 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / December 20064 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher
Interesting story. Let's consider. Teachers and teachers aides are frequently spontaneously hugged by children without anything at all being made of it. What was so "special" about this hug that the aide felt compelled to report it? Uh huh. You guessed it. It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative. Children that have been exposed to sexual activity can very quickly be developmentally compromised. And the notion a 4 year old is 'sexually innocent?' Well, R R R R R R .... Not if someone has already introduced them to sexual activity. The police should look into this case. Most large metro areas have a Crimes Against Children unit. And if you men don't believe me about knowing when a "hug" is sexually loaded, ask a woman. Kane http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699 4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher Dec 8, 2006 08:51 PM by Jennifer Kent BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school administrators have a different story. Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the chest of a female employee. The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment." Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son is too young to know what it means to act sexually. David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most four-year-olds are sexually innocent. Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he will continue to fight the district. La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't comment on this case because of student privacy issues. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KXXV. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Kane wrote > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old? Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries making them avoid contact with breasts? Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face in clothed boobs wouldn't have done the same thing with a soft tummy? You'd start a sex abuse WITCH HUNT over this? > Interesting story. > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and > Terms of Service. > Kane wrote > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate > > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative > > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding > reflex? Was his name Greg? > Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old? Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse. > Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries > making them avoid contact with breasts? Yes. They have all kinds of boundaries by 4, Greg. > Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face > in clothed boobs wouldn't have done the same > thing with a soft tummy? You'd have to ask the aide that it happened to. Usually they are quite aware of innocent contacts vs sexual ones. Ask a woman. > You'd start a sex abuse WITCH HUNT over this? Nope, but an investigation into what other things are happening in this child's life to warrant his behavior. You afraid of an investigation, Greg? Given things you've written about yourself, and you seeming unconsciousness about sexuality, including your own, I don't think YOU'D be a good judge of what a child's behavior indicated. I think women are born with a built in detector that grows more accurate over time. Can you guess why this might be? When I worked in mental health work I found that all of the children the agency treated had such problems. Most traced to sexual abuse by someone. Teachers and aides have to be aware of such behaviors both for their own protection and that of the children. You'd be amazed how often it works out they were right. Do you know why these thing get reported now and did not so much in the past? At one time such things never got past the principal's desk. The bad PR you see. So many a child went back home to an abuser. No help, more abuse. The times they are a changin' Greg. Bother you does it? Good. > > Interesting story. > > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and > > Terms of Service. > > Kane wrote > > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse. That's not very Freudian of you! > > Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries > > making them avoid contact with breasts? [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and > > > Terms of Service. > > > Kane wrote > > > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse. Greg the Oblivious replies: > That's not very Freudian of you! > [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > > > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and > > > > Terms of Service. Greg wrote > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? > Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old? Kane wrote > Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse. Greg wrote > That's not very Freudian of you! > Greg wrote > > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Greg wrote > > That's not very Freudian of you! Relevance? > > Greg wrote > > > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Relevance? Probable Cause?? >>> Greg wrote >>>> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Probable Cause?? There no remedy for that kind of choking. Sorry. > >>> Greg wrote > >>>> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There no remedy for that kind of choking. Sorry. How did Freud interpret choking? Please explain! You think a 4 year old touching breasts is sexual? > > >>> Greg wrote > > >>>> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How did Freud interpret choking? Please explain! Can't. Don't know. Wasn't and aren't a Freudian. Too many years since my college days when he was the subject of lecture and study. Want me to dig in my files? First I'd have to know what you are looking for, and of course there is that fee thingie. > You think a 4 year old touching breasts is sexual? Sure, if he's been sexually molested by a female or a couple including the female. Do you really think 4 year olds aren't or can't be sexual? Please. Newborns have erections both by friction and spontaneously. Females lubricate early on for similar reasons. Now the question is, was this spontaneous or not. I know, you don't want anything investigated that isn't proven, thus, of course, by circular reasoning impossible to investigate. Cute ... and common to the criminal mind. You aren't I presume? Kane So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual! Can only be the result of molestation? Right. > So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual! Of course. Among other things. > Can only be the result of molestation? Right. If it is a sexual interest, yes, there can be an indicator of molestation. I actually doubt it was the case here, but we didn't interview the boy, did we Greg? And if those that did found more going on, then they aren't going to release it to the public for two reasons, Greg. One, an ongoing case. And two, a minor whose privacy must be protected, legally in most states. Notice the word accused in the title? 0:-> Greegor wrote: > So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual! Kane wrote > Of course. Among other things. G > Can only be the result of molestation? Right. > If it is a sexual interest, yes, there can be an indicator of > molestation. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Notice the word accused in the title? Do you believe that this would be probable cause to justify an investigation? Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE with this sort of an assenine witch hunt? Would a Judge issue any sort of court order based on this incident? What would the primary DEFENSE against such an assenine investigation be? > Greegor wrote: > > So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Do you believe that this would be probable cause to justify an > investigation? Yes, based on the reaction of the teaching aide. Or we society could ignore such things and wait to see if he turns out to be dangerou perv. > Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE > with this sort of an assenine witch hunt? Darned if I know. Would you find it too difficult to use a new reader with a spell checker? > Would a Judge issue any sort of court order based on this incident? What do you think? > What would the primary DEFENSE against such an assenine investigation > be? You tell us. Kane > Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE > with this sort of an assenine witch hunt? >> Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE >> with this sort of an assenine witch hunt? I don't know. But my best guess is, no. In fact I don't "advise" them to either, as it would be bad legal advice if I were giving it as such, and as non-legal advice I don't think one should, guilty or innocent, forget that it's innocent until proven guilty in this country. No one is "required" to cooperate with an investigation, Greg. My argument is that there should be an investigation to determine if what the teaching aid thought she was experiencing was true or not. What have you got against an investigation? No one is immune from them, Greg. What Constitutional provision is being violated in this case, Greg? Or get stupid and ask another pointless question. Do you know what Dan would advise this family, or is this another of your childish innuendo sessions? 0:-] Greegor wrote: > Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE > with this sort of an assenine witch hunt? Kane wrote > I don't know. But my best guess is, no. > > In fact I don't "advise" them to either, as it would be bad legal advice > if I were giving it as such, and as non-legal advice I don't think one > should, guilty or innocent, forget that it's innocent until proven > guilty in this country. That all SOUNDS nice, but was it you or Ron who explained that caseworkers are actually trained on how to CON their way into such homes? Especially considering the disproportionate number of lower income families targeted, are you going to pretend that everybody has a "Dream Team" or an attorney like Klicka to fend off such crap? The old "all the justice you can buy" thing is not an acceptable answer, is it? > Greegor wrote: > > Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > explained that caseworkers are actually trained on > how to CON their way into such homes? Neither. You might want to rephrase your question though. No "conning" takes place. > Especially considering the disproportionate number > of lower income families targeted, They get reported more, and more often do more neglect...something more dangerous than all the other abuses put together, for fatalities. Notice? > are you > going to pretend that everybody has a "Dream Team" > or an attorney like Klicka to fend off such crap? Nope. That's life. Shall we not arrest, charge, and try bank robbers based on their inability to afford top lawyers? > The old "all the justice you can buy" thing is not > an acceptable answer, is it? Nope, but it's the truth. And your solution would be........................? R R RRR RRRR You've never answered my question. Just how stupid ARE you, Greg? Kane wrote > No "conning" takes place. That's hilarious! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.