Couple Charged With Having Intercourse In Front Of 9-year-old Daughter - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KellyC · 02-12-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Saturday , February 10, 2007

PROVIDENCE, R.I. —
A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman's 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex "all the time" in front of the child and that "we don't believe in hiding anything."

He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed, Prata said.

Asked why he thought a child that age should know about sexual acts, Prata replied, "We wanted to prepare her so she would know how," according to a report from the investigator, Vanessa E. Cisela.

The girl, who is now 11, went to live with her biological father in North Adams, Mass., after spending the summer with her mother in Woonsocket.

Her teacher called the Child Abuse Hotline in December 2004 to report that the girl said her mother and her boyfriend had sex in front of her.

The child told a Massachusetts social services investigator that her mother and Prata never touched her or tried to include her in the sex.

Woonsocket police arrested Prata and Arnold in February 2005. The couple is accused of "providing an environment that is lewd and depraved in a manner that makes their home unfit for the child to live in," according to court records.

Prata and Arnold are free on bail pending a March 19 pretrial conference in Family Court. They each face one to three years in prison or a maximum $1,000 fine, or both.

Their lawyers did not return phone calls from The Providence Journal.

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.

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?

The_Jazz · 02-12-2007, 09:47 AM

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?

Crack · 02-12-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KellyC

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

What would the psychological damage be?

You obviously have not seen my parents...

LoganSnake · 02-12-2007, 10:08 AM

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

snowy · 02-12-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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?

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.

Ourcrazymodern? · 02-12-2007, 10:27 AM

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...

Average_Joe · 02-12-2007, 10:30 AM

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.

tinfoil · 02-12-2007, 10:34 AM

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.

politicophile · 02-12-2007, 11:10 AM

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.

tinfoil · 02-12-2007, 11:20 AM

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".

Ourcrazymodern? · 02-12-2007, 12:22 PM

What does PMITA stand for, please, tinfoil?

tinfoil · 02-12-2007, 12:24 PM

Pound Me In The Arse.

Zeraph · 02-12-2007, 01:17 PM

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.

Ourcrazymodern? · 02-12-2007, 01:22 PM

...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.

KellyC · 02-12-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

...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.

The_Jazz · 02-12-2007, 01:44 PM

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?

Cynthetiq · 02-12-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoganSnake

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

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

Bill O'Rights · 02-12-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern

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.

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.

Charlatan · 02-12-2007, 02:08 PM

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.

The_Jazz · 02-12-2007, 02:21 PM

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.

absorbentishe · 02-12-2007, 02:32 PM

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.

powerclown · 02-12-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

The girl, who is now 11, went to live with her biological father in North Adams, Mass., after spending the summer with her mother in Woonsocket.

"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.

CandleInTheDark · 02-12-2007, 05:01 PM

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.

Val_1 · 02-12-2007, 05:58 PM

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.

analog · 02-12-2007, 06:11 PM

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.

Jinn · 02-12-2007, 06:16 PM

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?

Sultana · 02-12-2007, 06:19 PM

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.

Halx · 02-12-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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.

KnifeMissile · 02-12-2007, 06:34 PM

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...

Destrox · 02-12-2007, 06:43 PM

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.

james t kirk · 02-12-2007, 07:16 PM

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.

powerclown · 02-12-2007, 08:15 PM

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.

Menoman · 02-12-2007, 09:30 PM

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.

KnifeMissile · 02-12-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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?

Menoman · 02-12-2007, 09:58 PM

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..

Infinite_Loser · 02-12-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

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?

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.

Zyr · 02-13-2007, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

raeanna74 · 02-13-2007, 05:21 AM

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.

analog · 02-13-2007, 06:02 AM

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.

Bill O'Rights · 02-13-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote: