You missed my point which was that adolescent boys (IME) will look for outlets to express or gratify their sexual curiosity–even if that means putting up with a 13 year old sister, one whom he (and is friends) didn’t have the time of day for when it came to playing around the world or horse or Risk etc. I think it’s “normal”, but I also think it’s dangerous because family boundaries could have been broken. The situation we’re discussing didn’t involve family, but the element of pushing beyond acceptable social behavior is the same. That’s all.
The truth is we live in a different age. Not to say there is more sexual victimization or exploitation or molestation going on, because I doubt there is. What has changed is people are much more open about it. But not entirely open about it.
There are a lot of women, more than you could possibly imagine, carrying around experience with this that they have never spoken of. Because it was when they were too young to know what to express, because it wasn’t technically assault, because they were seeking the attention of the assailant, because it was someone in the family, because it was so long ago, etc., etc.
As society is more willing to speak of such things, it becomes clear to an otherwise trusting populace, that it is a real and prevalent danger. As society opens up about this it becomes clear that there is no predictor for this. Straight A student, good Christian home, know the parents, relative, always trustworthy neighbour and so on.
So which do you want, a seemingly more trusting society where children are being silently victimized? Or a less trusting society and fewer children being traumatized?
Never forget, the numbers of women being ‘overly’ protective of their children may indeed be fairly representative of the numbers of children of a past generation that were ‘touched’ inappropriately.
I do not see this as ‘overly’ protective. And no, my 8-11yr old daughter would not be allowed to play unsupervised with teenagers. Not in my home, not in my relatives homes, not in my neighbours homes, not at a church picnic. Within my eyesight, okay, within earshot, perhaps, out of sight, never.
By 11 your daughter should know she owns her body, and nobody, NOBODY, has any right to ever touch her body without her permission. And, that should anybody touch her without her consent, (sexually or not) she should immediately remove herself from that persons presence and tell a parent. Children this age should also be taught about being ‘uncomfortable’. Children are often ‘inched’ into sexual assault by being pushed a little more each encounter. Children should be taught if anyone makes you feel uncomfortable, for any reason, get away. Don’t second guess it, just leave. Teaching your children these things seems way more important than who they hang out with in the big picture of things!
I think that this is true, but I don’t like saying, “Boys will be boys.” (Not knocking you of course - I can’t think of a better, more concise way to say it - just that I don’t like the phrase.)
[start of pre-explanation so as not to turn this into a Pit thread]Before I go on, I want to mention that I really respect your opinion and the following is in no way directed at you personally, eleanorigby but more to a general audience. I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts - you have very sound judgment and express yourself very graciously. [/attempt to not turn into a Pit thread]
In my head, saying boys will be boys is akin to saying it’s okay for someone to be a bitch because, “Well, that’s just how Sally is, you know.” No, I don’t know and it’s NOT okay that just because Sally’s a bitch that she should get to make my life miserable because she’s having a bad day…or that that’s just how she is. Similarly, although boys will be boys and girls will be girls, saying that seems to imply that their actions are beyond their control. Their hormones are absolutely beyond their control and may drive them to have urges to do things they probably shouldn’t. But, that’s what self control is all about - having the common sense not to do stuff you shouldn’t. And assuming that the kid has half the common sense they will have later, even a young teenager should know that prepubescent girls are off limits.
All kids are going to make some horrible decisions. That’s a given. But by the time a kid has reached their teenaged years, I’d like to think that they can be trusted not to sexually abuse an 8-year-old kid regardless of their urges. Given the recent threads and posts, it seems that that’s not the case. Nonetheless, it kind of ticks me off that such things are assumed about teenagers who, in previous generations, were sometimes head of household by 15.
And for what it’s worth, I get that the reality of the world we live in is drastically different from the little utopia I apparently had in my head before reading this, but sometimes I read stuff like it and think that it bespeaks a larger problem: that kids are being so overly parented with all decisions made for them that they can’t make any decision by themselves, even those that, to me at that age, were “Well, duh” sort of decisions.
Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox. Maybe I should switch to decaf.
That was nice and thank you for those kind words overlyverbose, but I am a bit 
.
You said what I said (did you miss where I said “boys will be boys” is inexcusable?) but (I hate to do this, but you set me so beautifully…) in an overly verbose way.
<rim shot>
Ha! 
(why would this become a Pit thread? The topic or my posts in it? Confused, but now in a hurry-must go to work).
Hah! Hence the username. You should see my e-mails at work. I usually have to review them a couple of times to cut them to bullet points.
Anyway, I was worried that it would sound like I was flaming you. I wasn’t, just expressing disappointment at the general notion that we feel like we have to protect our kids to such a degree. And also that many of them seem to be incapable of making sound decisions, even at a not-so-terribly-young age, perhaps because they aren’t given an opportunity to do so. And perhaps that’s the way it has to be, but I don’t like it anyway (at least not with respect to eight year old girls - I’d hope that would at least elicit an “ew” from a teenager).
How is that the opposite? That’s the exact same attitude I said my friend’s little brother had around the “big kids.”
But, unless you’re omitting some huge detail, it’s not weird at all. Your brother’s friend (a teenager) asked another teenager to take her top off. You refused, that was the end of it.
Should you be offended? Of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that I’ve met a bunch of girls in my teenage years who would have jumped at “the fun and games” of strip poker. That’s why he tried.
Boys looking for outlets is a given. But yeah, I guess I missed that about them disincluding you where sexual gratification was not potentially a reward. If it’s upthread I can’t find it.
I’m saying that little ones sometimes play “doctor.” And you cite a case of proposed strip poker. But there’s a parity of ages there, at least. In your case, the boys probably noticed you were getting curvy…your hormones were changing your body and the boys’ hormones were reacting. This response is natural.
But the boys in the OP are hunting outside their age group, exploiting obvious, major advantages of outnumbering her, being much older/smarter and much bigger/stronger. Your situation has parallels and I don’t mean to minimize it: point taken.
But I think the little girl in the OP really didn’t have a prayer. The difference in maturity—IIRC she’s 8 and they’re 12 or 13—is huge. You were savvy enough to know that strip poker could lead to a really bad chain of events and didn’t even go there…she apparently watched them whip it out and didn’t figure there was anything wrong with putting it in her mouth.
Finally, isn’t your experience prophetic in a way? Many guys learn to pretend to be interested in the “whole” woman to get to the parts they find most interesting. To a degree that’s natural because boys don’t mature as fast as girls. I bet women dopers could recount stories of men they knew who still haven’t completed that process.
ETA: Many guys learn to pretend to be interested in the “whole” woman to get to the parts they find most interesting.
I really like this sentence.
Personally, I would have to evaluate the entire situation and everyone involved before letting my under ten child hang out with teenagers unsupervised.
Siblings and relatives can be largely removed from this situation because there are different expectations than neighbors. Relatives (at least in my family) are expected to look after the little ones and not get too stupid. Parents in the family use the double babysitting technique of having the little ones “watch” the older kids. The little ones tend to repeat everything that happened so the older ones try not to do anything to stupid and they avoid upsetting them as well.
When it comes to neighbors “hanging out” with kids of large age differences I guess it would depend on a lot of things. I don’t trust multiple teenage boys because the dumbest things I ever did always occurred when I was at least paired up with another boy. On a side note, girls are surprisingly effective at neutralizing stupidity when they are in the same age range as the boys. Thats why we never let them form all boy groups at the older day camp site. Its amazing how many of the “badass” boys would be sedated by the addition of a few females.
The guys on my street did hang out with one girl who was younger but thats because she was very quiet and athletic which meant we could use her to even out teams and she wasn’t a pain in the ass like other younger kids. Her father never seemed hesitant to let her hang out with us and she was 3 years younger than me and 5 years younger than the rest of the boys. It started off because we let her play soccer with us once and realized she was really good. Then she started riding bikes around the street with us too. Not really that big of a deal but I would absolutely understand her parents refusing to let her hang out with us. Admittedly, we only asked her to come out when we needed even teams for soccer or kickball but she tagged along at other times as well.
In my opinion there are no guaranteed safe situations. As disturbing as it sounds I would trust a large group before a pair of boys. Larger groups tend to actually do something instead of just being bored because you have instant teams for manhunt/soccer/football/baseball. This means less time to “experiment” with new ways to have fun.
overlyverbose–I agree completely. No flaming at all. No worries.
Lobotomy and Justin:
No, the Varsity swim team didn’t exclude me after my refusal to play strip poker (which is more than taking a top off, but whatever). Why does there need to be some kind of coercion behind the proposition in order for it to be labeled inappropriate? Older brothers are not supposed to ask younger sisters to disrobe, period–alone or with his friends. I completely agree that it is normal for guys (and girls) to want to look or touch etc, but just because it’s normal doesn’t mean it should be acted upon.
I am old (I’ll be 46 next week) and back when I was a pre-teen and teen, girls (good girls) did not routinely lift their shirts for any teen boy. It sounds quaint now (not really, having known many teens since my older two are teens), but there were girls and boys back then that were not constantly pressured to act out sexually; Girls Gone Wild existed only in imaginations and Playboy/Penthouse, and there was no instant access to sex/porn etc. It may be different today, but knowing the kids I know, I don’t think it’s gone all the way the other way. (and we were pressured to have sex, once we had a boyfriend, -or at least I was and was dumped when I wouldn’t-- but I’m digressing way too much already!)
It’s not the same as playing doctor(normal), and it is not comparable to what happened to that 8 year old. I didn’t claim it was. I agree with you that the 8 year old was out maneuvered and bullied. I mentioned my incident as a more innocent, but no less threatening example of how teen boys try to push boundaries in order to explore or (for all I know) bragging rights. What if I had been 8 or 10? I agree that the age disparity adds to the “wrongness”, but don’t think that being closer in age exculpates the boys of pushing the boundaries (the boys with the 8 year old broke the boundaries). I see a slippery slope, maybe you don’t.
I know not all teen boys are like that. I am glad of that fact and wish more were not. I am shaking my head over your liking of that sentence–to me, it says (in essence) boys will be boys and (apparently) never grow up. So, you’re ok with men who really don’t think a woman’s brain or emotions matter–her sense of humor, her assertiveness and kindness, her talents, her athletic prowess etc–just the “parts” they find interesting.
Maybe you meant to be funny, but I find it sad. Coming in this discussion about sexual coercion and using people to gratify oneself, it jars.
Lastly, I want to say this: we can talk all day about how we wouldn’t let our child be alone here or have these friends or play unsupervised, but the fact remains that this happened. We can think we are immune because we set up X rule or scare off an entire gender or by putting our kids in bubbles, but we aren’t. We can either see predation everywhere (and some do, apparently) or we can learn to trust our instincts, to have measured trust in our fellow man and community and realize that some hurts are going to happen and it’s how we respond to them that really matters.
I think we mostly agree about things but it’s somehow being lost in the interface here.
First you said:
My older brother’s friends, at age 15, wanted to play strip poker with 13 year old me. And they still wanted to at 17, and me, 15. I refused at both ages. Other than that, they were very nice to me and we joked around a lot–but it could have gone the other way, quickly.
There’s no mention of the older brother actually being there. I said that wasn’t that big of an age difference. Then you said:
You missed my point which was that adolescent boys (IME) will look for outlets to express or gratify their sexual curiosity–even if that means putting up with a 13 year old sister, one whom he (and is friends) didn’t have the time of day for when it came to playing around the world or horse or Risk etc
(underlining mine).
I said: …I guess I missed that about them disincluding you where sexual gratification was not potentially a reward. If it’s upthread I can’t find it.
Later you said:
*No, the Varsity swim team didn’t exclude me after my refusal to play strip poker (which is more than taking a top off, but whatever). *
See the underlined part above, which seems to indicate they did.
And you said, Older brothers are not supposed to ask younger sisters to disrobe, period–alone or with his friends. Earlier in this post, I mention how you said it was the brother’s friends (but didn’t say the brother was there). I can only speak to what you posted; if I missed it, please quote it for me and I’ll apologize.
I don’t have the fresh eyes I need to review this thread.
As for my “I like this sentence,” I found the phrasing humorous, but then, I hadn’t ramped up fully on my caffeine yet. Sad, perhaps, but ironic and in that sense, funny. Not “ha ha” funny but “too true” funny.
It doesn’t matter whether I’m ok with men who think this way…they exist regardless of what I think. Quoting myself:
Finally, isn’t your experience prophetic in a way? Many guys learn to pretend to be interested in the “whole” woman to get to the parts they find most interesting. To a degree that’s natural because boys don’t mature as fast as girls. I bet women dopers could recount stories of men they knew who still haven’t completed that process.
I was observing that what you saw in boys at that age holds true for many men today. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Ironic. Like I just posted, not “ha ha” funny but “too true” funny. Sad at the same time? Sure. Read Candide by Voltaire if you don’t think irony and humor and sadness can’t coexist, simultaneously.
But it was my phrasing of the idea, not the idea itself, that pleased me.
I think elbows has really said it all here. I wanted to bold various points for emphasis but found that I’d be doing it to just about the entire post.
I swear, some of your responses are giving me the willies.
I’ve never liked kids much but as the second-oldest cousin and eldest sister, I’ve taken care of more kids than I care to count; same for my two male cousins of a similar age. Middlebro has liked kids since he was one himself (I couldn’t stand them even when I was one), he’s a great babysitter, has a lot of patience with them and is now a good Dad. I wouldn’t have let Littlebro in charge of a kid when he was 15 and I wouldn’t leave him in charge of one now that he’s 31… but that’s because he just can’t relate to the kids. It’s got nothing to do with age.
I’ve been assaulted sexually several times, but never by anybody under the age of 30. One of my friends from the public pool told us once about having gone too far playing doctor with one of his female cousins when they were both 9 and not realizing what they’d been doing until sex-ed class the next year :smack: but it was innocent on both parts! The rest of the people who were in the group that day (about 20 of us) hadn’t even played doctor in our lifes and found the notion gross.
Maybe the narrow-minded and crossed-legged education we got back then had something good to it. Or maybe some of the folks here need more cold showers.
See, when you post “I like that sentence” I don’t usually cross reference to material like Candide. And what does she have to do with this? Life IS irony, humor and sadness all rolled into one–but we’re not talking about that. Saying you like that sentence doesn’t clue the reader in that you like it because it’s “too true” (perhaps we need a rueful smiley?). I didn’t intentionally misread your post; I think it wasn’t clear. It was phrased pithily. I don’t think we should let any guys off the hook (or any girls, either) no matter their age. It’s not ok to do this (see someone as parts instead of as a whole). I know I’m spitting in the wind here. 
lob:
Aha–I didn’t see your last post on the other page. I don’t think I was clear (although I think it can be assumed that his friends would only be over if my brother were home as well). There was no coercion like “we won’t let you play horse if you don’t”. But don’t you see that that makes it even more well, icky? It was just assumed, business as usual–as a preteen/teen, I never knew if and when the subject and the mild harassing would come up again. This wasn’t a one off (that much I did not make clear), it was asked of me several times throughout my adolescence. We’d be sitting around, having fun, and then one of the guys would ask. Perhaps they found it funny or amusing. They were often high as kites, so that factored into it, I’m sure. But the fact remains that I never knew when I would be included or when I would be seen as some kind of toy.
hope that clears things up–I should have written more detail. Sorry!
It’s a short novel by Voltaire. The main character, Candide, tries to believe that all is for the best but he sees over and over the problems of the world.
Voltaire describes horrible plights of his characters in a tone that is mordantly matter-of-fact. Through the allegory of Candide, Voltaire ridicules religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers; most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism.[6]
Voltaire would agree about irony/humor/sadness. I thought I was clear about the funny part for me being the phrasing: I like the sentence. Sorry if it didn’t come across that way.
I agree about not letting people off the hook and I do see people as more than their parts but plenty of guys don’t. And let’s face it, it’s not only men that do that. Some women like men only for their looks, or some really want his bank acct.—sex isn’t even the only objective.
But I’m getting off on a tangent. I think we understand each other now. 
GAH. I know who Candide was. I know who Voltaire was (is?). GAH.
Ok, we understand one another, except we keep talking at cross purposes… 
Notice how I’m not touching the was (is?). We need some subtly sarcastic font for you :smack: 
:eek: 
I know he’s long dead–but then I wondered if we should refer to him in the present tense because his works live on. And then I thought I was crazy for thinking that way and then I had to go do stuff, so I left it that way…
Life in my head can be weird. (I’d love it if sarcasm auto-formatted into a different color or font–that would be hysterical!).