Or some perfectly reasonable regular old reason: She’s seven
Not even close. He’s a perv.
What kind of reaction would you expect if your sentence read “A jew going into a closed room with a young female. Now days definitely not a good idea” People would be screaming from the roof tops (well, most of em).
I personally am sick of the men-as-untrustworthy-sexual-predators stereotype. Why is it tolerated? Men can’t get near a child without some whack-job screaming “EEK! Can’t trust men! Men Bad! Bad Men Bad!” :rolleyes:
Oh yeah. Dad showed up Jim’s house, banged on the door, swearing.
Jim hid with his wife in the bathroom, Jim’s wife called the cops. Dad’s gone when the cops show up, Jim didn’t mention the shaving bit, just the banging on the door and the swearing bit.
Not even close?
Close to what, exactly?
I know he’s an idiot and didn’t ask if he was a pervert, a matter I’m not interested in discussing.
Do you have a legal opinion to offer on this?
I call b.s. on this scenario for the simple reason that no sane female of any age would place freshly waxed legs in a swimming pool or the ocean because the chemicals and/or salt would make one’s legs sting. Don’t ask me how I know this.
Well, they did say shaved, not waxed.
Plus, I’ve done this. I don’t swim that often, but this past summer, I got my arms and legs waxed and about ten/fifteen minutes later was in the swimming pool. Not everyone’s skin is that sensitive.
Shaved - and a 7-year-old who’d never had her legs shaved before wouldn’t know that.
No one prior to you said waxed.
I said shaved.
I would submit that a 7-year-old girl probably doesn’t know that tidbit you just shared, anyway, though I got no idea if it applies to shaving…
This seems like one of those things that would be handled on a case by case basis, and state law and the mindset of local jurors would play a part. You hear about the charge “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” Maybe that would be a charge. Not that it will make her a delinquent, but I think that gets used when adults facilitate children’s participation in other adult activities, like drinking or access to porn. Or the charge could be sexual abuse, and a trial could address whether shaving someone’s legs is, in this case, in fact sexual. Because in some cases it is in fact a cosmetic service and in some cases its medical.
Generally laws around sexual misconduct have some sort of wording referring to sexual gratification as a motivation, don’t they? So a “perv” shaving a kid’s legs in order to achieve an erection or orgasm could potentially be charged. On the other hand, I regularly touch kids’ genitals while changing diapers, and don’t think anyone would be able to charge me with anything for that. This, I agree, would have to be determined on its own merits, I don’t think we’re going to find shaving listed specifically in legislation.
And while I know plenty of hairy-legged seven year olds, I would never consider shaving or even allowing a child of that age to shave *herself *in my house under my care without checking with the parents first. Unless my daughter ends up with some hormonal disorder, she will not be allowed to shave before puberty. I would be very, very angry if one of my friends did it or allowed it, not because I’d think them perverts, but because that sort of thing is a *parenting *decision, not a “helpful uncle-type person” decision.
OTOH, I agree that painting this guy as a monster because he owns a penis is infuriating as well. I see no reason to assume he had anything other than being helpful in mind.
I was not implying all men are bad. It was easier for me to make the comment being that the situation is an adult male and young female in the situation. I was not trying to sterotype. If it was an adult female and young male I would have wrote the same thing about an adult female going behind closed doors with a young male. Or should I just say any adult going behind closed doors with a young child is a bad idea.
I don’t know, there are 50 different states, possibly each with their own wording. I’m not 100% sure I think that wording would always be the best way to word the law (not that they ask me …). Sometimes the act may be sexual, but the motivation something other than sexual gratification–like punishment or a freakish understanding of how children should be educated. It kind of ties into the idea of rape as a crime of power, not passion. But it sounds like we are in agreement that whatever the wording of the law, and whatever facts could be brought in evidence, it would be open to interpretation.
I think diaper changing is a well-established hallmark of civilized society, so you’re in the clear. 
Not even close to a tricky judgment for me to chime in on.
It’s pretty difficult to create laws that define perverted behaviour, and this case as represented here, anyway, is a good example. The naive souls defending this nutcase pervert are…well…naive.
Any adult who is not a perv would have sought parental permission and if they were not able to obtain it, not shaved a seven year old. Sheesh.
If you want a legal opinion, you’ll have to dig up the local applicable law and see if they managed to get it right–did they think of an airtight way to cover a man shaving the 7 year old neighbor girl’s legs?
If it doesn’t, he’ll get off the hook.
But he’s still a pervert, its inappropriate and what should happen is that he should be successfully prosecuted for it. Whether or not it will happen is not so much related to the opinions on this board as it is to the law and the vicissitudes of the legal system, as you know.
i just want to chime in and say that if this is a widely held belief then it’s just… sad.
as to the OP, i agree that any adult has no business shaving the legs of a seven year old without the parent’s permission.
Thanks for answering my earlier question.
Jim’s radio persona leaves me believing that he may actually be clueless enough that everything happenned in good faith.
Seriously, if he realized everything he did was wrong or at least really, really stupid, I suspect he wouldn’t have discussed it on a syndicated radio show.
Keep in mind that if you heard it on a wacky-style radio show, it’s probably fake.
That has crossed my mind.
I suppose if I work on that supposition, the whole thing IS legal…
It’s not just a belief it’s standard workplace policy for many people who work with children. You never let yourself be alone with a kid. This policy is for your own protection. You always want to have witnesses for any and all interactions you have with the kids. You never want to be in a situation when it’s your word against a child’s, no matter how innocent you are. An adult male who takes someone else’s 7 year old girl into a bathroom by herself, without parental permission is a fool. The best way to protect yourself from accusations is never to provide the opportunity for them.
Since the OP doesn’t specify, I have to make sure this isn’t a trick question, and ask:
Is this a human female we’re talking about?
If so, why not call her a “girl”?