors of a sexist nature related to a person's sex or sexual orientation." It gives several examples, including "uninvited physical contact such as touching, hugging, patting or pinching."

Englander, the psychologist, said children are naturally curious and very physical, and almost any kind of touching may be considered "normal" unless it is sexualized or mimicking sexual acts.

School districts are required by state law to have codes of conduct for students, said Melanie Winklosky, state Department of Education spokeswoman.

"We expect that the schools are going to write the codes of conduct so that they're developmentally appropriate for the ages of students," Winklosky said.

Winklosky said the state does not track suspensions in school districts and only learns of sexual harassment cases if a complaint is filed by a parent to the department's Program Quality Assurance Services division.

Locally, other school officials contacted Tuesday said they had not encountered sexual harassment cases among students at the elementary level, but would investigate them if that situation arose.

"I've learned in the business to say 'Never say never,' " said Whitman-Hanson Superintendent John McEwan.

McEwan said suspension is an option at all grade levels "because if we need to send a message loud and clear that the behavior is unacceptable, then exclusion from school, for one day or whatever, sends that message."

Robert H. Smith, principal of the Moreau Hall Elementary School in Easton, said all such complaints, from a boy or a girl, must be taken seriously.

"Civil rights has no age limit on it, whether it's a 5-year-old or a 15-year-old or a 20-year-old," Smith said.

Reardon, the Taunton principal, said that with television, movies and the Internet, children may be exposed to adult behavior at a young age. "They could be imitating what they've seen," she said.

The allegation of sexual harassment by a first-grader surprised Brockton parents but some said it should not be brushed off.

"It needs to be addressed," McNair said. "There's a teacher and aide in every classroom, so who is supervising this behavior?"

and another
School decision angers mother

Quote:

CARBONDALE - An incident on a Carbondale school bus this week has parents and school officials sorting out youthful indiscretion from potentially criminal behavior.

According to the mother of a 6-year-old Parrish School kindergarten student, a 7-year-old boy was suspended from riding his school bus for a week and is banned from recess after he behaved inappropriately toward her daughter.

The girl's mother, whose name is being withheld by The Southern Illinoisan to protect the child's identity, said her daughter was molested on the school bus Monday and threatened later in the halls of her school by a first-grade boy from her neighborhood.

The mother pulled her daughter from riding the bus and said she was considering a move to another school district.

John Williams, interim superintendent of Carbondale Elementary School District 95, said the children who were involved have been separated and are monitored at a "high level" in the building

Parrish School officials would not comment on the disciplinary action taken against the boy accused of inappropriate behavior.

According to the girl's mother, her daughter was sitting on the bus on the way home from school when the boy sat down next to her. The boy, apparently dared by another boy, reached his hand into the girl's pants and underwear.

She apparently screamed because she was startled, and was told by the bus monitor to be quiet. When she got home, she told her mother what had happened. The mother called the bus company.

"They told me not to call anybody, not to call the police," she said. "They told me just to deal with it through the school."

The girl's mother went to the school administration with her complaint. She said she was told the boy would be banned from the bus for a week and would be required to eat lunch with the principal.

She said the school told her the same thing about contacting an outside agency.

"The school told me not to talk to anyone about it, that they'd handle it," she said.

On Wednesday, the boy apparently approached the girl in the hallway and told her he would kill her mother. The school informed the mother of the incident.

"They told me that his 'life at Parrish is over,'" the mother said, noting that she was told the boy will be banned from all school privileges.

Still, the girl's mother is outraged. A single, working mother, she said she does her best to keep her children safe from bad influences and dangerous situations. When her child is at school, she said, she trusts that teachers and staff are acting in her stead. She feels her trust has been betrayed.

"I don't feel there was really anything done about this," she said. "This makes me really angry. This could happen to someone else's child. It better not happen to mine again."

The girl's mother said her daughter, who has always loved school and preschool, cries now at the thought of attending school where the boy is. She wants her daughter away from the boy, but said that since they are in the same school district, separation isn't always possible.

"I think there should be an alternative school for kids like that," she said. "He should be treated like a sex offender because that's what he is. I think he should get counseling."

Lynda Killoran, child and adolescent clinical services manager at Southern Illinois Regional Social Services, said the age of the children must factor into the perspective of the problem, but that such an incident should be taken seriously by school officials and parents.

"Kids misbehave," she said. "There are a whole list of behaviors that a child can exhibit - acting out can be just one of them. He could have touched her on the head, he could have knocked her elbow, he could have taken her books - but instead he put his hands down her pants. So it could just be that he needs to learn his boundaries and to keep his hands to himself. But on the other hand, it does raise a red flag as to where he learned that kind of behavior."

Killoran said there are three levels at which the boy could have been exposed to the idea of inappropriate touching. He could have seen it on television or in a magazine, learned it from watching the behaviors of those close to him, or he himself was touched in such a way.

"I think it does throw up a flag and somebody should sit down and talk to him and find out some information," she said. "Maybe there are parts we don't know, maybe he's touched other kids - there is just too much information that is missing.

"I understand the mom is upset. Who wants that to happen to their child?" Killoran said. "But on the other hand, I would ask her, 'What would be severe enough?' I'm sure she doesn't want the 7-year-old locked up."

Carbondale Police Chief Steve Odum said if his office had gotten such a call, if the mother had chosen to involve the police rather than the school, it is probable the problem would have been referred back to the school.

"We would probably use our youth officers, who have special training in interviewing young children," he said. "But we would probably refer the case back to the school and the families to counseling."

The children at Parrish School are in pre-K, kindergarten and first grades.

"Children touching each other like that is certainly not normal behavior that we have to deal with too often," Williams said. "More often we see problems with physical striking, but occasionally this type of inappropriate behavior does occur and that is what is being addressed."

Williams said when children behave in an inappropriate manner, parents are called in immediately. Counselors have already been called in to help both sides sort through the incident, he said.

"Unfortunately, these things happen. Children misbehave and some of those issues are more serious than others. This is something that needs to be addressed," he said. "It requires intervention from other sources not just as disciplinary matter, but from a counseling aspect as well. It is being carefully monitored."

After reading the first article, I wondered if a child that young could honestly be capable of sexually harassing another child... then i stumbled into the second article -- and i'm pretty much appalled... are children really capable of sexual harassment?

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 11:25 AM

7 year olds are almost certianally not capable of the type of sexual harassment we see in adults. They simply do not have the necessary social, ethical, or moral technologies in place yet (let alone an almost complete lack of sexual drive). The first case is a case of overreaction. Tell the boy it's wrong, and tell him why. Suspending the first kid was irresponsible and reactionary. This is why it is extreemly important to have sexual education in schools. The second kid has the beginnings of antisocial behavior, and should be monitored by a professional over the next few years. His behavior was not sexual, however. It was intended as offensive in a more general sens, probably in order to get attention. I suspect that he doesn't have very much knowledge about sexuality at all, let alone sexual perversion.

f6twister · 02-08-2006, 11:26 AM

Kids that young don't know what sexual contact is. I will agree that kids can be taught boundaries and that a waist band or shoving a hand in someones pants is wrong but did they know that what they did was sexual harassment? I don't believe they can understand that. The mother wanting the violator treated as a sex offender is absurd. Had her daughter shoved her hand into this kids pants pocket for any reason, the girls mom would have said "kids will be kids" and denied her child was involved in any time of sexual activity.

JustJess · 02-08-2006, 11:35 AM

Don't discount the possibility of learned behavior, in the second case. In the first case, yes, it sounds like an overreaction. But in the second... I can tell you from rather personal experience that kids learn things from adults and will enact those things on other more vulnerable kids. Sometimes they know what they're doing, and other times they don't... but don't automatically assume they don't. I'd be checking that kid's home life pretty thoroughly.

billege · 02-08-2006, 11:42 AM

We're putting all sorts of adult motives and trains of thought on kids. They just don't see things that way. If boys are using sexually derogatory names to girls, at that age, it's more that they know the words are "bad" but there's no way they fully understand the context or meaning.

They heard them from older kids, adults, media, what have you, and they know they're derogatory. They are not adults, and it's time adults stop attributing adult motives to children. They do not think that way, yet.

JustJess · 02-08-2006, 11:46 AM

^^ Umm... not necessarily. Some children receive rather extensive educations in what exactly all of those things really mean. And they then understand the power behind it, even if they wouldn't verbalize in that way.

Pip · 02-08-2006, 11:48 AM

In the first case at least, I think it might be part of the normal testing of boundaries children do. In second grade there was a boy in my class who would run up to girls from behind and grope their butts. When we girls complained about him to our teacher, she told us to slap him in the face whenever he did this. Which we did (only time I've ever slapped someone!), and he stopped doing it, and grew up to be a productive member of society.

MageB420666 · 02-08-2006, 11:49 AM

Let me just say, some kids aren't as innocent as most people would think they are. I've met 6 and 7 year olds that know as much about sex as most adults, and they know exactly what they are doing when they act out sexually. It is entirely possible that the boy in the second article knew exactly what he was doing. In which case he needs a whole lot of help, and possible home schooling depending on how things are at his home.

That said, its also possible that he was just a bully that was dared by his friends to do something stupid, and then got mad when he found out the girl told her mother. A lot of kids are like that.
As for the little girl not wanting to go to school any more, there are tons of kids out there that are like that due to "normal" bullies. The only difference here is the initial bullying behavior that took place. In this case it is possible that people may be reacting based upon how they view the act as a sexually aware adult, than as the child probably viewed it. Note: I'm not condoning bullying in any form or fashion, I was bullied a lot in school and do not wish it upon anyone else.

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

^^ Umm... not necessarily. Some children receive rather extensive educations in what exactly all of those things really mean. And they then understand the power behind it, even if they wouldn't verbalize in that way.

At 7 this is exceedingly rare. If we're talking about normal average kids, odds are that it's simply about getting attention.

feelgood · 02-08-2006, 11:59 AM

Yes, a child is capable of sexual harassment. In grade 3, A friend of mine went down on a girl on the playground during recess in front of alot of other students. At the time, I didn't know squat shit about what the fuck he was doing but looking back, I realize now that he full well knew what he was doing and why, meanwhile, the girl didn't.

Meh, another reason why there should be sex education in elementary school. I didn't get mine until I was in grade 6 in middle school, by then there was already several incidents of sexual harrassments between some of my peers.

Parents will try to educate their children in those sorts of things and sometimes, even the best of intention, children will still be confused between what's right and what's wrong. Sex education in school can uniformly educate children about the various aspect of sexuality, maybe it doesn't have to be equalivant of those taught in junior or high school but at least they should teach what's approporiate and what's not.

JustJess · 02-08-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

At 7 this is exceedingly rare. If we're talking about normal average kids, odds are that it's simply about getting attention.

Agreed... that it is rare. At least, I hope so.

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

Don't discount the possibility of learned behavior, in the second case. In the first case, yes, it sounds like an overreaction. But in the second... I can tell you from rather personal experience that kids learn things from adults and will enact those things on other more vulnerable kids. Sometimes they know what they're doing, and other times they don't... but don't automatically assume they don't. I'd be checking that kid's home life pretty thoroughly.

Exactly. I volunteered for a women's shelter in Oakland, CA, and we saw some very troubled children come through the doors. One little boy, about five or six, lifted his arms for me to pick him up and when I did, he vigorously rubbed his genitals against me. It turns out that his mother was a prostitute and I shudder to think what that little boy's homelife might have been.

Sweetpea · 02-08-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

7 year olds are almost certianally not capable of the type of sexual harassment we see in adults.

I agree with you here.

The first case, it appears to me, that it was a young kid who was just seeing what he could get away with by annoying his classmate, the second case, does seem more serious to me, because of the allegations that it happened on the bus And at school...

And although this might not pertain to these above cases, it's important to note that,
Individuals who have the potential to become Child Molestors can sometimes start at early ages... and may show a propensity towards making others sexually uncomfortable and dominating in their early ages before a stronger impulse forms. I think early indentification of these individuals is important, so they can have a chance at rehabilitation/therapy.

sweetpea

ironman · 02-08-2006, 02:05 PM

They should call in the Sexual Harrasment Panda

meembo · 02-08-2006, 02:42 PM

I know kids make unwanted sexual contact with other kids in a power relationship. That's sexual harassment, to me. Of course, in childhood, a great majority of "sexual contact" is learning behavior and not intended to hurt or subordinate. But some behavior is. You can't deny that hands down someone's pants isn't sexual in nature.

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

You can't deny that hands down someone's pants isn't sexual in nature.

How can we be sure? Let's say hypothetically that you have a 7 year old son right now. He goes to school and puts his hands down a little girls pants. When you get him home and talk to him - i.e. "Why did you do that?" - he simply responds with a shrug. Are you sure that this is sexual in nature? Or could it simply be recognition of a taboo surrounding sexuality and simply wishing to utilize the shock effect of the action being taboo? I suspect that it could simply be that he recognises that the effect of such an action will be attention, and therefore the reward for the action would be attention, not of sexual gratification.

Edit: I'm assuming the double negative in your sentence was unintentional.

StanT · 02-08-2006, 03:02 PM

Hard to say;

At 7, I'd had the rudimentary birds & bees talk. However, girls were yucky and most had cooties. If I had my hands down a girls pants, it was probably because I was giving her a wedgie.

I'd really take a non-sexual approach to dealing with a kid like this until I was proven wrong.

meembo · 02-08-2006, 05:06 PM

willravel -- that was a whopper of a double negative on my part! I'm not sure what I said either. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough.

The original question was whether children are capable of sexual harassment. I think it is possible and that it occurs, with sexually-oriented behavior that is used in a power relationship. I think that someone's hands in someone else's pants is undeniably a sexual behavior in the context we are discussing.

"Sexual" matters are varied, and include carnal desire, anatomical growth and maturity, reproductive mechanics, and even gender role issuses. I think the confusing issue might be the aspect of sexual gratification, which I am glad you brought up. I don't assert that a 7 year old consciously or deliberately seeks sexual gratification in this way. However, I think that the term "sexual" here is most appropriate to describe the anatomical area and social behavioral issue that we seek to educate kids about.

In your hypothetical, the behavior is sexual in nature, even if the boy can't articulate what he is doing and why. A child isn't culpable in the same way a mature adult is for the same behavior (because of the understandings of intent and consequence), but the behavior is centered on areas of the body that have particular significance anatomically and socially. I readily concede your point that the behavior may not be about sexual gratification. I think taboos and shock effect are certainly part of the behavior -- which again, focuses on sexual organs, in this case. I think your last sentence -- "I suspect that it could simply be that he recognises that the effect of such an action will be attention, and therefore the reward for the action would be attention, not of sexual gratification." -- is correct, but not complete, and even if the kid is intellectually unaware of the specific sexual threat, is is still nonetheless a sexual threat.

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

willravel -- that was a whopper of a double negative on my part! I'm not sure what I said either. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough.

I've had a few whoppers in my time, don't worry about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

The original question was whether children are capable of sexual harassment. I think it is possible and that it occurs, with sexually-oriented behavior that is used in a power relationship. I think that someone's hands in someone else's pants is undeniably a sexual behavior in the context we are discussing.

Well are we speaking purely behavior, or arewetalking about intent? If we are talking about behavior, you could look at it as sexual in nature. If we are talking about intent, however, the question is a bit more complex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

"Sexual" matters are varied, and include carnal desire, anatomical growth and maturity, reproductive mechanics, and even gender role issuses. I think the confusing issue might be the aspect of sexual gratification, which I am glad you brought up. I don't assert that a 7 year old consciously or deliberately seeks sexual gratification in this way. However, I think that the term "sexual" here is most appropriate to describe the anatomical area and social behavioral issue that we seek to educate kids about.

I do not disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

In your hypothetical, the behavior is sexual in nature, even if the boy can't articulate what he is doing and why. A child isn't culpable in the same way a mature adult is for the same behavior (because of the understandings of intent and consequence), but the behavior is centered on areas of the body that have particular significance anatomically and socially. I readily concede your point that the behavior may not be about sexual gratification. I think taboos and shock effect are certainly part of the behavior -- which again, focuses on sexual organs, in this case. I think your last sentence -- "I suspect that it could simply be that he recognises that the effect of such an action will be attention, and therefore the reward for the action would be attention, not of sexual gratification." -- is correct, but not complete, and even if the kid is intellectually unaware of the specific sexual threat, is is still nonetheless a sexual threat.

It is a sexual threat to the victim, absolutely. Let me put it this way...If I accedentally graze a womans thigh at work, without any sexual intention conscious or subconscious, am I guilty of sexual harassment?

Siege · 02-08-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

She said she was told the boy would be banned from the bus for a week and would be required to eat lunch with the principal

Sexual or not, that'll show him good!

Nimetic · 02-08-2006, 08:36 PM

It's not a crime if you ask me.

It was a one-off (normal unlike workplace harrasment cases), the girl is probably just as strong physically as the boy, and neither have developed yet sexually. Gee. In primary school, many of the girls were bigger than we were.

I'd expect that the boy was still vague on exactly what society expects from him - and furthermore, he'd miles away from having formed a system of morals. Quite likely, he is struggling to figure why his actions have caused such a fuss.

My feeling is that this should have been referred to his parents. Punishing him severly on his first offence is only going to harden him to the world and make him resistant to the lessons that he has let to learn.

feelgood · 02-08-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Punishing him severly on his first offence is only going to harden him to the world and make him resistant to the lessons that he has let to learn.

I disagree, it's like saying when you touched the electric fence, you're gonna do it again because you didn't learn your lesson?

krwlz · 02-08-2006, 10:19 PM

I'm going to say that at that age, no they can not completly understand what they are doing. They may know what sex is, they may know what sexual acts are, and they may know how to perform them, but no, I just don't think that understand the concepts. They don't understand the idea of violation of someone elses rights. Kids think in a primarily me-first way at that age.

nezmot · 02-09-2006, 02:49 AM

This is just more of the sexual hysteria that is twisting our world into an absurd and dangerously skewed alternate reality. We're animals. Social animals - who rely on touch. Just because some people are uncomfortable and unable to deal with unwanted physical (and not necessarily sexual) contact, we all have to wrap ourselves up in cotton wool and avoid touching one another. It's not natural, and spreading the hysteria onto our children is just wrong. The problem is trying to form an argument without people hysterically screaming 'rapist!' or 'paedophile!' when you try and argue for a more relaxed set of social norms. So I wont bother. I say let kids touch one another. I say let them bully and be bullied by one another. Let them figure out what is and is not appropriate in life - but let them do it naturally. But please don't brainwash and confuse them into thinking that touching other people is wrong.

stevie667 · 02-09-2006, 08:29 AM

It's not sexual harrasment, they're just little b*****ds trying to be the most aggrivating possible.

raeanna74 · 02-09-2006, 08:49 AM

It is most definately possible for this to occur.

I was aware of one small boy who at the age of 7 had been guilty of molesting his younger sister. It actually began with his own father molesting him and he turned to his sister, most likely, in an effort to compensate emotionally for what was done to him. The molestation involved much more than some minor inappropriate touching and included some nudity. He was seeing a counselor for his behavior at the time.
Some time after I'd learned of this situation another mother who I was friends with had invited the little boy over to play with her son and sleep over. She discovered them in her son's room, under the sheets with the boy telling her son to touch the other boy's hooha. She freaked and took the boy home to his mother.
He was only 8 years old at that point and had already developed a pattern of negative sexual behavior.

As a teacher I also dealt with an issue of one particular boy who would corner girls in the hallway. This boy was 12 so a little older. He even made the attempt to follow a girl into the girls bathroom when he knew it was empty otherwise. Eventually I basically put a lockdown on him and would not allow him to go anywhere without a teacher supervising him. He was not allowed to play during recess or any other extra activity. He was not allowed to even wait for the bus alone. He waited in the school office. It did not end the situation but it was all I as a teacher could do. I also sat down with the girls who'd been approached and advised them on how to avoid any problematic situations. I even set up a buddy system with the girls telling them to try to go places at school in pairs instead of alone. Even to the point that I allowed them to go to the bathroom in pairs. Though it did make some bathroom visits longer but the result outweighed the cost. I was disappointed with the ability of the principal and school counselor to address the situation as well as the parents of the offending child. None seemed to care all that much and took on a 'boys will be boys' attitude.

It does sound like the school is dealing fairly well with this situtation though. I doubt that a lawsuit was truely necessary.

JustJess · 02-09-2006, 09:09 AM

Kids incapable of sexual abuse/harassment do not force younger kids to perform sexual acts far beyond nudity or touching. It starts somewhere.

This kid's home life needs review.

james t kirk · 02-11-2006, 12:14 PM

I remember being 7 and having crushes on girls. One in particular.

I also remember playing you show me yours and I will show you mine at about 7, 8, or 9. Surprisingly, it all came to a grinding hault from age 9 to about age 16 when it started up again. (BTW, it was the girls who were no longer interested in playing strip poker and the like, all my male friends were still into it, but not the girls anymore. Something just switches on in them)

Some things never change....

Trisk · 02-11-2006, 01:13 PM

It's cute that so many of you think that small children are incapable of sexual acts and abuse.

But um...lots of little kids know more than you might think. For one thing, if they watch ANY tv, they probably know that boys and girls do "things" together sometimes, and that certain areas on girls or boys are considered "off limits" without permission. Many children grow up with TVs in their homes these days, and many parents use it as a tool to entertain their kids when they're too busy to. I wouldn't doubt that these children at least knew that touching the girl/boy there was not "allowed."
On the same line of thought, I'm sure more than one child has stumbled upon pictures, porn, late night "softcore" television, or things of a similar nature and become curious. Which could lead to touching people inappropriately at school the next day.

I mean, maybe I'm the only one, but I remember knowing that "touching myself down there" felt good from a very young age. Even in Kindergarten. I must have been 4 or 5. I was curious, and I'm not quite sure where I learned this, but I did know that boys' "private parts" and girls' "private parts" went together.
Also, I remember one of my friends telling me that her mother told her that if she had any "white stuff" on her "private areas" that meant she was going to hell. Obviously, if parents are telling their children this in first grade or younger, some of them are going to get curious.

And I haven't even mentioned anything about sexual harrasment or abuse in the home. Unfortunately, it happens in quite a few homes. Uncles, cousins, parents, step-parents, friends of parents....all of them have been known to take advantage of small children and most of the time, the children won't tell anyone (even other members of the family) out of embarressment or confusion. If something like this happens, a child DEFINATELY knows what those parts do and might impose the same behaviors on other kids of their age.
Seeing parents engage in sexual acts could create the same reaction.

Sorry, but kids are easily influenced, curious and not the angels some of you think they are.
I know we like to think that their adorable faces could do no evil, but if little kids can kill people, hurt people, manipulate and lie to people...what makes you think that they can't do something like this?
It's not like the nerves in those parts of their body just sprout out of nowhere one day. Some kids just gain awareness of it at a different age than others, for whatever reason.

Willravel · 02-11-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

It's cute that so many of you think that small children are incapable of sexual acts and abuse.

So where do you have your degree in child psychology from? Cute U.?

Gilda · 02-12-2006, 11:53 AM

This is certainly sexual harassment, a pretty mild case in the first story, a much more troubling one in the second. The follow up of the death threat seems to me to indicate a clear intent at violence in the first.

Regardless of intent, it's imperative that these boys be taught that their actions are grossly inappropriate.

I used to teach sex ed as part of a team, with 8th graders. The class was called family planning, and included a bunch of life skills like bugeting, caring for a child, shopping, and various other skills one needs to be able to function. Sex ed was a big part of it. It didn't take long to discover that 8th grade is about five years too late. I was astounded by what these kids already knew, and how much foolish and dangerous information they'd picked up by the age of 13. We'd occasionally have pregnant girls in class, or boys who were already fathers, students for whom the skills we were teaching were vitally important in their immediate future.

Don't get hung up on the label. We need to teach young children what is and isn't appropriate behavior. Sticking your hand inside someone else's pants or underwear is inappropriate. Sending a love note saying "I wont to sexx wih yoo", as happened in a second grade classroom I volunteered in a few months back is clearly inappropriate.

This little boy in the second example obviously shouldn't be in the same school environment with that girl. His actions have proven that, whatever label you want to put on them.

Gilda

1010011010 · 02-12-2006, 12:33 PM

Under what circumstances is a child going to be in positional authority over another child and abuse that position to attempt to coerce subordinate children sexually? School is not a "work environment" unless and until they allow children to legally "quit" with no artificial consequences (e.g truancy). This situation fails utterly to meet the defined conditions required for "sexual harassment".

Herre's a question, though. What would happen if you reported a school to CPS (Child Protective Services) as being unsafe for children? If your kids beat the crap out of each other or sexually abuse each other, they'll come and place the kids in foster care.... the idea being "this adult isn't fit to supervise children", right? So if wehave reports of sexual and physical abuse of children occurring at a given address, and that address happens to be a school, and the adults at this address claim to be acting as parents (I.E. in loco parentis)... I dunno... I just like the idea of pitting two different broken systems against each other.

Trisk · 02-12-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So where do you have your degree in child psychology from? Cute U.?

I didn't mention anything about child psychology. It doesn't take much to put some logical facts together.
a) Fact: Television has lots of allusions and direct references to sex.
b) Fact: Kids have brains and a memory. Therefore, it doesn't take much thinking to connect seeing sex on tv with touching someone inappropriately the next day.
Same thing when kids curse at passing cars or something after their parents do it. One of the ways small children learn things is through imitation.
c) Fact: Often, kids (like any other human being) will get curious when parents tell them something is off limits.
d) Curiousity could lead do doing what they're not supposed to
e) Fact: Sexual abuse is reported in children 300,000 to 400,000 times a year and that doesn't take into account the fact that most children won't ever report it to anyone with a position of authority because of fear, shame, or confusion.
f) Having known people with a history of sexual abuse who confessed to me that they had later on imposed their sexual desires on other unwilling victims, I didn't think it was that far-fetched an idea that this could happen.
g) Talk to any parent, teacher or anyone who spends time around children and you'll find that children imitate people, pick up language from people, and grow up with many of their parents' ideas on things (politics, racism...that type of thing). That being true, how can you expect children not to be influenced by sex? Are kids suddenly blind to sexual acts occuring in their own homes? Do their ears magically stop working when their parents say bad things?
h) We've seen on the news stories of children doing a variety of other heinous acts. Whether they should be responsible for it at the same level as adults are is questionable, but that does not mean that children are dumb, ignorant, blind and deaf. Children ARE capable of doing evil, and not just in one area. It doesn't take a degree in Child Psychology to raise children, watch children, remember what it's like to be a child, or see what's on tv these days.

Regardless, you can keep thinking that all children have wings on their backs and don't understand a thing in the world until 18, if it makes you happy.
It's nice to look at the world as such a pretty place. Enjoy it.

Nimetic · 03-12-2006, 10:37 PM

When we punish adults - we do it on the basis that they understand the consequences of their actions and what the penalty will be if they don't obey the rules.

To me, this is fair.

If you apply the punishment to a child, one who doesn't yet understand that an activity is forbidden - that is unreasonable.

Now taking that further - I am not a psych, but I can imagine that if I was punished and didn't understand the reason, then I would become upset. I would start to build a grudge against the parent/society.

These are my reasons... I'm not arguing for zero punishment - but for punishment to be limited to those cases where the rules have been clearly explained in advance and a fair warning given.

Looking further into this case also. Sexual harassment is a crime, for adults, for a specific set of reasons. These reasons include employer/employee power balance, male/female size differences and adult sexual drives/feelings/modesty.

None of these issues relate directly to kids of 7. For that reason also - I do not see this as sexual harrassment, as it is normally defined.

Heck, if this is sexual harassment - you'll need to lock me away also, for looking up the skirt of my kindergarten teacher (as she stepped over me one day).

Willravel · 03-12-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

I didn't mention anything about child psychology. It doesn't take much to put some logical facts together.
a) Fact: Television has lots of allusions and direct references to sex.

My dog watches TV, do you think that, despite the obvious intelect of a dog, he could be effected in any way by it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

b) Fact: Kids have brains and a memory. Therefore, it doesn't take much thinking to connect seeing sex on tv with touching someone inappropriately the next day.Same thing when kids curse at passing cars or something after their parents do it. One of the ways small children learn things is through imitation.

Some parrots can mimic spoken language, does that mean they understand what they are saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

c) Fact: Often, kids (like any other human being) will get curious when parents tell them something is off limits.

Curiosity is far from a complete understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

e) Fact: Sexual abuse is reported in children 300,000 to 400,000 times a year and that doesn't take into account the fact that most children won't ever report it to anyone with a position of authority because of fear, shame, or confusion.

I'm not sure what this has to do with whether young children are capable of consciously commitiign sexual harassment. While it's a very sad statistic, it really belongs in a different discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

f) Having known people with a history of sexual abuse who confessed to me that they had later on imposed their sexual desires on other unwilling victims, I didn't think it was that far-fetched an idea that this could happen.

Key words: "later on". This suggests that they did not have the manifestations of their sexual problems until they were older (teens+).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

g) Talk to any parent, teacher or anyone who spends time around children and you'll find that children imitate people, pick up language from people, and grow up with many of their parents' ideas on things (politics, racism...that type of thing). That being true, how can you expect children not to be influenced by sex? Are kids suddenly blind to sexual acts occuring in their own homes? Do their ears magically stop working when their parents say bad things?

If I use the word "bastard" in front of my 2 yr old daughter, she might repeat it. Does that mean she knows what it means? Of course not. You have to consider the capability of the level of development in a child in discussiung such things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

h) We've seen on the news stories of children doing a variety of other heinous acts. Whether they should be responsible for it at the same level as adults are is questionable, but that does not mean that children are dumb, ignorant, blind and deaf. Children ARE capable of doing evil, and not just in one area. It doesn't take a degree in Child Psychology to raise children, watch children, remember what it's like to be a child, or see what's on tv these days.

Would my dog be doing evil by biting me in the hand? There is a marked difference between misbehacing and "evil"... Unless your name is Damon, and you have a 666 tattoo on your head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trisk

Regardless, you can keep thinking that all children have wings on their backs and don't understand a thing in the world until 18, if it makes you happy.
It's nice to look at the world as such a pretty place. Enjoy it.

The kids in the above articles were not 18, they were 6 and 7 respectively. That's too young to commit sexual harassment.

JustJess · 03-13-2006, 12:07 PM

Okay, how about this:
My cousin molested me. I was maybe 4, maybe as old as 7. I don't frankly know. He was only 3 years older. The actions he required were not those of a child. While I didn’t realize it at the time, I acted out in ways classic to children who are being abused. (I’ll spare you the details.) As an adult, I no longer blame him, and I am no longer angry. But I used to be, because it was abuse, no matter how old he was. I now believe that he knew to ask and do the things he did due to his own mother’s abuse of him, but that does not change what happened to me.

I didn't talk about it. With anyone. But I knew it was wrong, and eventually was brave enough to tell him I wasn't going to do it anymore, and if he didn't leave me alone, I'd tell. By this time, I believe I was 8 years old, making him only 11. I knew what it was, what sex was, what it was all about. Had I been inclined, I could have passed on the abuse and would have understood what I was doing.

And don't for a minute believe I was his only victim. I was not. It starts somewhere, somehow. So yes, I believe children are capable of a lot of things.

Charlatan · 03-13-2006, 12:25 PM

Jess provides a great example. In the end, I'd say it depends on the kid doing it.

To some kids, it is just doing something they aren't supposed to do (they are being naughty and don't have a full grasp of their actions) for others it is something pathological.

In Jess's case, especially given the abuse by his mother, I go with the latter.

Ustwo · 03-13-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

They should call in the Sexual Harrasment Panda

I recall saying 'sexual' things as a young kid, got in trouble for it once, but I nor my friends understood it, it was more of a we knew we were not suppose to say those things so we did.

My friends have a child and whenever I am alone with him (he is 3.5) he gets this devilish look in his eye and will say 'naughty words' showing off to the company.

Its not sexual harrasment, just harrasment that kids do to each other.

Edit:Hehe I just recalled an incident I had as a child. We were staying over the house of some of my parents friends. They had a daughter my age. I can't recall how old I was, but maybe 7 or 8. At any rate the baby sitter put us to bed before we were tired of course, so I snuck into her room and showed her Mr. Happy. I knew I wasn't suppose to do this (why was another issue I didn't know) and she knew she shouldn't look at it , so she would peek out from under the covers and then giggle and hide her head, then look again. It wasn't sexual it was more getting in trouble. Finally the babysitter came in, I don't think she knew was I was doing, and puts me back to bed. I was of course worried we would get in trouble but nothing was ever said. I'm sure in todays climate I was sexually harrasing her. (and just a side note I was never abused as a child, so nothing here was learned, it just seemed like something to do while showing off to another kid, after all girls weren't suppose to see your penis).

JustJess · 03-13-2006, 12:44 PM

^^ That's certainly harmless and silly and a million kids do something similar. I'm just saying... it's not all harmless and we can't assume it is.

Bill O'Rights · 03-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

...it's not all harmless and we can't assume it is.

Noted and accepted.

Now...how does a simple dumbass, like me, tell the difference? Beyond, of course, the obvious difference of simple "You show me...I show you", and some little pre-perv trying to get it on.
What I mean to say is, I had experiences similar to that which Ustwo described. I was just a normal curious kid. Just like the hundreds of thousands that are out there right now. How do we isolate the one out of (100? 1000?), that just isn't part of the norm?
Are things really that much different from when I was playing "doctor" with Kathy ******?

02-08-2006, 11:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
f6twister Addict	Kids that young don't know what sexual contact is. I will agree that kids can be taught boundaries and that a waist band or shoving a hand in someones pants is wrong but did they know that what they did was sexual harassment? I don't believe they can understand that. The mother wanting the violator treated as a sex offender is absurd. Had her daughter shoved her hand into this kids pants pocket for any reason, the girls mom would have said "kids will be kids" and denied her child was involved in any time of sexual activity. __________________ A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

02-08-2006, 11:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Don't discount the possibility of learned behavior, in the second case. In the first case, yes, it sounds like an overreaction. But in the second... I can tell you from rather personal experience that kids learn things from adults and will enact those things on other more vulnerable kids. Sometimes they know what they're doing, and other times they don't... but don't automatically assume they don't. I'd be checking that kid's home life pretty thoroughly. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-08-2006, 11:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	We're putting all sorts of adult motives and trains of thought on kids. They just don't see things that way. If boys are using sexually derogatory names to girls, at that age, it's more that they know the words are "bad" but there's no way they fully understand the context or meaning. They heard them from older kids, adults, media, what have you, and they know they're derogatory. They are not adults, and it's time adults stop attributing adult motives to children. They do not think that way, yet. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

02-08-2006, 11:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	^^ Umm... not necessarily. Some children receive rather extensive educations in what exactly all of those things really mean. And they then understand the power behind it, even if they wouldn't verbalize in that way. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-08-2006, 11:49 AM	#8 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	Let me just say, some kids aren't as innocent as most people would think they are. I've met 6 and 7 year olds that know as much about sex as most adults, and they know exactly what they are doing when they act out sexually. It is entirely possible that the boy in the second article knew exactly what he was doing. In which case he needs a whole lot of help, and possible home schooling depending on how things are at his home. That said, its also possible that he was just a bully that was dared by his friends to do something stupid, and then got mad when he found out the girl told her mother. A lot of kids are like that. As for the little girl not wanting to go to school any more, there are tons of kids out there that are like that due to "normal" bullies. The only difference here is the initial bullying behavior that took place. In this case it is possible that people may be reacting based upon how they view the act as a sexually aware adult, than as the child probably viewed it. Note: I'm not condoning bullying in any form or fashion, I was bullied a lot in school and do not wish it upon anyone else. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

02-08-2006, 11:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	7 year olds are almost certianally not capable of the type of sexual harassment we see in adults. They simply do not have the necessary social, ethical, or moral technologies in place yet (let alone an almost complete lack of sexual drive). The first case is a case of overreaction. Tell the boy it's wrong, and tell him why. Suspending the first kid was irresponsible and reactionary. This is why it is extreemly important to have sexual education in schools. The second kid has the beginnings of antisocial behavior, and should be monitored by a professional over the next few years. His behavior was not sexual, however. It was intended as offensive in a more general sens, probably in order to get attention. I suspect that he doesn't have very much knowledge about sexuality at all, let alone sexual perversion.

02-08-2006, 11:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
Pip Likes Hats Location: Stockholm, Sweden	In the first case at least, I think it might be part of the normal testing of boundaries children do. In second grade there was a boy in my class who would run up to girls from behind and grope their butts. When we girls complained about him to our teacher, she told us to slap him in the face whenever he did this. Which we did (only time I've ever slapped someone!), and he stopped doing it, and grew up to be a productive member of society.

02-08-2006, 11:59 AM	#10 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	Yes, a child is capable of sexual harassment. In grade 3, A friend of mine went down on a girl on the playground during recess in front of alot of other students. At the time, I didn't know squat shit about what the fuck he was doing but looking back, I realize now that he full well knew what he was doing and why, meanwhile, the girl didn't. Meh, another reason why there should be sex education in elementary school. I didn't get mine until I was in grade 6 in middle school, by then there was already several incidents of sexual harrassments between some of my peers. Parents will try to educate their children in those sorts of things and sometimes, even the best of intention, children will still be confused between what's right and what's wrong. Sex education in school can uniformly educate children about the various aspect of sexuality, maybe it doesn't have to be equalivant of those taught in junior or high school but at least they should teach what's approporiate and what's not. __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

02-08-2006, 02:05 PM	#14 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	They should call in the Sexual Harrasment Panda __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

02-08-2006, 02:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I know kids make unwanted sexual contact with other kids in a power relationship. That's sexual harassment, to me. Of course, in childhood, a great majority of "sexual contact" is learning behavior and not intended to hurt or subordinate. But some behavior is. You can't deny that hands down someone's pants isn't sexual in nature. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

02-08-2006, 03:02 PM	#17 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	Hard to say; At 7, I'd had the rudimentary birds & bees talk. However, girls were yucky and most had cooties. If I had my hands down a girls pants, it was probably because I was giving her a wedgie. I'd really take a non-sexual approach to dealing with a kid like this until I was proven wrong.

02-08-2006, 05:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	willravel -- that was a whopper of a double negative on my part! I'm not sure what I said either. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough. The original question was whether children are capable of sexual harassment. I think it is possible and that it occurs, with sexually-oriented behavior that is used in a power relationship. I think that someone's hands in someone else's pants is undeniably a sexual behavior in the context we are discussing. "Sexual" matters are varied, and include carnal desire, anatomical growth and maturity, reproductive mechanics, and even gender role issuses. I think the confusing issue might be the aspect of sexual gratification, which I am glad you brought up. I don't assert that a 7 year old consciously or deliberately seeks sexual gratification in this way. However, I think that the term "sexual" here is most appropriate to describe the anatomical area and social behavioral issue that we seek to educate kids about. In your hypothetical, the behavior is sexual in nature, even if the boy can't articulate what he is doing and why. A child isn't culpable in the same way a mature adult is for the same behavior (because of the understandings of intent and consequence), but the behavior is centered on areas of the body that have particular significance anatomically and socially. I readily concede your point that the behavior may not be about sexual gratification. I think taboos and shock effect are certainly part of the behavior -- which again, focuses on sexual organs, in this case. I think your last sentence -- "I suspect that it could simply be that he recognises that the effect of such an action will be attention, and therefore the reward for the action would be attention, not of sexual gratification." -- is correct, but not complete, and even if the kid is intellectually unaware of the specific sexual threat, is is still nonetheless a sexual threat. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

02-08-2006, 08:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	It's not a crime if you ask me. It was a one-off (normal unlike workplace harrasment cases), the girl is probably just as strong physically as the boy, and neither have developed yet sexually. Gee. In primary school, many of the girls were bigger than we were. I'd expect that the boy was still vague on exactly what society expects from him - and furthermore, he'd miles away from having formed a system of morals. Quite likely, he is struggling to figure why his actions have caused such a fuss. My feeling is that this should have been referred to his parents. Punishing him severly on his first offence is only going to harden him to the world and make him resistant to the lessons that he has let to learn.

02-08-2006, 10:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	I'm going to say that at that age, no they can not completly understand what they are doing. They may know what sex is, they may know what sexual acts are, and they may know how to perform them, but no, I just don't think that understand the concepts. They don't understand the idea of violation of someone elses rights. Kids think in a primarily me-first way at that age.

02-09-2006, 02:49 AM	#24 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	This is just more of the sexual hysteria that is twisting our world into an absurd and dangerously skewed alternate reality. We're animals. Social animals - who rely on touch. Just because some people are uncomfortable and unable to deal with unwanted physical (and not necessarily sexual) contact, we all have to wrap ourselves up in cotton wool and avoid touching one another. It's not natural, and spreading the hysteria onto our children is just wrong. The problem is trying to form an argument without people hysterically screaming 'rapist!' or 'paedophile!' when you try and argue for a more relaxed set of social norms. So I wont bother. I say let kids touch one another. I say let them bully and be bullied by one another. Let them figure out what is and is not appropriate in life - but let them do it naturally. But please don't brainwash and confuse them into thinking that touching other people is wrong.

02-09-2006, 08:29 AM	#25 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	It's not sexual harrasment, they're just little b*****ds trying to be the most aggrivating possible. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

02-09-2006, 08:49 AM	#26 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	It is most definately possible for this to occur. I was aware of one small boy who at the age of 7 had been guilty of molesting his younger sister. It actually began with his own father molesting him and he turned to his sister, most likely, in an effort to compensate emotionally for what was done to him. The molestation involved much more than some minor inappropriate touching and included some nudity. He was seeing a counselor for his behavior at the time. Some time after I'd learned of this situation another mother who I was friends with had invited the little boy over to play with her son and sleep over. She discovered them in her son's room, under the sheets with the boy telling her son to touch the other boy's hooha. She freaked and took the boy home to his mother. He was only 8 years old at that point and had already developed a pattern of negative sexual behavior. As a teacher I also dealt with an issue of one particular boy who would corner girls in the hallway. This boy was 12 so a little older. He even made the attempt to follow a girl into the girls bathroom when he knew it was empty otherwise. Eventually I basically put a lockdown on him and would not allow him to go anywhere without a teacher supervising him. He was not allowed to play during recess or any other extra activity. He was not allowed to even wait for the bus alone. He waited in the school office. It did not end the situation but it was all I as a teacher could do. I also sat down with the girls who'd been approached and advised them on how to avoid any problematic situations. I even set up a buddy system with the girls telling them to try to go places at school in pairs instead of alone. Even to the point that I allowed them to go to the bathroom in pairs. Though it did make some bathroom visits longer but the result outweighed the cost. I was disappointed with the ability of the principal and school counselor to address the situation as well as the parents of the offending child. None seemed to care all that much and took on a 'boys will be boys' attitude. It does sound like the school is dealing fairly well with this situtation though. I doubt that a lawsuit was truely necessary. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

02-09-2006, 09:09 AM	#27 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Kids incapable of sexual abuse/harassment do not force younger kids to perform sexual acts far beyond nudity or touching. It starts somewhere. This kid's home life needs review. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-11-2006, 12:14 PM	#28 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I remember being 7 and having crushes on girls. One in particular. I also remember playing you show me yours and I will show you mine at about 7, 8, or 9. Surprisingly, it all came to a grinding hault from age 9 to about age 16 when it started up again. (BTW, it was the girls who were no longer interested in playing strip poker and the like, all my male friends were still into it, but not the girls anymore. Something just switches on in them) Some things never change....

02-11-2006, 01:13 PM	#29 (permalink)
Trisk Insane	It's cute that so many of you think that small children are incapable of sexual acts and abuse. But um...lots of little kids know more than you might think. For one thing, if they watch ANY tv, they probably know that boys and girls do "things" together sometimes, and that certain areas on girls or boys are considered "off limits" without permission. Many children grow up with TVs in their homes these days, and many parents use it as a tool to entertain their kids when they're too busy to. I wouldn't doubt that these children at least knew that touching the girl/boy there was not "allowed." On the same line of thought, I'm sure more than one child has stumbled upon pictures, porn, late night "softcore" television, or things of a similar nature and become curious. Which could lead to touching people inappropriately at school the next day. I mean, maybe I'm the only one, but I remember knowing that "touching myself down there" felt good from a very young age. Even in Kindergarten. I must have been 4 or 5. I was curious, and I'm not quite sure where I learned this, but I did know that boys' "private parts" and girls' "private parts" went together. Also, I remember one of my friends telling me that her mother told her that if she had any "white stuff" on her "private areas" that meant she was going to hell. Obviously, if parents are telling their children this in first grade or younger, some of them are going to get curious. And I haven't even mentioned anything about sexual harrasment or abuse in the home. Unfortunately, it happens in quite a few homes. Uncles, cousins, parents, step-parents, friends of parents....all of them have been known to take advantage of small children and most of the time, the children won't tell anyone (even other members of the family) out of embarressment or confusion. If something like this happens, a child DEFINATELY knows what those parts do and might impose the same behaviors on other kids of their age. Seeing parents engage in sexual acts could create the same reaction. Sorry, but kids are easily influenced, curious and not the angels some of you think they are. I know we like to think that their adorable faces could do no evil, but if little kids can kill people, hurt people, manipulate and lie to people...what makes you think that they can't do something like this? It's not like the nerves in those parts of their body just sprout out of nowhere one day. Some kids just gain awareness of it at a different age than others, for whatever reason.

02-12-2006, 11:53 AM	#31 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	This is certainly sexual harassment, a pretty mild case in the first story, a much more troubling one in the second. The follow up of the death threat seems to me to indicate a clear intent at violence in the first. Regardless of intent, it's imperative that these boys be taught that their actions are grossly inappropriate. I used to teach sex ed as part of a team, with 8th graders. The class was called family planning, and included a bunch of life skills like bugeting, caring for a child, shopping, and various other skills one needs to be able to function. Sex ed was a big part of it. It didn't take long to discover that 8th grade is about five years too late. I was astounded by what these kids already knew, and how much foolish and dangerous information they'd picked up by the age of 13. We'd occasionally have pregnant girls in class, or boys who were already fathers, students for whom the skills we were teaching were vitally important in their immediate future. Don't get hung up on the label. We need to teach young children what is and isn't appropriate behavior. Sticking your hand inside someone else's pants or underwear is inappropriate. Sending a love note saying "I wont to sexx wih yoo", as happened in a second grade classroom I volunteered in a few months back is clearly inappropriate. This little boy in the second example obviously shouldn't be in the same school environment with that girl. His actions have proven that, whatever label you want to put on them. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

02-12-2006, 12:33 PM	#32 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	Under what circumstances is a child going to be in positional authority over another child and abuse that position to attempt to coerce subordinate children sexually? School is not a "work environment" unless and until they allow children to legally "quit" with no artificial consequences (e.g truancy). This situation fails utterly to meet the defined conditions required for "sexual harassment". Herre's a question, though. What would happen if you reported a school to CPS (Child Protective Services) as being unsafe for children? If your kids beat the crap out of each other or sexually abuse each other, they'll come and place the kids in foster care.... the idea being "this adult isn't fit to supervise children", right? So if wehave reports of sexual and physical abuse of children occurring at a given address, and that address happens to be a school, and the adults at this address claim to be acting as parents (I.E. in loco parentis)... I dunno... I just like the idea of pitting two different broken systems against each other. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

03-12-2006, 10:37 PM	#34 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	When we punish adults - we do it on the basis that they understand the consequences of their actions and what the penalty will be if they don't obey the rules. To me, this is fair. If you apply the punishment to a child, one who doesn't yet understand that an activity is forbidden - that is unreasonable. Now taking that further - I am not a psych, but I can imagine that if I was punished and didn't understand the reason, then I would become upset. I would start to build a grudge against the parent/society. These are my reasons... I'm not arguing for zero punishment - but for punishment to be limited to those cases where the rules have been clearly explained in advance and a fair warning given. Looking further into this case also. Sexual harassment is a crime, for adults, for a specific set of reasons. These reasons include employer/employee power balance, male/female size differences and adult sexual drives/feelings/modesty. None of these issues relate directly to kids of 7. For that reason also - I do not see this as sexual harrassment, as it is normally defined. Heck, if this is sexual harassment - you'll need to lock me away also, for looking up the skirt of my kindergarten teacher (as she stepped over me one day).

03-13-2006, 12:07 PM	#36 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Okay, how about this: My cousin molested me. I was maybe 4, maybe as old as 7. I don't frankly know. He was only 3 years older. The actions he required were not those of a child. While I didn’t realize it at the time, I acted out in ways classic to children who are being abused. (I’ll spare you the details.) As an adult, I no longer blame him, and I am no longer angry. But I used to be, because it was abuse, no matter how old he was. I now believe that he knew to ask and do the things he did due to his own mother’s abuse of him, but that does not change what happened to me. I didn't talk about it. With anyone. But I knew it was wrong, and eventually was brave enough to tell him I wasn't going to do it anymore, and if he didn't leave me alone, I'd tell. By this time, I believe I was 8 years old, making him only 11. I knew what it was, what sex was, what it was all about. Had I been inclined, I could have passed on the abuse and would have understood what I was doing. And don't for a minute believe I was his only victim. I was not. It starts somewhere, somehow. So yes, I believe children are capable of a lot of things. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

03-13-2006, 12:25 PM	#37 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Jess provides a great example. In the end, I'd say it depends on the kid doing it. To some kids, it is just doing something they aren't supposed to do (they are being naughty and don't have a full grasp of their actions) for others it is something pathological. In Jess's case, especially given the abuse by his mother, I go with the latter. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-13-2006, 12:44 PM	#39 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	^^ That's certainly harmless and silly and a million kids do something similar. I'm just saying... it's not all harmless and we can't assume it is. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.