If she knew it was an ongoing issue with her son, why the fuck didn’t she deal with it? Shouldn’t the parents teach the kids before they get into kindergarden/first grade not to touch someone if they say NO?
Because its not sexual? As in, the kid doesn’t know what sex is, he doesn’t want sex from the girl, he has no interest in sexual activity with the girl.
He is being affectionate, not sexual. He is acting.the way an affectionate child would act towards a mother, father, or sibling, it contains no sexual component. It’s just plain ol harassment.
It’s sexual if he’s doing it because she’s a girl. Sexual as in the sexes, not sexual as in intercourse. Sexual harassment includes both.
You know, this is exactly why I’m going all :rolleyes: on the principal’s idea that a 6-year-old could be guilty of sexual harassment. Kids that age get cooties or develop childish crushes, they don’t sexually harass. Either the principal projected her adult sexual feelings onto a child years away from puberty, or she’s bovine stupid.
OTOH, if you (general “you”) live in a society that thinks that a toddler’s bare bum is indecent and that girls have to start wearing bikini tops in preschool age, I guess it’s quite natural to believe that a six-year-old is capable of sexual harassment. Gawd, people have some serious hangups. I wonder what that principal would have said if she had entered the women’s showers at our local pool and seen the nekkid boys - some of them easily some 5-6 years old - in the shower stalls with their mothers. Or, even worse, girls with their dads in the men’s showers and locker room.
Any child capable of perceiving a difference between males and females and acting differently towards people based on it is capable of sexual harassment. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “sexual feelings” at all. It can just involve sex, the thing you tick off on a form.
I don’t believe for an instant that the school would have labeled this “sexual harassment” if he had slugged the girl instead of kissing her. It was labeled that because of the kiss, not because he was harassing a girl. It was labeled that because they were assigning the kiss a sexual (as in intercourse) connotation.
Since I doubt he’d go around kissing boys, the tag is not too far off. Generally people know from young childhood what their sexual orientation is, even before they understand sex. I think the actual phrase “sexual harassment” is too strong for this, but apparently he does have a crush and persists in using a means to show this that is (apparently) unwanted and which is obvious in showing that this is due to his finding her cute and appealing.
Six year olds? I would not bet on it.
My boy showed affection by hugging and kissing other kids regardless of sex at that age. The difference was, it was not considered unwelcome.
The kid’s violation in the OP was doing so inappropriately, when it was unwelcome. That is surely worthy of discipline, because kids have to learn the difference between appropriate and inappropriate displays of affection, between welcome and unwelcome physical contact.
Labelling it as “sexual harrassment” is going too far, exactly because it carries connotations of adult sexuality that are wholly alien to six-year-olds. An unwanted kiss may be “sexual harrassment” or even a “sexual assault” when engaged in by a person who has sexual intent, but it is an absurdity to ascribe that to a six-year-old. It is projection. It is an example of how our society has unhealthy hang-ups concerning sexuality and affection.
By your definition, a young boy saying “girls have cooties” (or vice versa) is sexual harrassment. If that’s is the case, we might as well have 2 forms filled out at birth - a birth certificate and registration on the sex offender list.
When my son was in 1st grade, it was so common for girls to try to kiss him or marry him (however that worked) or try to be his girlfriend that we had to have a talk about how he had to just accept it. “One day”, son, “you will want those girls to kiss you.” “No I won’t!!”
If a boy had protested this kind of unwanted contact he would have been shamed by the students AND the teachers.
This ↑ ↑
At about 6 yrs old I had a very close female friend, While we didn’t look at each other as boy/girl friends, many people, including the girl’s parents would ask me (and corresponding her):
them - Is she your girlfriend:
me - no
them - Is she a girl
me - yes
them - is she your friend
me - yes
them - then she is your girlfriend
me - :smack:
She got the same thing (gender corrected).
I think we were both victims of sexual harassment as we had this nice innocent childhood thing going and they turned in into some sexual child thing. Disgusting…
…Disgusting that sexuality was brought into this (OP) at all, that is the fault of the adults, and far surpasses any problem the school has with touching between innocent children. They have attempted to knowingly stigmatizes a 6 yr old as a sexual predator with all the connotations that it brings, and that stigma may stay with such a child, even subconsciously long into their adult years, if not till death.
The school has IMHO sexually abused this child and should be held accountable and subject to answer for the charge of sexual harassment of children.
I’m beginning to think sexual harassment should just be renamed completely. If anyone is obsessed with sex, it’s the people who automatically assume that sexual harassment is some kind of predatory perversion. Whatever, let them have the word sex. Find some other word for the type of harassment.
First I think you should look up the word ‘sexual’ and decide if it should be used to classify a 6 yr old, if they should be labeled as such, and go forth with that on their mind.
Perhaps ‘gender harassment’?
Yes I agree that sex should not be associated with discrimination based on gender alone.
But was it harassment? Was it unwelcome? - that is the important part. yes boys and girls will express friendship differently homegender and hetrogender (how about those words - Webster make room), That in itself is not necessarily harassment, but if it expressed or taken as unwelcome then it is.
If it is not unwelcome then it is simply disruptive to the school, which is perhaps a misconduct charge, thought I question from what I read if the school was wrong as labeling it as such as it did not seem disruptive, only the teacher’s reaction was disruptive, and that they should look into the teacher’s reaction as 'misconduct".
I feel the teacher is just sexually frustrated and dysfunctional and tried to have this innocent and loving 6 yr old bare his shortcomings.
I feel this teacher should be investigated - obviously they need help and need to be stopped accusing children.
Sorry, no person should be able to accuse a 6 yr old of sexual harassment and expect to get away with it.
“of or relating to the two sexes or to gender.”
The parents probably sexually classified their child when they enrolled him.
Both the school and the other parents say it was. Maybe they’re all wrong, but there are actual reasons to believe that this was, in fact, unwelcome.
Whatever, there is no excuse for branding a SIX year old a sex pervert.
If they found it so troubling they should have just expelled the kid without the legal BS.
No need to apologise. The ADULTS are the only ones at fault. They need to get a life and stop trying to ruin a kid’s future because they are incapable of dealing with the situation.
Didn’t they learn anything in university?
Nobody did this.
It’s pretty hilarious that the people wailing the loudest about adults thinking about sex where it’s inappropriate are the ones who see “sexual harassment” and automatically think of sex perverts.
Because that’s what the word means. Go look up every single definition of the word “sexual harassment” and you will find it refers to unwanted sexual advances, not harassing someone because of their sex (which is sexual discrimination). Just because the word “sexual” can mean two different things doesn’t mean that the word “sexual harassment” means two different things.
And the context of the accusation of “sexual harassment” mentioned in the OP is quite clearly using the usual sense of the word. The school eventually decided it wasn’t actually sexual harassment–why would they do that if they were using the definition you keep insisting is correct?
You are mistaken about this subject. Please fight your ignorance instead of defending it.
Some definitions of “Sexual harassment”:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, however stupid, so Lord Feldon is of course entitled to his personal definition of the term “sexual harassment”, however that requires the definition of “sex” as 100% synonymous to “gender”. Most of the rest of the world - for some weird reason - relates to the more commonly accepted definitions.