Couple Charged With Having Intercourse In Front Of 9-year-old Daughter
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251296,00.html


I need a Parenting Education 101 and TFP parents are as good as they get.:thumbsup: Is having sex in front of kids really that bad that it merits a felony charge? What would the psychological damage be?

I figure if they care enough to not hide about any thing, they must've also taught her about other things like condoms, BC pills, not putting out to horn bags, etc...but it's not mentioned in the article. If it does happen, would it make what they do permissible?

My, how morals change. In Appalachia (where I grew up), it was common for single room cabins to house generations. People had sex in front of one another all the time, although probably not quite as openly as these folks. One set of my great-grandparents lived with her family for a few years after they got married in Southern Mississippi in a house slightly bigger than my living room. I refuse to believe that newlyweds in the 1880's were any different than those today.

Do I particularly want to have sex in front my kid? No, but that doesn't mean that I think someone is doing their own child harm by making the opposite decision, especially when the child is of an age to start to understand what's going on. I have a nephew who will be 3 in a few months and is still breastfeeding. Is that lewd too?

You obviously have not seen my parents... :eek:

America is the prudest country in the world. I really don't understand why they were charged.

That final question is a good one, and the points you make are also good. I know a fair amount of parents that coslept with their children when the kids were very young, and I also know some hippie parents whose house had a sleeping loft instead of bedrooms, so everyone was in the same room--meaning yes, the parents did have sex, and yes, the kids were there, but usually sleeping.

As long as they didn't force the 9-year-old to watch, I have a hard time believing that this is worthy of a felony conviction.

Well, you know social workers! Inhibited prurience gets transferred to others as if it's their own. My oldest, albeit accidentally, saw her mother and I going at it, and I don't think it hurt her any. My youngest nursed until he was five, and I think that's only benefitted him! America is the prudest country in the world, and probably the most confused...

Would I have sex in front of my children? No, I'd be too embarrassed.

Do I think that couple did anything to psychologically endanger their daughter? No. I think that sex should be taught in a loving environment. The daughter is probably going to see intercourse in a porn movie (or TFP Exhibition Forums :)) anyway, but won't see it done properly.

I guess if the daughter was not forced or overly-encouraged to watch, I say no crime was committed.

Wierd? Oh yes. A felony? Phwew, I'd be hard pressed to say for sure. Did the kid need to know about it the mechanics of sex at 9 years old? If the parents can answer that properly and convincingly, OK then.

It kinda gives me the creeps, though. I'm quite certain I wouldn't be able to perform in front of my daughter. *shudder*

A child breastfeeding at 3 years? Certainly not lewd, but definatly unusual. My daughter stopped at ~10 months. I think when the child is old enough to ask for Mommy's boob, the child is too old for Mommy's boob.

If I were arbitrating this trial, I would (at the very least) place the burden of proof on the state. Were the state able to prove that the girl suffered harm because of the parents' open sex practices, I might consider convicting them. That said, it seems exceedingly unlikely that any articulable harm was done. It's weird, it sounds like a bad idea to me, and I am certainly glad my parents never did such a thing. Even so, I think the parents were probably entirely within their rights to show their daughter the mechanics of sex.

After reading politicophile's post, I realise I may have jumped the gun a bit. I still don't understand the need for the mom & boyfriend to show a 9 year old how to have sex, but I certainly don't believe it's going to harm the child.

It's one of those "Were you actually thinking or did your common sense abandon you some time ago" kind of moments, not a "Stick them in a PMITA jail cell for a few years for doing what polite society may unjustly classify as mental damage to a child".

What does PMITA stand for, please, tinfoil?

Pound Me In The Arse.

I think its odd but unless something else was going on not worth a felony charge. But then I also think we should be able to have sex openly and infront of anyone without getting fined or arrested.

...I never would've guessed that, but thankyou.
...If the nine year old hangs around willingly, she may have other issues. That the parent felt free to not prevent it proves that she does. The "boyfriend" is probably a pervert.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does, then the case will actually make some sense. I thought I'd see some concerned TFP parents going nuts over this but I guess I'm wrong, or they have yet to come.


Based on what is known, is taking parental custody from the mom justified? I think it's a good call--preemptively.

This is the second thread in as many weeks where everyone at TFP seems to agree on something.

God, have things changed that much? Are we all now Stepford posters?

Really? So then what is Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Jordan, Iran to name just a few?

Yeah...I'm willing to bet money that there was more here than just an innocent sex-ed lesson. It just doesn't feel right. It smells, to me, like last Thursdays tuna casserole.

I do not consider myself a prude. However, I do not feel that parents should be openly having sex in front of a 9 year old. It'd be one thing if she had just happened to walk in on the parents having sex...but this just doesn't sit right. Felony? I don't know. Let's wait and see. If it is innocent, as they say, then a felony charge is probably undue. However, neither am I so quick to give 'em a pass. As a minimum, a swift kick in the ass.

I am with Bill on this, it doesn't feel right. As Politicolphile says, the burden of proof should be on the state.

In principle though I don't think it is necessary to have sex in front of your 9-year-old to teach them about sex. There are other methods of teaching that can be used, from books to films (and not porn you sickos).

To make this, OK, opens things up to abuse on many levels. Maybe not a felony as such but definitely a wake up call that this is not really acceptable behaviour.

OK, BOR and Charlatan, I can see where there's certainly the possibility for abuse here, and I know of historical anecdotes of that exact kind of abuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean that abuse is going on. I know you've both taken the "wait and see" stance here, and I can respect that, but I do feel the need to interject that it's entirely possible that there's absolutely nothing fishy going on here. It could be that the mom and boyfriend are modern-day hippies that believe in being "natural" and that this episode is an offshoot of that. On the flip side, it could also be that the boyfriend is angling to get the 9 year-old in the sack.

If there's no pedophilia going on here, I still don't see the problem. After all, if I can find a documentary on youtube of a 7 year-old breastfeeding in less than a second (the search, not the kid), then I don't see where there's any abuse here.

As a parent, I would not and could not conceive of having sex with a child in the room, or watching. Talk about performance anxiety. This will really turn the girl into a voyeur!! If they wanted to explain sex, there are much better ways of doing it. A lack of judgment error yes, but a felony, no way.

Parents of the year.... not even close.

"Hey dad...let's party!"

If the girl isn't having sex by 12, it'll be a miracle.
If she isn't knocked up by 15, a miracle.
50 sexual partners by age 21, a miracle.
Drug-addicted whore by age 25, miracle.
Single mother on welfare with her 5 kids by 28, miracle.
Strung out street ho by 30, miracle.
1000 sexual partners by age 33, miracle.
4 failed marriages by 34, miracle.
Dead by 35, miracle.
Her kids? Rinse, repeat.

At first I thought this was weird, then I realised people have been probably having sex infront of family for hundreds of thousands of years. I can't see myself doing it, but I seeing nothing wrong with it, IF it is the childs choice when and if to watch.

The fact that she sticks around some times does not indicate psychological damage. What child isn't curious about life, and at that age, especially about sex.

I think it's a bit odd that that's the method they came up with. It certainly shouldn't be a felony, but there's lots of better ways to go about it. At nine, the child wasn't really asking for a demonstration, either (I"m assuming). A closer look at their lives may be in good order.

How do you think people have been making babies for all of history? They kick all the kids out of the one-room-house so they can get it on, or go out to the forest and copulate under trees until they come back sticky (from tree sap)?

No, they have sex in the house. The kids would probably have been asleep, but we don't know that at all.

This is not to mention that they were not displaying pornography. A man and woman having intercourse is not prurient by definition, nor is it pornographic by any means.

The question I put to the dissenters is this: ok to show her a condom, yes? Explain how it works? Stop me when it's not ok anymore... put it on a banana to show hot to put it on a penis? Put it on a phallic sex aid? Put it on an actual penis? I mean come on. Or how about, this is a picture in a book of a vagina, for learning. This is a picture of a penis. This is an actual penis and vagina. I remember sex ed films in school that would have a cartoon cross-sectioned penis and vagina, and the penis would penetrate the vagina. It would show the semen entering the vagina, and completing the fertilization process for sexual reproduction. So giving the same lesson using the real thing is bad?

I understand that the crux of the issue is the repeated exposure... and sure, if they were educating, she wouldn't need to watch all the time. But here's the thing: Considering no one in this thread has raised a child who watched you have sex, you're not really informed to be able to state that a child would or would not "want to watch that" if it'd been introduced as something natural and not dirty or shameful.

This is somewhat akin to nudists. They don't view their bodies as something to be ashamed of, so they don't build in any reservations about being around naked people. If the kid is taught that sex is a natural thing, something shared between two people, then the kid will not care how much sex they're having or when they're having it. Based on what developmental psychology tells us about the way children learn, they could be playing Scrabble, for all she cares. It's not dirty icky perverted disgusting fucking... it's just... intercourse.

what's your solution, then, powerclown? unless it was nothing more than a sarcasm-infused observation, you must think that this is a problem.

so how would you "solve" this cycle? or are you just content to let these people exist how they will?

I don't think folks made babies while on display for educational purposes for all the past milenia. Folks may have been around, in the same room, fine. But to put your acts on open display? Unneccesary at best.

Sorry, don't have time to post much more than that right now.

I'd argue that not enough information is known to support such sweeping and irrational assumptions. Stating that such acts destabilize a person's psyche is the same kind of tactic many people use to get us riled up against the proliferation of sex. Denying that people are exposed to sex at that age already is a funny little lie that tweaks our perceptions even though we know it isn't the case. The truth is sex is everywhere, has been everywhere and will continue to be everywhere. Treated as passively as the couple claim it was, it is no more harmful than 8 year old Timmy uncovering his Dad's stash of porn.

Why is everyone responding to powerclown? For all we know, he was being sarcastic. His post was so outrageous that that was my impression. Why don't we wait for him to make a real post before making real responses...

Hell if anything, the child will be less confused and more likely to openly ask the parents at least something about sex. Unlike the majority of parents & children today where they shun even the idea of sex.

Sex? Shh.. teach abstinence and it'll all go away.

Sure this parent may be off her rocker, but at least she tried... even in a wayside sort of way.

Council them at best... anything more serious then that and its just out prudish judicial god system trying to make us be the little bible thumpers they want us to be.

When I was in University, I had a female friend whose mother once gave her a talk about sex that included the mother telling the father to take off his bath robe so that the mother could show the then 13 year old daughter the male penis and explain how it worked, etc. etc.

I remember being amazed. She seemed rather "no big deal really about it" My parents would have sooner eaten glass than done anything like that.

Her parents were quite new age I suppose.

Anyway, the one thing I do remember was that I asked her if the old man had a hard on and she said that he did (with a grin too).

All in all though, she was a fairly normal woman (whatever normal is) and did quite well at University.

Sometimes things here strike me as so messed up, that I admit to resorting to sarcasm as a first response. It's akin to nervous laughter I guess. I was probably right on the money regardless.

There are LIGHT YEARS of psychological difference between nudity for informational purposes and sexual education, and a 9 year old girl watching mom getting it doggystyle by the boyfriend, who for all we know is one of many she has, and at the very least is unmarried. What kind of role model is this woman to her young daughter? I have nothing at all against a young girl learning about reproduction in the proper context, and trust me I'm the last person to think sex is 'dirty', but there's nothing positive or educational going on here.

A 9 year old girl already has so much going on in her mind emotionally: peer pressure, fitting in, discovering the meaning of sex itself, discovering her own sexuality, the meaning of love, the attainment of her own self-respect, the meaning of reproduction, periods, strong emotional feelings of affection for boys (or girls), self discipline, issues of sexual aggression, issues of STDs, etc. A 9 year old girl has very little understanding of the concept of reproduction, let alone the concept of recreational sex. If she sees her mother - her role model - having sex in front of her, she's going to want to try it herself. We approve of 9 year olds having sex do we? And what kind of fucked up pervert adult male would enjoy or approve of having sex in front of a child? I suppose some of you people also think its ok for a guy to jerk off in front of a little girl, eh? Or maybe not so much so, if mom is doing it for him. This is Jerry Springer shit, people.

I'm sure decent, responsible adults at any time in history went to great lengths to seek out a bit of privacy while engaged in sex with children around. I'm amazed I even have to explain myself on this.

:shakehead:

Wow.....

I'm honestly blown away you guys all feel this way, I was 100% sure I was going to see people believing they should lose their kid for something like that.

I... I'm not even... sure how to explain why I think it's wrong to have sex in front of your 9 year old child..



I think, knowledge is power, just how you guys are explaining it. But too much knowledge, I think that is just asking for trouble.

I'm inclined to agree the child if no interference from police occured, would be having sex at 12...13..14 years of age.

Judging by the rest of your post, I don't think you can honestly say that your first post was sarcastic...

You make a lot of presumptions in your post and I suspect it's because you needed to do so in order to paint this behaviour in the worst possible light and make your position seem less puritanical.

I think a lot of people are forgetting themselves. Don't you remember being 9 years old? Would you have found this traumatizing? Would this have scarred you? Really?

Traumatizing? Shrug...

But that's not the charge against them.. provoding an unfit enviroment is the charge.

Yes, I think thats completely true.




Edit:

I posted this, and just sat here, I honestly cannot comprehend how ... this is being defended... it is so wrong, on so many levels.

I am by no means a puritan, or anything of the like, I have an extremely open mind on damn near every subject you can think of... To each his own. But no, you don't have sex in front of your own child... no... that is so not how to be a parent..

I'd have to say 'Yes'. I walked in on my parents when I was about eight years old and, trust me, it was the most awkward month or so afterward I've ever had in my life (This isn't even taking into account the number of times I could hear them doing it).

Anywho, how the hell are people actually defending this? I really don't understand it. Maybe it's just me, but I'd think that being forced to watch your parents (Or even just your mom) have sex would seriously mess anyone up, regardless of age.

That's true, and I think most people here would agree, if she had been forced to watch. There you have problems, but that was not the case: "Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed".

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, children should be children for as long as possible. On the other, sex is suppose to be an expression of love, and should not be seen as something obscene.

I'm guessing that part of the issue here was that this wasn't the girls PARENTS but her mother fucking the boyfriend.

Kids will accidentally see their parents having sex at some point in their lives. They may accidentally see their parent with another person too but I don't think we should encourage it by openly having sex in front of a child who's not even old enough to have started her period. Why are we so eager for children to grow up sexually before they're even half way mature emotionally.

Felony? No. Inappropriate, neglectfull even? Yeah.

Wanting to keep a child as a child for as long as possible is a luxury. There are a lot of places in the world where this is simply not a possibility, let alone the norm.

Parents in the US got it into their head at some point that because we lived in an advanced society (not a 3rd-world country), that they can attempt to shield children from becoming adult in any way, well into their teens. Today, there are tons of parents for whom the molly-coddling practices last into the early 20's as well, and some parents never outgrow their offspring's "child" phase. This practice is a luxury, but behaving any other way in America, as a parent, is treated as deviant or wrong.

Letting children know about sex is seen as sacrificing innocence, pushing them towards adulthood "sooner". Well, that's the way it's been working since humans existed. Children grow up- they always will- but attempting to keep them innocent by coddling them and shielding anything and everything that threatens to mature them, is your desire, and not historically natural. It used to be that people were married and starting families by their mid-to-late teens... "growing up" was important, not shunned like something filthy. Keeping kids innocent and child-like until 18 is a new concept for humans, not the norm.

Perhaps you are right. But, I do not live in a 3rd world country, and I enjoy the luxury of allowing my children to be children for as long as they are children.

I'm not sure how to address this. I mean, I'm 44 years old, but I'm always going to be my mother's "baby". Molly-coddling. Hmmm...let's see...well, let's look at it this way. Mistakes have to be made. It's how we learn. While we have to allow our chilren to fall down and scrape their knees, it is a parents instinct to protect thier child. There is a vast spectrum between never allowing the training wheels to come off, and allowing a child to ride his bike off of the roof. The best that we can do is to be there to help pick the child up when they take a particularly nasty tumble.

Again...I do have the luxury of not living in a jungle, and will make the best of it. What is deviant, or wrong, is predicated by the needs and values of society as a whole. While it may be perfectly acceptable to follow certain practices in my allegorical jungle, following those same practices in Pleasantville, USA will justifiably land you in prison.

Don't read so much into it. There is nothing wrong with letting children "know" about sex. They are, in my own opinion, ready to know as soon as they start to ask questions about it. That is not the same as allowing them to participate. And I do believe that allowing a 9 year old to "watch" is tantamount to participation.

I see what you're saying...I really do And, to some degree, I agree wholeheartedly. I see far too many young adults, and...oh, what the hell...even older adults, that were never allowed to mature.

On the other hand. We have the luxury (and that's not a bad thing) to let children be children when they should be children.

Look at it this way. I grew up in Pennsylvania coal country. A hundred years ago it would've been very common for a 9 year old to go work in the mines. Somewhere along the line, we saw that that wasn't right. We let them be children. As a result, I didn't have to go work in the mines. I got to play. I got to grow and mature and develop at a healthy pace. Am I making any sense?

Look, I'm not going to take the tired old "You don't have children, so you could never possibly understand." route. That's a cop out, at best. What I will say is that you (a collective you) have to understand that children are not miniature adults. They need to grow. And they need to grow at an appropriate pace.

I have no problem with educating children about sex. I had the sex talk with my son at around age 9... maybe younger. I was very explicit about what sex was and made sure he understood. I know because on long boring car rides I would amuse myself by quizzing him about. I remembered being in grade one and two and not having a clue. Worse getting misinformation from idiot friends who only had half the story.

So I have no issue with sex talk.

Fucking my wife infront of my son. On purpose. Not just a random walk in. It's just not right.

I have had sex in the same room while he was sleeping and given the size of our last house I woudn't be surprised if he had heard the sounds of my wife and I having sex. That's the nature of sex. No big deal.

Again. Performing sex for his viewing eduction. Not bloody likely.

Sex is just intercourse. Yes. It isn't dirty. But I am just not that much of an exhibitionist.


Here is a question. Assuming your partner is willing, would be willing to have sex in front of your parents. You know, just to get them to let you know if you are doing it right.

Agree wholeheartedly. Once we're adults, that's it for childhood, there's no going back, no matter how immature some of us are. We can allow them to keep their childhood ways without treating them like babies or the direct opposite-treating them like adults.
And protecting them from that nasty tumble if it's 100% certain that would be the result.

I don't see how anyone could compare the practices to a third world country to one that is not. Someone had brought up the point of people 100-200 years ago living in 1-room log cabins and having sex. There were also gunfights and disease...life expectancy was low; women had babies at 16, 17 years of age and kept having them until they no longer could or died.
Society has changed, mostly for the better.
Agreed again. This, to me, was tanatamount to forcing that participation. Anyone with half a brain would have either left the room to get it on or told the child to do so. This kid is probably going to start having sex by age 13, because 'it's no big deal, mommy liked it'. Or go the other extreme and be traumatized into thinking it's 'disgusting'. Either way, I don't see one thing 'healthy' about this situation.

My spouse's grandmother was married at 16, had her first child at 17, became a grandmother at 37. This was over 80 years ago. Now, when that happens, we immediately think, that poor deprived kid. My kids are almost 15, and they are still 'kids', albeit smart ones that I can converse with on a more adult level.
But, like I said earlier, and I say it to them, they need to keep that kiddom, enjoy their lives as kids. Once they're adults, they can't go back. Forcing them to 'accept' or 'view' what is, foremost, an intimate part of that adulthood is, to me, a form of abuse.
Had I known this woman, a hard smack to the back of her head with a 'wtf is WRONG with you??' would probably have been required.

I would just like to point out that it was awkward because sex was a behind closed doors activity, if it was out in the open even dinner table conversation, as it was for me by the time I was eight, you wouldn't have likely thought twice about walking in on your parents.

[sidenote: my parents were "normal", my mother was visibly pregnant with my little sister a few months before my eighth bday, causing me to ask all sorts of questions and them to give me a library shelf worth of books to read. Reading was my fav activity at the time, and it probably made it way less awkward for them]

Anyway, what this brings to mind to me is all the kids that hear their parents, go to investigate, crack the door and just sit there and watch. To me, the only difference is the couple in question knew she was there and since they knew she was there they could educate her. Sex is only such a dangerous thing for kids because parents/society make it such a dangerous thing by attaching all the baggage.

What creates the dilemma is that most people have the idea in their head that sex is something more than a recreational activity. Which is completely ok, but not everyone feels that way. Some people don't see it as anything more significant than a board game - to be enjoyed for it's own sake between two (sometimes more) people. As long as the child is educated and understands completely all the stuff that comes with sex (STD's, pregnancy ect.) Who cares if she has 500 partners by age 25, as long as she is responsible. Education is key, while I don't want to use the mother's method myself, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.

Where's this video?

;) :D

It is strange to hear about this, and I'm glad I never had to watch my parents. But, I can understand why they did it. She at least knows how everything works, unlike me at age 14. It is still kind of strange and probably unnecessary, but not wrong (or a felony). It might be worse if the Mom and her Dad just broke up and the new boyfriend hadn't been around for that long. That is the only part that doesn't seem quite right.

I would have never thought about the past single room homes before I read that post. Maybe they had everyone wait outside or did it quietly under the covers. Maybe they only had it outside in the bushes. Eitherway, there wouldn't be much that wasn't wide in the open for everyone to see.

Modern medicine and advanced law enforcement infrastructure account for the reduction in disease and crime. Those are both the result of economic growth, as are things like people affording houses bigger than a single room. These societal economic advances have nothing to do with societal principles, directly. What changes are the way people live their lives with the new options given them by these advances.

Prevailing societal opinions on things change over time, yes- but to discount societal principles of the past simply because the time period is consistent with other, unrelated things we've advanced from, is fallacious. We didn't advance from people having sex in the same room as their children because they suddenly decided it was disgusting and outmoded... they did so because living situations changed and people were able to procreate (or just bump uglies) in their own room. Over time, most things that are "the way it is" change into an opinion of "the way it should be". Think of any person who has ever related an ideal from their past, adding that now, "that's the way it should be".

This directly relates to the concept of privacy- something which is harped on and considered a moot point to argue against in America. When the family home became compartmentalized, what used to be a feeling of the family living together turned into everyone "needing" their "own space". An even better example of the learned behaviors that society amends its principles towards is the difference between America and most other developed countries in the world with how much space we seem to "need" to live comfortably. That is not something all humans know from birth- you learn it based on the way you live. Because we have space in America (for the moment), a single-occupancy apartment in america is huge in comparison to a single-occupancy apartment in europe, japan, china... just for examples. In areas where space is limited, living spaces are not made to be huge. That is what they're used to, so they never "learned" to "need" more space.

We change our principles based on how we live- the principles we're instilled with while growing up are changed and adapt to suit our wants and needs... then those principles are passed to the next generation, and more change is made.

We still see the idea of losing immodesty/privacy today in small children, when they bathe together- at some point, our values of privacy kick in and children of a certain age no longer share a tub. Immodesty and the "need" for privacy did not exist then the same way as it does now, and that's something else that needs to be considered when talking about how different things were then.

I'm not saying that their method of sex ed is the best, or the way to go- I'm just saying that the reactions I'm seeing about it being disgusting and this and that, are coming from a societal opinion that ignores the way people have been procreating for all time, up until the era of multi-room homes.

In Asia, there is a lot more sharing of space. Families not only live in smaller spaces but due to filial responsibilities families live together for longer periods (i.e. many live with their parents and extended families all of their life). This has resulted in more "love hotels" and "make out parks" than you can shake a stick at.

This is directly related to people wanted to have sex but not in front of their family. This is tangential to the issue of parents having sex in front of the kids but it is related to the larger concept of privacy.


For me the issue here (the parents staging a scene for the daughter) is one that many abusive relationships are founded on... power. A 9-year-old is not on an equal footing with her parents. She may not perceive that she has a choice to leave the room.

Yes, they say she wasn't being forced. They say it was just for education. But I find that to be highly suspect. As I said from the start, I am taking a wait and see attitude. My bullshit detector is screaming though.

There is also the very real possibility that "the boyfriend" is priming her for abuse later on. It has all the earmarks of that sort of abuse.

Again, I am all for education and explicit details. I just draw the line in a different place. I will be amazed to see, when and if some of you ever have kids, if you will put your beliefs into practice.

I saw these two on TV. Based on their photos... As an adult, I, would be psychologically scared from watching those two dogs go at it. :p EEk!

It appears that opinion is split down the middle between breeders and non-breeders, experience vs lack thereof. Non-breeders: you WILL change your opinion on the matter, when you experience your very own loin-bred progeny. Kids are basically little you's, egotistically speaking. Little versions of oneself on some deep psychologically narcissistic level. They are your works of art so to speak, they are your sculptures, your creations. You will take pride in them possibly even after they merit none. When they look nothing like you, for example, people (strangers an inlaws included) will insist they look exactly like you. When they act nothing like you, people (and strangers and inlaws) will INSIST they remind them exactly of you. Grandparents will say they are just like you when you were a child. And you will smile instinctively.

Please keep this in mind when regarding situations such as this one from afar. You will not want to hurt your child in any way imaginable, unless your mind is broken somehow. You will want what is best for your child, and you will instinctively - instinctively - come to the conclusion that them watching you have sex is a worse idea than eating your own feces. Think about trying to explain that one to your parents.

Thats my line of thinking exactly!

Bingo! I couldn't agree more Charlatan. Especially on the "boyfriend" priming her for later abuse. There is no reason why a 9 year old girl needs explicit visual "education" on sex. When it smells like a rat and looks like a rat it must be a rat...And I smell a rat!

As an adult that was abused as a young girl and who has had many people share their stories of abuse, I can tell you that almost anybody that has been abused would say that this is a clear case of abuse with pre-pedophilia flags all over it. Shame on them.

Do I feel a prison sentence is in order? Doubtful. However, I don't feel that the mother should ever have custodial rights. She lost those IMO.

Exactly......

(from a fellow breeder) :)

I'm sure it will come out but what wasn't explained was how the couple engaged in sex while the child was there was it strictly missionary without the child seeing genitalia, showing the couple expressing their love for one and another or was it a sex show w/doggy and ass slapping and b-jobs.

Huge difference! One could be considered educational and the other criminal, IMO!


_

They both could be considered abusive.

Look people, there's a reason that educational and entertainment materials have an age-appropriate range. Some things are not good for a child to see, versus an adult.

How would you guys feel if your wives were in a room with people having sex, "to pick up a few techniques"? Presence is participation! There is no reason for a 9-year old to be involved in something like that for any reason. There are a plethora of other, less immediate and intimate methods of instruction and education.

What's next, it's OK for a father or mother to deflower their child, to give them the best possible, most loving introduction to sex?

I spit my OJ all over the keyboard you bloody bastard.

Agreed, it shouldn't happen! Common sense kicking in.