|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are we absolving our children from responsibility?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This is a thought coming out of the Jimmy Savile thread in Hell. From the sounds of it, he was targeting children for abuse and that's totally unacceptable - I'm not exonerating him at all for his behaviour.
However, Matt Black said:
quote:
all of us kids (ie: me and my mates) in the 1970s knew of at least one 'Mr Strange' (usually in the mould of Hugh Dennis' 'milky-milky' character) in the vicinity into whose house we were warned by our parents - and each other - not to go. But no-one would have thought of informing the police...
Now the accounts of the women linked by Spike here has them both talking about more than one occasion, one "the second time" and the other about "every time Jimmy came".
I grew up around the time these girls are talking about. Like Matt, we had informal warning systems not to go into certain situations or houses, and if we did get into such a situation we chalked it up to experience and made sure we didn't get into that position again. In fact, when my sister came back from being out with a crowd of boys and said she'd been assaulted she was told that she must either not go out with that group again or if you must, make sure you're not on your own.
Shouldn't we expect children to start taking responsibility for their own safety to a degree? Certainly expect them not to voluntarily return to a situation they know is not safe? At what age should we expect this to start? And if we don't expect children to start taking responsibility until they are 18, what is that doing to our society?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
What you say, Curiosity Killed, is excellent sense and good practice. But that doesn't absolve the creepy guy from criminal responsibility.
It is entirely possible to commit strange, irregular, indicative acts and not cross the criminal line, in which case "staying away" is the best advice.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
I think that, given the world we live in, the issue is much more nuanced than your OP seems to make room for (at least on the surface).
I'm a children's social worker.
I'm about to do some safety planning work with a group of siblings. All of them are in primary school. The youngest is 7. I will be discussing with them how to phone the police or otherwise get immediate help if they are not safe at home. I'm going to be doing this work because all the professionals involved (teachers, health, my social work colleagues) are worried that there are high risks to the children at home, but legally we can't do anything based on our concerns about what *might* happen - we have to wait until it does happen. No 7 year-old should have to have the level of responsibility I'm about to put onto this 7 year-old and their siblings. The adults around them have messed up.
I'm also working with a family where there are concerns about sexual exploitation of the pre-teen and teenage children. As you probably know, sexual exploitation has been in the news in the UK a lot recently with the case in Rochdale (for non-UK residents - a group of men in Rochdale have received lengthy prison sentences for sexually exploiting children aged 10 to 16). One of the very interesting points which has come out of the investigations into that case is that the social workers and other professionals often assumed the girls involved (teenagers but under the age of consent) were making their own choices about the sexual relationships they were engaged in.
The clearest thing I remember about the sexual exploitation training I attended last year is - the children who become sexually exploited are those Social Services already know about - they are the ones who've suffered neglect or abuse at an early age, they are already vulnerable, they may be in care. Sexual exploitation can often start with an older male making himself the 'boyfriend' of a young teenage girl. For a child who's had a shit life and whose family might not be looking out for them much, this adult lavishing them with attention and concern seems wonderful. That's the start of a process of being drawn into sexual exploitation. And I think it happens because the child / teenager hasn't known a really safe home to start with. If home isn't particularly safe or the adults around you don't seem particularly bothered about you, then you're more vulnerable to the attention of an abusive adult - and less likely to pick up on the danger signals.
So I think there is a place for children and young people acting to maximise their own safety - but it needs to start from a place of the adults around them making sure that the child knows what a safe, loving base feels like + that that safe, loving base is continually available to them. If a child really knows that, then I think they're much more likely to take some responsibility for their own safety - listening to the warnings not to go into a particular situation and/or learning quickly that situation X results in danger which is horribly unpleasant and to be avoided in future. As I said above - sexually exploited kids don't come from nice, secure backgrounds - they're the kids who aren't going to be reported to the police if they're out late at night and into the early hours, they're the kids whose home-base is unpleasant or unsafe enough that a street corner or deserted park seems preferable most evenings, and so on.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I was thinking more that if we absolve our children from responsibility that they go through life blaming others whatever happens. And that maybe the sea change that meant we brought in protective legislation like the Children's Act (1989) has left our society with a generation with a blame culture.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
They're children. They don't have the life experience to know what's what in risky circumstances. As another social worker, working primarily with teenagers who get into trouble with the law, I see a lot of parents who take no notice of what their teenagers are doing, and haven't done since the kids were quite little. These kids are sitting ducks for exploitation because they're not getting the teaching they need in recognising risks.
Saying, "I trust her/him," is my first sign that the young person has (usually) almost no supervision. Unfortunately, combined with the cluelessness of the 13-15-year-old brain, this means kids are out wandering around doing stupid stuff. If a 50-year-old man offers money for sex, hey, that's the next tinny. The kids don't see themselves as underage and the nasty adult can take advantage of that and say they consented.
And before anyone says that that's an artifact of today's society, I wandered around thinking I was an adult at 14. Looking back, I can see how clueless I was - I was propositioned by my Year 11 English teacher, and I never told my parents because I thought it was embarrassing. Fortunately I thought he was a bit of a dick, so nothing happened, but there's just been a case in the UK where things went stupidly wrong at that point.
Developmentally, most teenagers don't have the chops to make entirely sensible decisions about risk. Many of them see soap operas on telly and think that's how life should be, and their lives don't match up. They make drama where none exists.
That's why good parenting is so important. Teens need parenting more than babies do because they have much more capacity for thought but little understanding of the world. They also love instant gratification, and that takes some parental guidance to get past as well.
I'm only really talking about assaults and risky sexual/drinking/drugging behaviour here, but it sort of applies to criminal activity as well. If you know where your child is (i.e., you can ring another adult and verify it) then its unlikely your child is going to get into trouble. Kids need protection from their own lack of experience.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Shouldn't we expect children to start taking responsibility for their own safety to a degree? Certainly expect them not to voluntarily return to a situation they know is not safe? At what age should we expect this to start? And if we don't expect children to start taking responsibility until they are 18, what is that doing to our society?
I can't speak to conditions in your country, but I do think that over here (US) it's making us completely crazy, especially since we don't seem to expect people to start doing that even once they've turned 18. I loathed the slutwalks around these parts because the police told me that they did not in fact tell women to stop dressing like sluts in order to reduce their chances of assault, but to stop acting like sluts and going home with men they had just met (and whom they had met while under the influence of alcohol). Which is in fact sensible advice.
I think the lack of sensible advice because everyone is thinking "can't somebody else do it" is leading to paranoia and anxiety, which people are seeking prescriptions and medical attention for, which is going to eventually lead to our country collapsing under its own weight.*
*yeah, ok, maybe I'm not free from the paranoia and hyperbole myself.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but I realise I didn't entirely answer the question.
Kids should be made to take responsibility for their actions where those actions have been entirely of their making. If they assault anyone, burgle a house, shoplift, tag, etc, yep, make them face the music.
In terms of the abuse stuff, its much trickier because it wouldn't happen if adults didn't take advantage of them (see my previous post). After sexual or physical assault, I would hope that most parents would do some education work with their kids, but also make sure that the kids are safe.
I'm thinking of a tragic incident a couple of years ago where a 17-year-old boy at a posh school got so drunk at a party hosted by the parents of a friend that he was kicked out of his school ball. His father came and picked him up and took him home, then went back to another function, so the boy was left unsupervised, very ill, and miserable. He walked out of the house and jumped off a bridge, killing himself.
These were "good" families. But what were the parents of the friend doing supplying alcohol to minors (an illegal activity)? Why did dad leave a clearly ill boy alone when his decision-making capacity (not all that flash to begin with given that he'd got so drunk) was so clearly impaired?
Sorry if I sound as though I have a down on parents - I know there are lots of good ones out there, unfortunately the ones I see aren't, usually. You can put it all down to the young person taking responsibility, but you HAVE to teach them how to take responsibility in the first place.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I guess, what I was trying to talk about - which is why I brought it here - was how do we teach our children to become responsible for themselves?
Because we don't seem to be managing it
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
How do you judge failure in that area? And is the "we" that is failing limited in time or space or is it a general human failing?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I guess, what I was trying to talk about - which is why I brought it here - was how do we teach our children to become responsible for themselves?
Because we don't seem to be managing it
I think part of it is allowing them to suffer the natural consequences for their behavior, such that they understand that certain behaviors (riding a bicycle recklessly) are likely to lead to certain consequences (getting mildly injured).
It's one of the conversations I have a lot with people, as it's frequently an issue moms and dads disagree about - whether the kid should suffer the complete consequences of their actions or the parents should bail them out to some degree.
But I don't really know the answer either.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Curiosity said: 'I was thinking more that if we absolve our children from responsibility that they go through life blaming others whatever happens. And that maybe the sea change that meant we brought in protective legislation like the Children's Act (1989) has left our society with a generation with a blame culture.'
Society in the UK has a more general propensity to blame culture than this. I don't know if it's peculiar to us All sorts of bad things done by nasty types often involve blaming authorities to the extent that they failed to prevent them happening. It wouldn't surprise me if this rubs off on the yoof.
Trouble is in a free society you have to accept that individuals have autonomy, with good an bad consequences. I'm not sure we have the right balance of taking the rough with the smooth.
What you say about how things used be reminds me a bit of church abuse scandals. In the old days things carried on much more. Times are very different now.
Children of all ages test the limits of what they can do. It's how they grow. Equipping them with tools, and making the decisions they aren't ready to take is I suppose what we try to do.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Val Kyrie
Apprentice
# 17079
|
Posted
"Certainly expect them not to voluntarily return to a situation they know is not safe?"
It is the fault of the adult CORRUPTING the child, if under age sex is involved. Even if the child takes money, goes back 100 times, or seems to "enjoy" it. Don't excuse vile behaviour in people who should know better (and who use a similar defence to this one).
Posts: 27 | From: Up North | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I didn't mean to major on sexual abuse, it was a train of thought that span out of that thread and the one about the recent teacher and pupil flight to France, and made me think beyond it.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
My husband and I taught our daughters from the get-go that responsibility and freedom are bound together. When they were young and complained about some decision we'd made, first we would explain why. If they could convince us we were wrong about this particular matter, we backed down. (That didn't happen often, but it did occasionally.) If we were not convinced by their arguments, we told them that we had to make the decisions because we were responsible for them. When they were responsible for themselves, they could make the decision.
Unfortunately, I think many teenagers think they have a right to complete freedom and complete irresponsibility.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think the OP is extrapolating from one thing-- teaching children to take responsibility for their own choices/actions, to accept responsibility when they mess up and not blame others, etc.-- to something quite different-- asking children to take responsibility for something that is the duty and responsibility of the adults around them.
If your child is playing and neglects to do his homework then, yes, don't bail him out-- have him deal with the consequences. If your child forgets to bring her lunch, yes, don't bail her out-- a few hours of hunger will not harm her and will teach her to responsibility. All of those are age-appropriate ways to teach children to accept responsibility.
But asking children to accept responsibility to prevent themselves from sexual or physical assault? No. Hell no. It is inappropriate. It is cruel. It leads to bad fruit-- only validating the guilt/shame that victims of abuse generally feel instinctively.
And, bottom line, it's unworkable. Study after study has shown that even when children are carefully taught how to "protect themselves"-- given all those "stranger danger" talks, role playing what to do when a stranger approaches you, etc., when they are put to the test in an experimental setting-- they will go with the stranger. Time and time again.
It's not their job to insure their safety. It's ours. As parents, as teachers, as members of the community. WE are the ones who need to take responsibility here-- not them.
[ 03. October 2012, 22:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I didn't mean to major on sexual abuse, it was a train of thought that span out of that thread and the one about the recent teacher and pupil flight to France, and made me think beyond it.
Sorry, we cross posted.
I think-- for the reasons posted ahead-- that detour is one that is radically different and radically changes what I now understand to be your point. Perhaps you can reframe the OP to redirect the discussion in the way you want it to go.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, bottom line, it's unworkable. Study after study has shown that even when children are carefully taught how to "protect themselves"-- given all those "stranger danger" talks, role playing what to do when a stranger approaches you, etc., when they are put to the test in an experimental setting-- they will go with the stranger. Time and time again.
It's not their job to insure their safety. It's ours. As parents, as teachers, as members of the community. WE are the ones who need to take responsibility here-- not them.
But that's insane. Children are in very little danger from strangers, and far more danger from someone known to them (teacher, priest, scout leader, relative). Teaching them to avoid strangers... how could kids even do that given the number of strangers they're likely to encounter in a given day?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Sorry. Missed the redirect.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Unfortunately, I think many teenagers think they have a right to complete freedom and complete irresponsibility.
Moo
I think so too; I think there's way too much emphasis in our culture on being given freedom because you've reached a certain age (or served a certain amount of time in school/prison) and too little given to earning freedom because you've demonstrated a certain level of responsibility or skill.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, bottom line, it's unworkable. Study after study has shown that even when children are carefully taught how to "protect themselves"-- given all those "stranger danger" talks, role playing what to do when a stranger approaches you, etc., when they are put to the test in an experimental setting-- they will go with the stranger. Time and time again.
It's not their job to insure their safety. It's ours. As parents, as teachers, as members of the community. WE are the ones who need to take responsibility here-- not them.
But that's insane. Children are in very little danger from strangers, and far more danger from someone known to them (teacher, priest, scout leader, relative). Teaching them to avoid strangers... how could kids even do that given the number of strangers they're likely to encounter in a given day?
Well, yes, which is precisely the point, and why asking children to take responsibility to "protect themselves" is unworkable.
[ 03. October 2012, 22:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, yes, which is precisely the point, and why asking children to take responsibility to "protect themselves" is unworkable.
But asking them to take some responsibility is not asking them to take complete responsibility. What is so horrible about asking both kids and adults to avoid, inasmuch as possible, any one adult one unrelated child scenarios?
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, yes, which is precisely the point, and why asking children to take responsibility to "protect themselves" is unworkable.
But asking them to take some responsibility is not asking them to take complete responsibility. What is so horrible about asking both kids and adults to avoid, inasmuch as possible, any one adult one unrelated child scenarios?
The reasons I mentioned above:
1. It has tended to yield "bad fruit"-- increasing the existing shame/guilt of victims who "should have known better"
2. It's not age-appropriate-- you're asking kids to learn a skill beyond their maturity level, which is why it is unworkable-- kids who have been carefully trained to avoid dangerous situations don't seem to be any better prepared to make real-life choices to avoid those dangers. Training our kids to "take responsibility" in this area will then lead to a false confidence, leading us to not take proper precautions.
3. Related to #2, it interferes with other age-appropriate learning tasks for children-- such as learning trust, belonging and a sense of community. Again, the nuances that are required (e.g. "most people are safe but some people aren't; a dangerous person may be the person who looks like a trusted leader") are developmentally beyond the capability of young children and even teens in some cases.
4. It is a way that we (adults) absolve ourselves of our own responsibility to ensure that our communities are safe for children. Adults are not doing such a great job of figuring out who is "safe" and who isn't right now, and certainly aren't doing a good job of protecting our children. Outsourcing the job to less experienced/ mature workers then seems ill-advised.
Again-- if we redirect our focus off of children taking responsibility for recognizing "dangerous others" and preventing abuse to taking responsibility in more age-appropriate ways, I will say something quite different.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, you can, and you do, but IMHO the problem is that when perve X comes up, the child doesn't think "Yo, this is an unrelated stranger, I shouldn't be alone with him." Instead the child thinks "This is Mr. X the guy next door" or "my teacher" or "Lily's Sunday school teacher." In their minds, these people aren't strangers--strangers are faceless scary people clothed in shadows.
And I think that kind of thinking goes on quite late into adolescence. I know that I had any number of pervy people approach me (mainly curb crawlers) when I was in junior high/high school, and it never occurred to me to tell an adult. I just stayed the hell away from them (as much as I could, I mean, which wasn't always). Never told my parents or teachers about the bullying, either, or the druggies--in fact, very little about anything I realize now they would definitely have wanted to know. I just didn't think of it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It's the difference between asking a child of 7 to be responsible for unloading the dishes from the dishwasher (age appropriate) and asking him/her to be responsible to make sure that all the household bills are paid on time (inappropriate).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The reasons I mentioned above:
1. It has tended to yield "bad fruit"-- increasing the existing shame/guilt of victims who "should have known better"
How would anyone know? That is not what kids in my area are taught; kids are taught "good touch bad touch" or "stranger danger" which for the most part is not going to help them avoid actual danger.
quote:
2. It's not age-appropriate-- you're asking kids to learn a skill beyond their maturity level, which is why it is unworkable-- kids who have been carefully trained to avoid dangerous situations don't seem to be any better prepared to make real-life choices to avoid those dangers. Training our kids to "take responsibility" in this area will then lead to a false confidence, leading us to not take proper precautions.
But people aren't teaching them to avoid actual dangerous situations. Of course they aren't better prepared to make real life choices to avoid dangers which don't exist.
quote:
3. Related to #2, it interferes with other age-appropriate learning tasks for children-- such as learning trust, belonging and a sense of community. Again, the nuances that are required (e.g. "most people are safe but some people aren't; a dangerous person may be the person who looks like a trusted leader") are developmentally beyond the capability of young children and even teens in some cases.
Do we live in the same country? In many cases the school is the most dangerous place a child can go, and we force children to be there. Yes, it's beyond the capability of some young children and teens. That's why you also teach children that they are responsible for looking out for each other.
quote:
4. It is a way that we (adults) absolve ourselves of our own responsibility to ensure that our communities are safe for children. Adults are not doing such a great job of figuring out who is "safe" and who isn't right now, and certainly aren't doing a good job of protecting our children. Outsourcing the job to less experienced/ mature workers then seems ill-advised.
Who is talking about completely outsourcing the job?
quote:
Again-- if we redirect our focus off of children taking responsibility for recognizing "dangerous others" and preventing abuse to taking responsibility in more age-appropriate ways, I will say something quite different.
Have you looked at the curriculum recently? What do you consider an age-appropriate way for children to recognize "dangerous others"?
I recently had an argument with a middle-class man about some of the cultural differences between the working class and the middle class. I was explaining to him about the talented and gifted (TAG) program at my elementary school; he insisted that such a program couldn't have worked because every parent would want their child to be in it. I informed him that that wasn't true, as many working class parents don't particularly think their children are special*. He started yelling at me, asking me if I was seriously telling him that working class parents don't love their children.
*culturally speaking we seem to have forgotten the second half of the phrase "you are a special snowflake, but you are still a snowflake"
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The reasons I mentioned above:
1. It has tended to yield "bad fruit"-- increasing the existing shame/guilt of victims who "should have known better"
How would anyone know? That is not what kids in my area are taught; kids are taught "good touch bad touch" or "stranger danger" which for the most part is not going to help them avoid actual danger.
quote:
2. It's not age-appropriate-- you're asking kids to learn a skill beyond their maturity level, which is why it is unworkable-- kids who have been carefully trained to avoid dangerous situations don't seem to be any better prepared to make real-life choices to avoid those dangers. Training our kids to "take responsibility" in this area will then lead to a false confidence, leading us to not take proper precautions.
But people aren't teaching them to avoid actual dangerous situations. Of course they aren't better prepared to make real life choices to avoid dangers which don't exist.
again, that's my point.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
3. Related to #2, it interferes with other age-appropriate learning tasks for children-- such as learning trust, belonging and a sense of community. Again, the nuances that are required (e.g. "most people are safe but some people aren't; a dangerous person may be the person who looks like a trusted leader") are developmentally beyond the capability of young children and even teens in some cases.
Do we live in the same country? In many cases the school is the most dangerous place a child can go, and we force children to be there. Yes, it's beyond the capability of some young children and teens. That's why you also teach children that they are responsible for looking out for each other.
[/QB]
Again, your point re: school danger seems to be precisely my point, so not sure what your "do we live in the same country?" comment is about.
I would say it's beyond the capacity of virtually all young children and most teens. Asking them to "look out for each other" only broadens the problem. Again, I believe it is an adult problem and an adult responsibility.
[ quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again-- if we redirect our focus off of children taking responsibility for recognizing "dangerous others" and preventing abuse to taking responsibility in more age-appropriate ways, I will say something quite different.
Have you looked at the curriculum recently? What do you consider an age-appropriate way for children to recognize "dangerous others"? [/QB]
Again, I don't think there are any. That's my point.
[ quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[QUOTE]
I recently had an argument with a middle-class man about some of the cultural differences between the working class and the middle class. I was explaining to him about the talented and gifted (TAG) program at my elementary school; he insisted that such a program couldn't have worked because every parent would want their child to be in it. I informed him that that wasn't true, as many working class parents don't particularly think their children are special*. He started yelling at me, asking me if I was seriously telling him that working class parents don't love their children.
*culturally speaking we seem to have forgotten the second half of the phrase "you are a special snowflake, but you are still a snowflake"
I very much recognize what you're saying-- I had a very similar experience with GATE (gifted & talent education) in a lower income neighborhood v. an upper income neighborhood. But I'm at a loss to how that relates to the discussion at hand???
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This is a thought coming out of the Jimmy Savile thread in Hell. From the sounds of it, he was targeting children for abuse and that's totally unacceptable - I'm not exonerating him at all for his behaviour.
However, Matt Black said:
quote:
all of us kids (ie: me and my mates) in the 1970s knew of at least one 'Mr Strange' (usually in the mould of Hugh Dennis' 'milky-milky' character) in the vicinity into whose house we were warned by our parents - and each other - not to go. But no-one would have thought of informing the police...
Now the accounts of the women linked by Spike here has them both talking about more than one occasion, one "the second time" and the other about "every time Jimmy came".
I grew up around the time these girls are talking about. Like Matt, we had informal warning systems not to go into certain situations or houses, and if we did get into such a situation we chalked it up to experience and made sure we didn't get into that position again. In fact, when my sister came back from being out with a crowd of boys and said she'd been assaulted she was told that she must either not go out with that group again or if you must, make sure you're not on your own.
Shouldn't we expect children to start taking responsibility for their own safety to a degree? Certainly expect them not to voluntarily return to a situation they know is not safe? At what age should we expect this to start? And if we don't expect children to start taking responsibility until they are 18, what is that doing to our society?
The blame for your sister being assaulted is 100% on the person who assaulted her. It is the fault of rapists that people are raped, no matter what the circumstances. It is not blame culture at fault here, but rape culture. A woman walking alone at night is not giving her consent to have sex with anyone who wants to do so, yet that is what is implicit when people tell women they should have been more careful after they have been raped.
Children taking responsibility for their safety would be to do with not swimming too far out to sea or not getting in a car with a drunk driver, not being sexually assaulted.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think it is the words "taking responsibility" that are so inflammatory. It is perfectly reasonable to advise a child of the dangers of abuse, and to tell them to report what they see or hear to appropriate authority figures. It is not reasonable to ask them to "take responsibility" for any assault they experience as a result of not following this advice.
A misplaced sense of responsibility for sexual assault and shame prevents many victims from coming forward and it needs to be avoided.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it is the words "taking responsibility" that are so inflammatory. It is perfectly reasonable to advise a child of the dangers of abuse, and to tell them to report what they see or hear to appropriate authority figures. It is not reasonable to ask them to "take responsibility" for any assault they experience as a result of not following this advice.
A misplaced sense of responsibility for sexual assault and shame prevents many victims from coming forward and it needs to be avoided.
Agreed. There is a world of difference between telling a child to tell someone if an adult (or even another child) touches them in an inappropriate way (and spell out what inappropriate touching involves) and telling a young girl (and not a boy) not to walk down x street after dark.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I really did not say and wasn't intending to say that anyone could have necessarily avoided their first situation. But part of keeping yourself safe is trusting your instincts and not returning to places when you don't feel safe.
Lamb Chopped said the same thing - she avoided returning to situations where she could.
My mental riff wasn't about blaming children for being attacked and abused, it was about how do we give them the skills to learn that situations were unsafe and not to return to them. Currently we're wrapping children up in cotton wool and not letting them out alone. In the 70s and 80s we did some pretty stupid things and were out and about getting in and out of trouble. Which meant we did learn about safe and unsafe situations and how to avoid them. By scaring ourselves and learning about danger from experience. By being caught scrumping and getting told off by angry orchard owners - and learning not to do that one again, or at least getting caught.
<tangent in answer to Jade Constable>My sister's experience was that when she was about 8 or 9, wandering the fields with other youngsters, she got into a dare game with kids of her own age about showing bits and it went further than she was comfortable with - the looking without touching was breached. We're not talking about major assault. She was told that she really shouldn't be putting herself into that situation and given suggestions as to how to avoid it. </tangent>
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Look, I'm no expert on abusive situations, but I strongly believe the truth is that once an uncomfortable or ethical barrier has been broken, it is much more difficult to go back, especially where a controlling adult is in the mix with alcohol, drugs, hormones and so on.
To say that someone in a bad situation should know better than putting themselves back into that position ignores the degrading effect of the actions and the controlling nature of those involved.
Many people have been put in bad positions by poor oversight from parents, I don't think there is any question about that. But there are situations whereby adults in positions of responsibility have abused children even where they're 'properly' parented. So none of us should claim our children are somehow insulated by our outstanding work, because we're not with them at all hours of the day.
There is an issue of responsibility, and I believe it is a general attitude of everyone being able to do whatever they like without fear of consequences. And I don't mean legal or criminal things - self-destructive binge drinking (for example) is the norm in many sections of society. I believe (but cannot prove) that along with that is a general permissiveness regarding sex, particularly amongst the youngish adults but also various other sections of society.
And in that context, I think it is fair to say that the clothing you wear might be perceived as advertising for a sexual partner. Saying that it isn't seems to belie the facts - and if it isn't, why are you wearing those clothes and flirting in the way that you are?
Again, I would say this is about consequences: if you drink and flirt and wear clothing intended to attract sexual partners, you are at a higher risk of being raped. That is not to excuse the rapist, but you still do have to understand the message your dress and behaviour is saying to people around you.
But I'd still say this kind of thing is very different to children in exploitative situations.
[ 04. October 2012, 07:30: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
Another social worker working with children and young people signing in here. I can see why people would think "if it happens once, you avoid being in that situation again", but it's not as simple as that particularly thinking about abuse situations.
Most young people are abused by people known to them, who are in trusted positions or positions of authority. Adults who abuse children are very good at identifying the ones who are just that bit more vulnerable, maybe with poor peer relationships, a bit shy, whatever but those who don't maybe have a natural circle of support or those who can easily be distanced from that support.
So, if you have a good circle of friends, good parent relationships etc and you come up agains a difficult situation you have people to support you in not getting back into that situation. If you don't, or those relationships are a bit distant or you're going through a wobbly phase (adolescence anyone) you become less able to act on your own agency and you don't have anyone to back you up and help you keep out of it. Add in others expectation that you want to be with said trusted, authority figure, add in a bit of celebrity, or feeling grown up, or feeling that the one thing that is special about you is that someone wants to fuck you - whether you want it or not - and your ability to keep yourself safe is utterly compromised.
That's why 14, 15, 16 year olds still need guidance and support from caring, trusted adults. It's why parenting at that age is such a challenge - maturing bodies and maturing brains but not, yet, the ability to cope with everything life can throw at you. It should also be remembered in the case of the situation giving rise to the discussion these women are talking about events 30 years ago. It's not unusual for mid teens who have been exploited to think, at the time, they were in a consensual relationship or to feel flattered that they were picked out of everyone else only to realise in adulthood that they were actually abused.
Yes, young people need to learn about responsibility and can, to some extent, be supported to keep themselves safe but this ability is easily compromised and needs strong scaffolding.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I work with teenagers too, which is why I'm thinking around this and wondering.
I wonder too if we're preventing children from having the chance to explore when they are younger, so when they are "old enough" to do things on their own, they haven't had the experiences to make them street wise - more scaffolding to learn. I would suspect the response to the April Jones abduction* will be that all the children in the neighbourhood are kept in and not allowed out to play for the next year or so. Which in the long run is going to make those children less safe as they won't have the age appropriate experiences to learn the skills they need.
Which brings us back to parenting again.
Another thought riffing from the Jimmy Savile coverage: Shakespeare's Juliet was 14. I would suspect that Bianca and Katherine from The Taming of the Shrew were about the same age. We really have changed our views on the age of consent in the last 400 years, even 120 years, thinking of Victorian mores.
* just because I know I'll have to say this to make it clear. I think that the abduction of a 5 year old is heinous and totally unacceptable and her abductor's responsibility
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
<tangent> Actually Juliet was 13 - she says she's 'in her fourteenth year', which means she hadn't had her birthday yet. She might have only just turned 13. In Shakespeare's time, marrying a 13 year old girl off to someone twice her age was SOP for the nobility and if her father had managed to get her a husband of a higher social status, a cause for celebration. Nowadays it would be considered child abuse.<\tangent>
[ 04. October 2012, 11:35: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
And did Juliet use good, adult sense in choosing her spouse and the time of her marriage? And do current thirteen-year-olds who just loooove their boyfriends and get pregnant in order to always have someone to love them make good decisions?
From what I've read about brain development-admittedly not a lot- the last part of the brain that finally reaches maturity is the part that can make sense of actions and consequences. They know that riding in a car driven by a drunk friend could cause a bad accident, but hey! it had never happened to anyone they knew. And besides all their friends would cry for them and make roadside memorials. Cool! But they would be dead. The fact is that that's it for this life- no more friends, no plans, no future... No future. They can't truly grasp the future and what it means for possibilities. And even lesser disasters like being jailed or having babies with physical problems- unimaginable. Or considered normal, with no imagination for other possibilities arising from other choices. This is why parents protect kids from taking actions that will short-circuit their lives before they have a chance to live them.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Early on a child care program my kids were in had a program called "Good Touch/Bad Touch." They were told that anyone could give them a good touch or a bad touch. They were also told that if they experienced a bad touch it was okay to tell someone about it.
Fortunately, my kids were never harmed in anyway that I know off.
We did start teaching our kids responsibility at a very young age. Our daughter had a habit of being very slow for school. One day she was super slow, so I took her to school in her pajamas. She never had the problem again. Another time in kindergarten she would begin to act up right before recess, especially if it was super cold that day, when that happened she would have to stay in the (warm) room. Finally the teacher had a conference with us. I simply pointed she was being rewarded for bad behavior by being allowed to stay in a warm room. The next super cold day she acted up again. This time teacher made her get on her coat and sit on the stoop outside during recess. Daughter learned it was better to stay active than to sit in the cold.
As our kids became teenagers we never set a curfew. There was one time when daughter stayed out unusually late, but wife told her in the morning it was too late. Daughter did not argue and we never had the problem again.
Of course our daughter now has a daughter of her own. It is a joy to watch our daughter parent her daughter. Daughter does things a little differently, but she still is working to instill responsibility in her daughter.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, your point re: school danger seems to be precisely my point, so not sure what your "do we live in the same country?" comment is about.
Because we force kids to attend schools where the other students have weapons to protect themselves from danger. And you don't seem to want to teach them anything about how to protect themselves and keep themselves safe.
quote:
I would say it's beyond the capacity of virtually all young children and most teens. Asking them to "look out for each other" only broadens the problem. Again, I believe it is an adult problem and an adult responsibility.
OK. Wow. We don't live in the same universe or know the same children or teens. God to know.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
What do you consider an age-appropriate way for children to recognize "dangerous others"?
quote:
Again, I don't think there are any. That's my point.
You seriously don't think there are any age appropriate ways to teach children to avoid danger? Remind me to never leave you in charge of any kids I care about.
quote:
I very much recognize what you're saying-- I had a very similar experience with GATE (gifted & talent education) in a lower income neighborhood v. an upper income neighborhood. But I'm at a loss to how that relates to the discussion at hand???
You seem to want me to teach the kids in my care that they are very special snowflakes and others (adult) will simply keep them safe and protect them from everything, forever and ever. Which I think is culturally suicidal, but, OK, we're all entitled to our opinions.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
It's such a difficult balance for any parent to strike - protecting your children while allowing them to develop self-reliance. We came down much more on the side of allowing freedom than most people would these days. Gave them mobiles early on so they could contact us any time. There were some heart-in-mouth moments, like when the police called to tell me our daughter had been hit by a car on the way to her central-London school that she'd been taking herself to from age 11. Thank God no serious injury, and for that matter it could have happened on the way to a local school. And we weren't completely laissez-faire. I had uncomfortable times with the mother of one of her friends and the mother's live-in boyfriend because I had doubts about the home and insisted on going with her when she visited - my instincts were borne out in time when the boyfriend was jailed for offences against children.
Our children are now both savvy and streetwise young adults. I grew up in another age - Saturday morning, my friends and I said goodbye to our parents and would be out for the day, they knew not where and we had no phones! Life can be hazardous, was as hazardous then. We do children no favours by disallowing them the experience to cope with that. And as I understand it, the fact is that for all the protectiveness that has become the norm, no fewer children come to harm.
[ 04. October 2012, 19:58: Message edited by: Bean Sidhe ]
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes, that's the flip side of it. On the one hand, we have studies that show that all those great lessons on "good touch/ bad touch" don't really translate into real-life applications-- it's just too abstract. otoh, the world really isn't always as dangerous as we think it is.
Hard territory for a parent to traverse that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Again, I would say this is about consequences: if you drink and flirt and wear clothing intended to attract sexual partners, you are at a higher risk of being raped. That is not to excuse the rapist, but you still do have to understand the message your dress and behaviour is saying to people around you.
I know this is tangential, but is this actually true (ie can it be backed up with statistics?). And if it is true that there is correlation between say blood alcohol and sexual assault does it prove what you say it does?
For comparison, there is correlation between blood alcohol level and sustaining a facial injury. Does that mean that if you drink in a busy pub, you are sending "a message" that encourages people to glass you?
If this is a ludicrous idea, why isn't it ludicrous to refer to drink sending "a message" to rapists?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I know this is tangential, but is this actually true (ie can it be backed up with statistics?). And if it is true that there is correlation between say blood alcohol and sexual assault does it prove what you say it does?
Good question. I'd say there was - for example.
quote:
For comparison, there is correlation between blood alcohol level and sustaining a facial injury. Does that mean that if you drink in a busy pub, you are sending "a message" that encourages people to glass you?
Well I'm not sure that is the point I am driving at. A more similar situation is that of a wrestling ring. If you go to a wrestling ring and you are dressed as a wrestler and you've been known to be involved in fights in the past, people might assume that you are looking for a fight on this occasion if you are wearing the fighting clothing.
And even if you've never been in a bout before, if you are in the wrestling garb, someone might think you are looking for a fight if you are dressed in that way.
If you are dressed as a supporter, this is much less likely to happen.
quote:
If this is a ludicrous idea, why isn't it ludicrous to refer to drink sending "a message" to rapists?
Well I didn't say just 'a drink', I said a drink and flirting and the wearing of clothing intended to attract potential sexual partners. If you look and behave like a wrestler, you'll get in more fights with wrestlers than someone who doesn't look and act like that.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If you look and behave like a wrestler, you'll get in more fights with wrestlers than someone who doesn't look and act like that.
See, I don't think you're analogy works. Are you saying that if you went out wearing a hooded dressing gown and someone physically assaulted you (threw you to the ground, say) and then argued that it was because they thought you were a wrestler, that would be a reasonable argument?
Clearly it isn't.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
See, I don't think you're analogy works. Are you saying that if you went out wearing a hooded dressing gown and someone physically assaulted you (threw you to the ground, say) and then argued that it was because they thought you were a wrestler, that would be a reasonable argument?
Clearly it isn't.
Nope, I wouldn't, but my point is about risk. If I go to a place where physical assault is the norm and dress like someone who wants to engage in a fight, then the risk of being attacked must be greater.
A wrestler is still totally responsible for checking that his/her opponent is wanting a fight, and if they attack someone for their garb without checking, they deserve whatever is thrown at them.
I'm not really talking about 'reasonable argument', I'm simply talking about risk to the individual.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
See, I don't think you're analogy works. Are you saying that if you went out wearing a hooded dressing gown and someone physically assaulted you (threw you to the ground, say) and then argued that it was because they thought you were a wrestler, that would be a reasonable argument?
Clearly it isn't.
Nope, I wouldn't, but my point is about risk. If I go to a place where physical assault is the norm and dress like someone who wants to engage in a fight, then the risk of being attacked must be greater.
A wrestler is still totally responsible for checking that his/her opponent is wanting a fight, and if they attack someone for their garb without checking, they deserve whatever is thrown at them.
I'm not really talking about 'reasonable argument', I'm simply talking about risk to the individual.
But I think that makes *my* point rather than yours. I *can* go out dressed as a wrestler with no substantial increase in the risk of being assaulted, without first being asked if I fancy a bout. Why can't I go out dressed as an attractive woman without any substantial increase in the risk of being sexually assaulted?
Only because of the myth that my clothing and behaviour sends out a message. It doesn't. It's clothing. It's a glass of wine. It says nothing at all about whether I want to have sex.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But I think that makes *my* point rather than yours. I *can* go out dressed as a wrestler with no substantial increase in the risk of being assaulted, without first being asked if I fancy a bout. Why can't I go out dressed as an attractive woman without any substantial increase in the risk of being sexually assaulted?
I think you are avoiding part of my argument - namely that the person is dressing like that and also operating within an environment where a certain behaviour is expected (fighting in the case of wrestlers and over-consumption of alcohol and free sex in the other).
quote:
Only because of the myth that my clothing and behaviour sends out a message. It doesn't. It's clothing. It's a glass of wine. It says nothing at all about whether I want to have sex.
I'm not sure you understand risk. If you don't want sex, then don't dress like those who do.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If you don't want sex, then don't dress like those who do.
How do "people who want sex" dress?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
That's a really slippery slope - that's like saying girls have to dress like nuns or wear a hijab to be safe. And it puts the fault of sexual abuse on the woman, again. What's worse, if that's the attitude prevailing about women, it doesn't even work having had to get out of various nasty situations in my time, each and every time dressed in sweatshirt, jeans and trainers, not wearing make-up or obvious jewellery and innocently using public transport or walking along a street.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think you are avoiding part of my argument - namely that the person is dressing like that and also operating within an environment where a certain behaviour is expected (fighting in the case of wrestlers and over-consumption of alcohol and free sex in the other).
In what area of the world is free sex expected?
I can only think of swingers' clubs and places devoted to dogging. However I am given to understand that people who choose to go dogging are nonetheless advised that any doggee (for want of a better word) has the right to set their boundaries.
quote:
I'm not sure you understand risk. If you don't want sex, then don't dress like those who do.
What Erroneous Monk said.
Plus, there's a difference between 'I want to have sex tonight' and 'I want to have sex tonight and I don't care who with'. Even if someone is wandering round with a T-shirt saying 'I want sexual congress', that doesn't mean they want sexual congress with me, any more than someone who describes themself as hungry is necessarily going to consent to eat Ricardus' Special Sauerkraut Soup.
[ 05. October 2012, 10:55: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
All of which raises the question of how we can teach children about responsibility when we can't agree about it ourselves.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Even if someone is wandering round with a T-shirt saying 'I want sexual congress', that doesn't mean they want sexual congress with me, any more than someone who describes themself as hungry is necessarily going to consent to eat Ricardus' Special Sauerkraut Soup.
The probation officer has taught you well ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
