|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2010 4:13:26 GMT -4
Yeah. Not going to the corner shop and not sleeping in the same room with kids you've brought into your life for the express purpose of hanging around with despite the radical age difference is totally the same thing. And yet you have still failed to explain adequately why "sleeping in the same room with kids you've brought into your life for the express purpose of hanging around with despite the radical age difference" is so terrible a thing. If we take out the seeming mythical belief that if two people sleep in a room (or even a bed) and at least one is an adult it must be sexual, is there any real rational reason why it's wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 6, 2010 4:46:43 GMT -4
Exactly. What about camping? Many camp or scout leaders sleep in the same room or tent as children. MJ felt he'd been robbed of a childhood and was forever, maybe even compulsively trying to make up for it. That doesn't mean there's anything sexual about it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2010 11:27:16 GMT -4
Going down to the corner store is not the same as inviting into your home.
Camping is not the same thing as inviting into your home either.
Sleeping in the same room with your own young children in order to comfort them is not the same thing as sleeping in the same room with older children that are not yours.
And yes, there is a double standard with regards to men as opposed to women sleeping in the same room with children.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2010 13:43:04 GMT -4
And yet you have still failed to explain adequately why "sleeping in the same room with kids you've brought into your life for the express purpose of hanging around with despite the radical age difference" is so terrible a thing. If we take out the seeming mythical belief that if two people sleep in a room (or even a bed) and at least one is an adult it must be sexual, is there any real rational reason why it's wrong? Is there a real rational reason it's right? Hanging out with kids in the desire to restore some stolen childhood is one thing, and I can, to a certain extent, understand it. I think it's the wrong way to go about it, but it's hardly as though people don't fail to understand psychologically healthy ways of dealing with their problems all the time. However, I do think that plural is important. That's why analogies to slumber parties and Boy Scout camp are flawed pretty fatally. It's not just one-on-one in those situations. He has gotten the child alone. The parents are pretty well cut out--what were the parents doing at the time?--and there are no other kids around to say what did or didn't happen in that room. I know perfectly well that sharing a bed isn't necessarily sexual. I've shared beds with friends simply because we were limited on beds, there was room in mine, and I saw no reason they should sleep on the floor. However, it's always been with female friends; the one time I shared a tent alone with a male friend, he ended up being my boyfriend for six weeks. Does that mean I couldn't share a tent alone with a male friend and have it be not-sexual? Oh, no--I can think of several friends where, even were I single, that wouldn't happen. But the reason I shared a tent with that friend was, well, I'd forgotten mine. (Chivalry isn't dead; he offered to let me use it and sleep in his truck, but I would have rather found someone else to share a tent with, had it come to that.) You see how there are reasons for these events? When I was a kid spending the night at a friend's house, it was because we wanted to sit up all night talking--except Sharon, who fell asleep at nine as though she'd been drugged, and I'd either read or go talk to her mother. However, in almost all of those cases, we'd sleep in the living room, where parents could keep an eye on us. So no, sharing a room to sleep in isn't in and of itself evidence of sexual abuse, regardless of relationship with the child. And in certain circumstances, I'm willing to acknowledge that sharing a bed isn't necessarily sexual, though there will always be a reasonable explanation for bed-sharing if it isn't. It is these particular circumstances. This is a man who sought out children. They weren't the children of adult friends; he didn't really have many, and to the best of my knowledge, he didn't spend much time with them or their children. They weren't the children of business associates. They weren't the children of family members. They were children who were staying with him because he went looking for children to stay with him. Alone. Not in groups. And you're saying you don't find the behaviour the slightest bit suspicious? And you're saying you don't understand why it's behaviour you should stop when other people do if you don't want other people to assume you're doing exactly what the behaviour suggested to them you were doing in the first place? After all, I have no interest in robbing banks, but I still don't hang around the lobby for no good reason, even though it's nice and air conditioned. |
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 7, 2010 15:49:23 GMT -4
 Please. You know "normal" is an arbitrary term Exactly, it's created by society, but just because someone doesn't accept those creations does not equate their behaviour to wrong or criminal, merely different. But hey that is humans for you, anything that is different is a threat and therefore must be destroyed. This thread isn't about the word "normal" and it's relation to societal peer-pressure/conformity PW. You knew that right? ...At the moment all I'm getting is emotional "but it's wrong". I want you to give a good rational reason for why it is inappropriate for an unrelated man and child to sleep in the same room, without infering that every male on the planet is a child abuser. Sorry PW but I don't opine by your rules. I've noticed that while you apply an "all or nothing" approach to things like your last sentence you change gears and generalize when addressing the core issue. This isn't about Joe Sixpack's behavior, this is about Michael Jackson's behavior. If you need to pretend you don't know the difference, I'll pretend I really believe you're that stupid. I think gillianren summarized it rather well here (bolding mine): Why do you lamely try to lump "every male on the planet" with the behavior of that wacko? In fact looking at the stats, the "single male abuser" is actually rare, most abusers are partners of family or family friends. Many single abusers are children themselves, perhaps it should be wrong or inappropriate for kids to have sleep overs at any friend or relative's place because according to the stats that's where they are in the most danger. And this is supposed to help your boy how? It doesn't matter. Grown men don't have "slumber parties" with little kids PW. Again, why? Where is the rational argument for this rather then the emotive "but they could be an abuser" one? Do you have "slumber parties" with little boys? If not, ask yourself why and you answered your own question. So, let's switch the senario to the friend staying with your son, and after a nightmare wants comfort and secutity by sleeping in the same bed as you and your wife. Do you allow it and why, or why not? No. It would not be appropriate for me to share a bed with someone else's child just because they had a nightmare. As to why, that's just the way I am PW. Am I irrational? Now ask me how I'd feel if, instead of a hubby & wife, my little boy climbed into bed with a lone adult male who, obvious problems with his masculinity aside, had Peter Pan for a role model and an queer attraction to little kids. Want to split hairs over what "queer" means next? Except that according to the witnesses that isn't what happened. Your response is non sequitur - we were talking hypothetically. |
|
Please. You know "normal" is an arbitrary term