Doesn’t matter whether you’ve read the Pit thread (you’re kind of lucky if you have not) to which this appertains but I’m (rather pointlessly, I’m afraid) trying to fight ignorance.
The scenario is this. You are an adult in a position of some official power that includes supervision of facilities where children are sometimes present.
Your subordinate reports to you that he saw a man you know naked in near proximity to a naked boy. He further reports that the man “fondling” the boy.
What conduct would you hear or use the word “fondle” to mean in those circumstances, based on your knowledge and understanding of contemporary American English?
If my subordinate reported that he saw a naked man fondling a naked boy, I would expect him to provide a complete description of the act to the police.
I would vote for a slight revision of the last option, it might involve touching of private parts, or touching of the back, chest, thigh - what would that be considered? On the way to private parts? - but definitely for sexual gratification.
What delphica said: fondling could apply to the chest, butt, tummy, heck, even the hands and feet.
I agree with the last poll option that “fondling” implies “sexual contact,” or, perhaps more accurately, “sexualized contact.” But it doesn’t have to be genital. A friend of mine was once molested by a foot-fondler.
Naked? Any non-medical touching is out of bounds. Clothed, I’d go as far as brief, non repetitive touching below the neck and above the navel on guys. On Girls, same thing, but no touching on the front,* at all*.
This is assuming a position of power or supervision; still, these standards exist in polite society overall.
In that situation, I’d assume it means sexual touching (groping), but I’d also ask for clarification. It’s not completely clear if it means touching the chest and buttocks only, or if it involves genitals as well. I’ve heard it used both ways. Regardless, it’s an automatic call to the police.
At this point in time, “fondle” really does not have an innocent meaning. No one takes it as anything but “touching in a sexual manner” (i.e., genitals, buttocks, or breasts).
I am torn between thinking that it is hysterically funny, or pathetic, that the poster in question (with all his dubious baggage in defending pedophilia) didn’t realize how obvious it would be that he was the sole, lonesome, participant who would vote for the single least plausible interpretation. That’s persuasive!
do we need another SA thread? he’s certainly not starving from lack of attention. i’ve not even read any of those threads but i keep seeing them pop-up.
