Parents furious at naked day care games

[simonsebs]

Parents furious at naked day care games (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20081126-15754.html)

If this had happened in America you know this woman would have been arrested and have to register as a sex offender. In my mind she did everything she was suppose to do, but still got in trouble. It seems the irrational fear of pedophelia has spread beyond America's shores.

[enertronik]

Sounds so harmless once you read it. You're right about how it would be handled here, though, it would be ugly.

[NudonyII]

Sounds so harmless once you read it. You're right about how it would be handled here, though, it would be ugly.

That depends. My daughter started going to daycare at 2-3 years young, after essentially spending the first years of her life living "clothing-optionally." I knew that would be a big change for her to spend her days clothed, but I didn't anticipate what I'm about to recount next. One day, shortly after our kid had entered daycare, I got a very freaked out phone call from my wife at work. The daycare lady in charge of attending to our daughter had just called her, herself very much freaked out. Because the room she was in charge of had...a bunch of nude children running around! The story was: our daughter apparently brought up in conversation her preference for nudity to the attendant, who kinda "played it off." And at least one of the other children overheard her. When the attendant stepped out of the room for a few minutes and came back; she found herself faced with...a room full of nude children! After spending a few minutes chasing the kids and trying to get their clothes back on, that's when she called my wife. What I figured happened is that the other child probably approached our daughter, and they incited each other to get nude. And the other children just naturally followed suit.
I can laugh and joke about it now, but that day, as I was listening to my wife, I started sweating profusely. I thought for sure that she would get expelled, the other parents would go into a rage, the attendant would get fired and that the daycare center would alert Social Services. None of that happened. The other parents were alerted; but there wasn't any strong negative feedback. We were merely issued a warning by the daycare center that another "nude infraction" would result in expulsion. But that was the end of it.

In conclusion, the obvious lesson to take away from this is, if you're raising a nudist child, to teach them very early on that the textile world is not very nudity friendly. The other, more positive lesson, is that children are in fact natural nudists - I never would have figured that the other children would so wholeheartedly embrace the opportunity to go nude. I know the situation I've encountered with my daughter is different in the sense that the attendant did not encourage nudity as the German attendant did. But my story is at least proof that such situations don't always turn out for the worse.

[Agde]

In our family, we as children (and subsequently our children in our families) were brought up as situational-naturists in the sense of school clothes, church clothes, home no clothes, beach no clothes, etc. Young kids especially have a hard time with the politics of the "textile vs naturist" worlds, so associating clothing with activities keeps things simple and doesn't teach a feeling of being part of some fringe group. For us, day-care fell in the category of "school" not "home" so such an incident never came up.

Still, it is amusing, perhaps disturbing, and instructive to note that 20 or 30 years from now, many of today's day-care kids will be struggling to get back in touch with their inner-kid in order to enjoy a bit of nude recreation. Another option of course would be to treat day-care as a teaching environment -- as an ideal place to teach kids from the beginning about clothed time and unclothed time as natural part of the other social skills they are learning.

As a parent, I might also have been upset at caregiver in the article, not for allowing nudity, but for segregating the "nudist kids" from the "textile kids" -- bad precedent! :)

[Bob S.]

Actually Nudony, your anecdote does disturb me in one aspect: the children were left alone for such a length of time that all the children had time to disrobe. That is child neglect and the teacher could have been fired. Had a child been injured during her absence, she could have also been arrested. As for an expulsion, that is very tough for something that is natural for a 2-year-old.

I remember a few years ago being the teacher in a four-year-old class. While outside on a hot summer day, the playgrounds for the older children (three-year-old class and up) and younger children (toddlers and two-year-old children) was separated by chain link fence. The two-year-old class was also outside and I saw a young girl in a play tree who had stripped out of her clothes. Her teachers, of course, chastised her and put her clothes back on. The next day, she did the same thing, thins time a boy joined her by stripping down to their pull-ups. Stripping clothes is natural for kids that young.

Getting to the article, the biggest problem was the lack of communication with the parents. If you want to start something like that, you need parental permission.

My biggest problem with the article was this quote: The fact that other children were disturbed by the lack of clothing did not put an end to the practice. I would be interested to know what age these kids were. The picture in teh article shows about two to four year old children. If that is correct, then the above quote is a blatant lie. Children that young are not "disturbed by the lack of clothing", they are probably saying 'Ooh, Mary is naked! Teacher, Mary got naked!"

Kids that age have no modesty, either for themselves or others. I have had children of both genders lift shirts, show each otehr their underwear, use the bathroom with the door wide open, etc. They just don't care about that. Now seeing someone violating a rule is cause for tattling, but that is far from being disturbed by the rule breaker. In fact, it is very hard to disturb a child unless you are forbidding them from doing something they want to do or withholding something they want.

Bob S.

[Zorro]

It seems the irrational fear of pedophelia has spread beyond America's shores.
Fear of pedophilia is not irrational. California alone has over 62,000 registered sex offenders, far more than almost every other state (Texas is second with almost 58,000 and Florida is third with over 50,000), and who knows how many others there are that have not been caught yet. That works out to be 1 in 553 people... how many of them are pedophiles? I don't know (I can't readily find any stats on it either), but I suspect it's a very high percentage.

With an average of about 2 registered sex offenders per 1,000, that means that in a city the size of San Francisco (about 765,000), there can be as many as 1,383 known sex offenders, and maybe a third to a half are pedophiles (just a guess, I don't know the numbers, but it's almost certainly more than 5%-10% and probably much higher). And you think awareness of this is "irrational fear"?

http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=373:numbers-of-sex-offenders-per-state-and-per-one-million-residents&catid=3:news&Itemid=1

[Ita3rd]

Fear of pedophilia is not irrational. California alone has over 62,000 registered sex offenders, far more than almost every other state (Texas is second with almost 58,000 and Florida is third with over 50,000), and who knows how many others there are that have not been caught yet. That works out to be 1 in 553 people... how many of them are pedophiles? I don't know (I can't readily find any stats on it either), but I suspect it's a very high percentage.

With an average of about 2 registered sex offenders per 1,000, that means that in a city the size of San Francisco (about 765,000), there can be as many as 1,383 known sex offenders, and maybe a third to a half are pedophiles (just a guess, I don't know the numbers, but it's almost certainly more than 5%-10% and probably much higher). And you think awareness of this is "irrational fear"?

http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=373:numbers-of-sex-offenders-per-state-and-per-one-million-residents&catid=3:news&Itemid=1

I think he's arguing that the fear of pedophilia has grown so much that any simple act of innocent nudity can be criticized because some pervert out there might find it arousing. There was obviously nothing sexual about the event and I'm sure the ones running the day-care did not get any kind of thrill out of the situation but did what they felt they needed to deal with the kids.

[usuallylurk]

When my daughter grew up nudist, I had no problem with her being nude around other kids when she was that age --

BUT --- I would have a problem with adults permitting her to be nude in what is a non-nudist environment

AND I would want to -- very intensely -- investigate what prompted the adults to allow this, and what their motivation was for allowing it.

So, no, I don't have a problem with parents' concerns. Even as a nudist, I'd worry about something like this happening if my child were involved.

[nimrod]

And you think awareness of this is "irrational fear"?

Being aware of pedophiles is much different then the irrational fear that some have of pedophiles. Some take that awareness and distort it to an irrational fear by thinking that every other person is a pedophile, not just a few. Some parents are scared to let their children out of their sight for fear of a pedo getting them, even keeping them out of preschools. My grandson went to a preschool that would rather let him run around with his fly open then be accused of pedophilia because someone helped him with his zipper. That is the irrational fear of pedos that is out there right now.

I also would not put too much faith in registered offender numbers. Some cases of those who have been found guilty of being a pedo are cases of teens having consentual sex and one happens to be over the "legal" age where the other is not. I can not see how an eighteen year old having sex with a seventeen year old is being a pedo, but some do see things as black or white, no grey. I know a person that was under eighteen who was having sex with his girlfriend who was also under eighteen, on his birthday the father of the girl pressed charges on him. Should he be considered a pedo for having sex on his eighteenth birthday? Would that case be feeding an irrational fear by raising the numbers of sex offenders, especially those of pedos?

[simonsebs]

I think he's arguing that the fear of pedophilia has grown so much that any simple act of innocent nudity can be criticized because some pervert out there might find it arousing.

Yes that's exactly what I was trying to say. Make no mistake I believe pedophilia is one of the worst things in world.

Yet at the same time, some people's fear of it can go to extreme levels as had already been discussed on the forum. When parents can't get pictures of their kids in the tub or backyard developed without getting a visit from the police and CPS. When lawmakers try to, and sometimes succeed, make laws banning anyone under eighteen from going to a nude beach or resort. When the very site we are posting on right now can't show images of families with children. When all these kind of things happen that is irrational fear.

[NudonyII]

Actually Nudony, your anecdote does disturb me in one aspect: the children were left alone for such a length of time that all the children had time to disrobe. That is child neglect and the teacher could have been fired. Had a child been injured during her absence, she could have also been arrested. As for an expulsion, that is very tough for something that is natural for a 2-year-old.
Bob S.

In hindsight, you're absolutely right. It was only after the fact, and after I had recovered from a near heart-attack, that I thought: "Wait a minute! They were left alone long enough to actually talk about disrobing, and then engage into actually disrobing?! How long were they actually left alone?" I would think the attendant would have been reprimanded; but I never heard anything about it.

[Zorro]

One should always protect their children, and one can perhaps be overprotective, but I don't see that awareness or fear of pedophilia can ever be irrational. The reaction (or overreaction) some people have to innocent nudity is one thing, but until such an incident is thoroughly investigated, one can never be certain what was going on.

Then we have unfortunate cases such as the McMartin witch hunt back in the mid-1980's. Absolutely nothing happened there, but one hysterical mother started a witch hunt that ended up with investigators telling the children what happened instead of asking them to explain without asking them leading questions (as was done, I've seen the footage). In order to justify the wasting of millions of taxpayer $$$ on nothing, two of the defendants were found guilty (although no crimes were ever committed).

What I'm getting at is that fear of pedophilia is not irrational when it comes to protecting one's children, but the overreaction to an uninvestigated incident may very well be irrational.

[nimrod]

but I don't see that awareness or fear of pedophilia can ever be irrational.

Fear can be irrational, it is called a phobia when it is. I understand what you are saying, but that does not mean that the fear itself can not become irrational which would cause people to over-react.

[richinoregon]

Yes that's exactly what I was trying to say. Make no mistake I believe pedophilia is one of the worst things in world.

Yet at the same time, some people's fear of it can go to extreme levels as had already been discussed on the forum. When parents can't get pictures of their kids in the tub or backyard developed without getting a visit from the police and CPS. When lawmakers try to, and sometimes succeed, make laws banning anyone under eighteen from going to a nude beach or resort. When the very site we are posting on right now can't show images of families with children. When all these kind of things happen that is irrational fear.

I wonder sometimes if our looking for pedophiles under every rock isn't as irrational as the witch hunts of Salem were.

[ranul]

the problem with the sex offender list is that you are either on it or not on it .
If there was different levels of the list

[Bob S.]

Zorro: "Fear of pedophilia is not irrational. California alone has over 62,000 registered sex offenders"

Any fear can become irrational even if the fear is a real fear. Snakes should be feared, but not to look at a simple garter snake and think it is going to sink its venom into you or strangle you like a constrictor.

The same irrational fear takes place when a person sees a man playing with children and comes to the conclusion that he is abusing them. I work in child care and let me just say that I have had my fill of discrimination. At my current job, one stipulation I have is that I will not change a diaper (oh poor me :rolleyes: ) for "my protection." My boss once said to me, after discussing this topic with me, that she would not trust me to change her baby' diaper, "No offense, though." Sure, no offense taken :rolleyes: I have been talked to about holding children in my lap in the exact same way a female teacher does it. The irrational fear is out there.

You want to look farther, how about the Florida investigation into the Nudist Summer Camps they had there? Or Virginia banning them altogether? Or Texas altering their rules to assure no nudist summer camps can exist? Or Hippie Hollow's rules? Or the two (thankfully defeated) bills from Ohio's state legislature that would have criminalized family nudity inside the home on grounds that it is grooming techniques for pedophiles? Need I go on?

As for the sex offenders, what I would like to know is how many of California's registered sex offenders are in there for sexual crimes? How many of them are in there for simply nudity? Take a look at the number of indecent exposure-only offenders and I would venture that a good number of them are there for simple nudity.

Bob S.

[nakedstudent]

One should always protect their children, and one can perhaps be overprotective, but I don't see that awareness or fear of pedophilia can ever be irrational. The reaction (or overreaction) some people have to innocent nudity is one thing, but until such an incident is thoroughly investigated, one can never be certain what was going on.



I agree. Parents have the right to raise their kids the way they see fit. This protection means knowing what goes on in child care facilities. I think the worker hit the nail on the head when she said she should have talked to all of the parents after they decided to split play time into 2 groups. The solution was an ingenious one. The execution was unfortunately not as well thought out.

[Croydon]

One should always protect their children, and one can perhaps be overprotective, but I don't see that awareness or fear of pedophilia can ever be irrational. The reaction (or overreaction) some people have to innocent nudity is one thing, but until such an incident is thoroughly investigated, one can never be certain what was going on.
I disagree, I believe today, people are irrational in regards to their fears about pedophilia. Everyone is on a mission to "protect the children from child molesters" but the reality is, pedophilia is no different today than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I think people's irrational fear is due to the media's constant hammering of child molesters, children porn etc etc. Whenever there is an arrest of a molester or a sting operation, the media is quick to report it. This creates an illusion in people's mind that children are at risk. When you have shows like "To Catch a Predator" on Dateline sensationlising the enticing and arresting of "child molesters", one can not help but be scared.

The reality is, nothing has really changed over the years Pedophiles are not "Joe Boogie Man" or strangers lurking around the corner waiting for any kid to come along. Molesters are trusted people within a family...in more than half of cases it is a male relative.

In addition, it may seem with all the news reporting that molestation is on the rise, but I believe that is not so. Rather, I think more and more victims are coming out with their stories. Years ago, it was considered shame and taboo to even utter the "family secret"....children were often told they were lying when they told an adult that Uncle John touched him. If they were not called liars, they were asked to drop the subject and everyone in the family kept quiet that Uncle John is a molester in order to avoid shaming the family.

In the end, I think parents are just being irrational. One innocent case of nudity among a child and everyone is up in arms..."WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" they say....I say, the children are fine

[Pete Knight]

I disagree, I believe today, people are irrational in regards to their fears about pedophilia. Everyone is on a mission to "protect the children from child molesters" but the reality is, pedophilia is no different today than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago.


I couldn't agree more, the big difference is that children weren't believed or worse still, the parents didn't want to make a fuss, or yet worse, the organisation covered it up. The Catholic Church in America took a hammering for their cover ups.

All over the world there are people in their 50's taking retrospective action against organisations that ran orphanages, I met one such guy in Australia, and what he told me was quite horrific. The newspapers were reporting each and every case that came to light.

All this has done is create a climate of fear, we are now led to believe that pedophilia has gone wild, whereas the truth is that it is only the reporting that has gone wild.

The extent of hysteria is such that over protection is ruining childrens lives almost as much as the peodophiles themselves.

Don't hide your children away, don't deny them lifes experiences, but do listen to their concerns.

Pete Knight

[Smiley]

I was involved in a child molestation case a while back as a witness. Being a friend of the family, I was appointed to be with the young victim when the mother was on the stand. The victim and I went for walks, sat on the courthouse lawn and talked, introduced her to several of the deputies she hadn't met yet and in general had a good time. I didn't find out until later the investigator for the defense had taken several pictures of the young girl and me sitting on the lawn. Apparently he (or the defense lawyer) were looking for any impropriety between us to "prove" that the 9 year old was in fact the "slut" that the person being prosecuted had claimed.

I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to cases of child molestation, defense attorneys will stop at nothing. This case really turned into a "witch hunt" in the end. .the defense attorney tried to paint everyone associated with the girl's family as having contributed to what had happened, as well as trying to prove the girl had "instigated" the perp.

The perp is now serving a minimum of 15 1/2 years and his bail was taken to pay for her therapy.

[Pete Knight]

The perp is now serving a minimum of 15 1/2 years and his bail was taken to pay for her therapy.
A good result, although personally I would rather he had been hung up by his balls, better still that he had been found out before the poor child had to go through this.

These guys make my skin crawl.

Pete Knight

[Bob S.]

Croydon: "The reality is, nothing has really changed over the years Pedophiles are not "Joe Boogie Man" or strangers lurking around the corner waiting for any kid to come along. Molesters are trusted people within a family...in more than half of cases it is a male relative."

So true, except that in the past, child molestation/abuse was probably a bit more prevalent. It really became a problem after the definition of childhood was altered into something that was not just pre-adulthood. When innocence started to become a key to childhood, that was when sexual issues started to become taboo and prohibited for the most part.

Now to correct your stats, the abuser in rape is known to the victim in about 96% of the cases. That means only 4% of the cases involve stranger danger.

Bob S.