S/O...12 year old Independence....what is real risk vs. perceived risk?

[FaithManor]

Back to the original topic. Our kids were going around hotels by themselves before age twelve, and this day and age with security cameras everywhere I would definitely have no qualms because one can ask the manager to have security look if your child is gone a second longer than you think necessary.

 

We are a bit free range here. My boys have been hiking state land since they were ten, and farm sitting by thirteen/fourteen though never so far from home that I could not get to them quickly in an emergency. Dd had similar privileges and babysat for two year old twins overnight when she was thirteen for a family with an emergency. She was very mature and logical from a young age. She was a paramedic by nineteen and half working in a crime riddled neighborhood, and I do not believe she would have been mature enough for that given the immense responsibility and rationality required if we had not allowed her that measure of independence when she was young.

 

We take reasonable safety precautions, but definitely tend to a bit of free ranging here.

 

Personal injury experience absolutely changes perception so parents do what they think is best and cranky that is about all anyone can do. No one is a perfect parent. We don't all have to make the same choices on an issue like this.

 

I would like to say though that if you are interested in hearing the downside to helicopter parenting/over involvement, you should talk with us over on the college board. There is a reason that colleges are having a very bad time with immature 18 year olds. Too many have been sheltered and hand held in non healthy ways right up to the age of majority, and then are supposed to be magically mature at 18 and handle adult responsibilities. They don't handle it. Many fail miserably, and colleges are constantly trying to figure out how to help these kids become adults which is NOT their job actually. So something to consider in all of this is how do you want your child to function once they are legal adults and your say in their life becomes very limited, and then how do you go about achieving this. A proactive plan is better than just hoping, like some parents, that it just clicks some day.

 

But, I need to cop to being someone outside of "average" in this regard. When we went to Iceland in 2014, middle ds was not quite 16 yet, and we let him wander around Reykjavik and use public transportation alone. When we camped in Canada, I used to let our kids as young as nine go the quarter mile from our campsite to the ranger station by themselves or when they were ten, eight and half, and six together as a group. Poor rangers. My curious kids regularly peppered them with questions about the wild life, history, and geology of the area!

[ktgrok]

I grew up in a suburb in Florida and was catcalled once. Just once, by a guy driving by. In high school a guy got a bit hands and claimed it was a misunderstanding in 9th grade in the darkroom of my photography class. I got one lewdish prank phone call. Thats it until I was in college and in more dangerous situations - drunk at parties, etc. I'd say half my friends hav been raped but all in college and by people they knew. But where I grew up catcalling and such wasn't a thing.

I am actually really shocked too. It makes me think growing up where I did there must have been alot of sketchy stuff going on. I was catcalled so many times I couldn't begin to count, I was groped by adult men in the mall when I was 11 years old, I was followed into a girls restroom and had my butt grabbed by an older teen/guy when I was 13 years old. I was raped at 15 years, there was plenty of other stuff but this was some that really scared me. Many of my friends were either raped or groped at some point in adolescents. My 3 best friends and myself was followed back to my friends house from a movie theater at night by two guys who stood outside the house for a really long time. No adults were home and they didn't leave until the police came.

When my husband and I were college students we were without a car for a summer and I would walk to the store and had guys drive along side me and make comments and a few times with DH present.

I just thought this was normal. Seeing that there is quite a few people who never experienced it makes me want to move my family to this utopian place. Last summer when my niece was visiting (she was 9) a guy who was probably at least 16 years old made tongue motions at her and said "mmmmm" about her to his buddy. It was disgusting.

So maybe this is the factor. Those of us with so many examples might feel like every time we let our daughter out of our sight anything could happen. I still try to keep my anxiety in check but I am not sure how I am going to be when my daughter is older. I hope I can not hover too much and let her experience some freedom. I am already worried and she isn't even 8 yet.

 

[MBM]

Back to the original topic. Our kids were going around hotels by themselves before age twelve, and this day and age with security cameras everywhere I would definitely have no qualms because one can ask the manager to have security look if your child is gone a second longer than you think necessary.

 

We are a bit free range here. My boys have been hiking state land since they were ten, and farm sitting by thirteen/fourteen though never so far from home that I could not get to them quickly in an emergency. Dd had similar privileges and babysat for two year old twins overnight when she was thirteen for a family with an emergency. She was very mature and logical from a young age. She was a paramedic by nineteen and half working in a crime riddled neighborhood, and I do not believe she would have been mature enough for that given the immense responsibility and rationality required if we had not allowed her that measure of independence when she was young.

 

We take reasonable safety precautions, but definitely tend to a bit of free ranging here.

 

Personal injury experience absolutely changes perception so parents do what they think is best and cranky that is about all anyone can do. No one is a perfect parent. We don't all have to make the same choices on an issue like this.

 

I would like to say though that if you are interested in hearing the downside to helicopter parenting/over involvement, you should talk with us over on the college board. There is a reason that colleges are having a very bad time with immature 18 year olds. Too many have been sheltered and hand held in non healthy ways right up to the age of majority, and then are supposed to be magically mature at 18 and handle adult responsibilities. They don't handle it. Many fail miserably, and colleges are constantly trying to figure out how to help these kids become adults which is NOT their job actually. So something to consider in all of this is how do you want your child to function once they are legal adults and your say in their life becomes very limited, and then how do you go about achieving this. A proactive plan is better than just hoping, like some parents, that it just clicks some day.

 

But, I need to cop to being someone outside of "average" in this regard. When we went to Iceland in 2014, middle ds was not quite 16 yet, and we let him wander around Reykjavik and use public transportation alone. When we camped in Canada, I used to let our kids as young as nine go the quarter mile from our campsite to the ranger station by themselves or when they were ten, eight and half, and six together as a group. Poor rangers. My curious kids regularly peppered them with questions about the wild life, history, and geology of the area!

 

Not all hotels have cameras and those that do, don't necessarily have them everywhere. For example, some hotels do not like putting them in hallways because guests then worry about safety.

 

They are also not necessarily recording and/or monitoring 24/7.

 

A hotel worker could be involved with criminal activity. Prostitution takes place in even nicer hotels like the new one in our former suburb because someone at the front desk is getting paid off.

 

A few years ago at one of the nice hotels in the New East Side neighborhood of Chicago (by Navy Pier) someone attempted to strangle a female guest as she walked to her room. She fought him off but they never found the attacker.

 

 

Personal injury experience absolutely changes perception so parents do what they think is best and cranky that is about all anyone can do. No one is a perfect parent. We don't all have to make the same choices on an issue like this.

 

 

True. Also, some areas are just more crime-ridden. We lived for awhile in the neighborhoods of Hyde Park and East Rogers Park in Chicago. The violent crime in those areas is pretty significant and the majority of parents don't allow their children to wander freely. I even know professors at UChicago who will not walk during the day from from Obama's former neighborhood of Kenwood to Hyde Park.

 

I would like to say though that if you are interested in hearing the downside to helicopter parenting/over involvement, you should talk with us over on the college board. There is a reason that colleges are having a very bad time with immature 18 year olds. Too many have been sheltered and hand held in non healthy ways right up to the age of majority, and then are supposed to be magically mature at 18 and handle adult responsibilities. They don't handle it. Many fail miserably, and colleges are constantly trying to figure out how to help these kids become adults which is NOT their job actually. So something to consider in all of this is how do you want your child to function once they are legal adults and your say in their life becomes very limited, and then how do you go about achieving this. A proactive plan is better than just hoping, like some parents, that it just clicks some day.

 

But, I need to cop to being someone outside of "average" in this regard. When we went to Iceland in 2014, middle ds was not quite 16 yet, and we let him wander around Reykjavik and use public transportation alone. When we camped in Canada, I used to let our kids as young as nine go the quarter mile from our campsite to the ranger station by themselves or when they were ten, eight and half, and six together as a group. Poor rangers. My curious kids regularly peppered them with questions about the wild life, history, and geology of the area!

 

 

I don't think parental oversight, even somewhat excessive, necessarily leads to incapable young adults. Our kids are now in their 30s and 20s. They all managed the transition to college and life after college very well with little involvement from their dad or me despite having a great deal of parental oversight when they were younger. Children, even sheltered city children, have opportunities to mature in many different ways. Our kids did just fine when they left home, and if anything, grew up savvy and street smart which helped them become more independent.

[Ravin]

Slippery slope to start talking about 'real' violence. Violence doesn't have to be visible to others on the body to be real.

 

A non-violent rape is an oxymoron.

 

Not when it is defined as rape or abuse entirely because of the age of one or both parties.

 

I had experiences as a child which some would likely have been framed as sexual abuse/molestation because one of the other children involved was several years older than I was. Nowadays, if such a thing came to light all children involved would be in therapy and the oldest might be adjudicated delinquent. However, it was never framed that way in my own head as a child--rather, it was part of the hijinks we got up to, not qualitatively different from a number of other things we did that we knew we weren't supposed to while out of sight of adults.

 

Reframing it would not help me heal because I wasn't harmed in the first place. Nor would I be a better parent by never letting my own kids out of my sight.

[Guest]

Not when it is defined as rape or abuse entirely because of the age of one or both parties.

 

I had experiences as a child which some would likely have been framed as sexual abuse/molestation because one of the other children involved was several years older than I was. Nowadays, if such a thing came to light all children involved would be in therapy and the oldest might be adjudicated delinquent. However, it was never framed that way in my own head as a child--rather, it was part of the hijinks we got up to, not qualitatively different from a number of other things we did that we knew we weren't supposed to while out of sight of adults.

 

Reframing it would not help me heal because I wasn't harmed in the first place. Nor would I be a better parent by never letting my own kids out of my sight.

 

Activities among children where no one is harmed is self-evidently different than the things being referred to in the posts leading to what Sadie said about the slippery slope of "real violence."

 

I remain agog that so many people think sexual assault of children is taken TOO seriously nowadays.

[Paige]

I reject the notion that living in a "safe" area and not going to parties will somehow insulate a person from sexual harassment. I think it gives a false security. You all will have to just believe me, but I was never a party girl. I grew up in a very safe community with low reported crime rates. I went to highly ranked schools that made my neighborhood and schools desirable and sought after. I stayed home most weekends and had a very boring teen and preteen life. 

 

I was harassed or propositioned in such dangerous places as: the hospital in a nice neighborhood- not the cheap hospital- by an employee.

Students at school; usually the wealthier kids and not the poor kids

Church

The best mall in town

Walking in a preppy neighborhood

 

TBH, when I was young and married and living in shadier areas, I had much fewer incidents when out and about. I decided when I was about 14 that rich guys were much more skeevy/dangerous on the whole than poorer guys. People don't suspect them and they always get away with everything. The drug dealers in our school that I knew were all from among the richest, most respected families. There may have been poorer kids dealing as well but I didn't know them. And if you think nobody is selling or was selling in your school, you are naive. It was mostly friend to friend, soft sells of "extra" weed and pills.

 

Perhaps I gave off "pick on me" vibes. I was a soft target for sure at the time, but I still believe that if nothing bad has happened to you then it is luck, fortune, serendipity, and not anything you did or because of anywhere you lived unless perhaps you grew up in another country. 

[Guest]

"I still believe that if nothing bad has happened to you then it is luck, fortune, serendipity, and not anything you did or because of anywhere you lived"

 

 

Absolutely, 100% agree.  Do people think other women haven't thought about how to curb harassment and come up with the exact same non-solutions? guffaw

 

(quote button isn't working)

Edited July 5, 2017 by OKBud

[SKL]

Late to the party and can't read all the replies.  I think the statistics are pretty clear on the risk and it's pretty clear that fear of things that almost never happen, along with acceptance of risks that are much more likely to happen, results in many irrational judgments in our culture.

 

Today I was talking to a lady with middle-school-aged kids.  The "most people are good" topic came up, and she said, "but I still worry about bad people hurting my kids, because it "could" happen; it "does" happen."  I said yeah, but we can't stop living our lives because of things that "could" happen.  I mean, cruise ships sink.  (We are both on a cruise right now.)  I believe it was ~2012 when a Carnival ship sunk and a 5yo girl (and others) died.  It hit close to home for me, because I had just recently taken a carnival cruise with my then 5yo daughters.  So yes, that "could" happen, "has" happened.  But I'm not afraid to go on cruises.  Etc.  I'm pretty sure the other mom didn't appreciate my point of view.  :P

 

I think people need to remember to think not just of "what horrible thing could happen if I let my kid go," but also "what good things can happen" and "what bad things can happen if I deny my kids these opportunities?"  Of course not all opportunities are worth the risks, but they need to be weighed fairly.

[Ravin]

Activities among children where no one is harmed is self-evidently different than the things being referred to in the posts leading to what Sadie said about the slippery slope of "real violence."

 

I remain agog that so many people think sexual assault of children is taken TOO seriously nowadays.

 

I brought this up because the slippery slope goes in more than one direction--some things get blown out of proportion, while others are wrongly minimized. Either way, seeing predators lurking behind every bush when they aren't there doesn't help keep kids safe.

[LMD]

People have repeatedly said that they make a great effort to NOT over-shelter or stunt our kids, despite our lived experience that the reported 1 in 4 statistic is accurate.

The continued assertion that we are keeping them from living life is rude.

[eternalsummer]

Of course where you live and how you behave has an effect on sexual assault (and other crime) rates.  That is not to say that it is your fault you were assaulted or robbed, etc. because of where you lived and how you behaved, but the two can definitely be correlated.  

 

Like, it's not your fault that you are more likely to be rained on if you live in Florida vs Arizona, or if you walk to work every day instead of driving, but you are still more likely to be rained on.

[Farrar]

Activities among children where no one is harmed is self-evidently different than the things being referred to in the posts leading to what Sadie said about the slippery slope of "real violence."

 

I remain agog that so many people think sexual assault of children is taken TOO seriously nowadays.

 

I think many criminal acts involving minors ARE being taken far too seriously these days. When schools are classifying one kindergartener kissing another one as sexual assault against a minor and bringing in the cops, that's too seriously (which is not to say that kindergarteners shouldn't learn consent, just that common sense says that's too much). When the government is criminalizing teens sexting and putting all the teens who do it, even consensually, onto the sex offender registry, insisting they be tried as adults, serve jail time, putting in mandatory minimums, etc. then I think that's too seriously. Or even putting people on the sex offender registry for consensual statutory rape - I have issues with how those laws are applied, and I do think they've come to be taken too seriously sometimes. Like, I don't know exactly what should happen to a 22 yo adult who picks up a girl for a one night stand in bar and it turns out she's 15 with a fake ID, but I definitely don't think it's long term prison and never being able to get off the sex offender registry.

 

Of course, many other sexual crimes against minors aren't taken seriously enough, especially when the abuse is within a family or when it's assault that goes underreported... But I think our whole attitude about sex is pretty screwed up when it comes to kids in this society.

[LMD]

Changed my mind :)

Edited July 6, 2017 by LMD

[Guest]

I think many criminal acts involving minors ARE being taken far too seriously these days. When schools are classifying one kindergartener kissing another one as sexual assault against a minor and bringing in the cops, that's too seriously (which is not to say that kindergarteners shouldn't learn consent, just that common sense says that's too much). When the government is criminalizing teens sexting and putting all the teens who do it, even consensually, onto the sex offender registry, insisting they be tried as adults, serve jail time, putting in mandatory minimums, etc. then I think that's too seriously. Or even putting people on the sex offender registry for consensual statutory rape - I have issues with how those laws are applied, and I do think they've come to be taken too seriously sometimes. Like, I don't know exactly what should happen to a 22 yo adult who picks up a girl for a one night stand in bar and it turns out she's 15 with a fake ID, but I definitely don't think it's long term prison and never being able to get off the sex offender registry.

 

Of course, many other sexual crimes against minors aren't taken seriously enough, especially when the abuse is within a family or when it's assault that goes underreported... But I think our whole attitude about sex is pretty screwed up when it comes to kids in this society.

 

Again, no one was talking about kindergartners playing I'll show you mine if you show me yours until very recently in this thread, Ravin's post, and now this one from you, are about that. Everyone else, including me in the post you quoted, is talking about something objectively worse. 

 

So I'm reading this post and I'm thinking, "ok?"

[Guest]

People have repeatedly said that they make a great effort to NOT over-shelter or stunt our kids, despite our lived experience that the reported 1 in 4 statistic is accurate.

The continued assertion that we are keeping them from living life is rude.

 

Right.

 

And I'd bet all the oil money in Texas that these same people who are more cautious than some of you other people think statistics deem necessary (which is a bit circular, but ok we're going with it) afa strangers+ kids go are less cautious in some other important and statistically-influenced ways than others.

[Farrar]

All this is true and I basically have no dispute with this. 

 

However, I do have a problem that there is some kind of 'true' rape that comes with a helping of physical abuse beyond the rape itself. 

 

Rape, or sexual assault (some of the issues above aside) is in and of itself violent. Doesn't matter if your rapist is 'nice' to you, or you don't end up with bruises, kwim? 

 

Just because many women and girls (and some boys and men) are incredibly resilient and rightly choose how to define themselves and their experiences, doesn't make sexual assault non-violent at any stage.

 

Yes. I totally agree with that.

[Farrar]

Again, no one was talking about kindergartners playing I'll show you mine if you show me yours until very recently in this thread, Ravin's post, and now this one from you, are about that. Everyone else, including me in the post you quoted, is talking about something objectively worse. 

 

So I'm reading this post and I'm thinking, "ok?"

 

See, I did see people talking about things that I would say were not objectively worse - or, sure, objectively worse than a slobbery kid in your kindy class insisting on kissing you, but I think a teenager being drunkenly groped against her will at a party is a far cry from rape. I guess "sexual assault" is a far too loose term for me. It includes a lot of things that I don't think have to be that bad, even when they happen to minors. Which is not to say they're good or okay or not appalling from the outside end of things. Even getting groped at a party can be pretty traumatic. But if we're talking about rape, let's say rape. And when people did start saying rape, that's when I agree with you. But when people are throwing around statistics for all types of sexual assault, I get dubious, because I know it includes a host of things that, while not good at all, aren't things I necessarily think are life scarring for most victims.

[Guest]

See, I did see people talking about things that I would say were not objectively worse - or, sure, objectively worse than a slobbery kid in your kindy class insisting on kissing you, but I think a teenager being drunkenly groped against her will at a party is a far cry from rape. I guess "sexual assault" is a far too loose term for me. It includes a lot of things that I don't think have to be that bad, even when they happen to minors. Which is not to say they're good or okay or not appalling from the outside end of things. Even getting groped at a party can be pretty traumatic. But if we're talking about rape, let's say rape. And when people did start saying rape, that's when I agree with you. But when people are throwing around statistics for all types of sexual assault, I get dubious, because I know it includes a host of things that, while not good at all, aren't things I necessarily think are life scarring for most victims.

 

Bolded:

It is for me too and facilitates the conflation shenanigans we see in this thread and nearly everywhere else.

 

Recommended commentary from Slate.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by OKBud

[Farrar]

Bolded:

It is for me too and facilitates the conflation shenanigans we see in this thread and nearly everywhere else.

 

Recommended commentary from Slate.

 

I've read that piece too. I think we agree on that. I guess I see the statistics as the primary conflation issue. I mean, when I see statistics like 1 in 3 girls has been "sexually assaulted" before the age of 17, I think, this cannot possibly mean "raped." Like, a third of 16 yo girls have been raped? I don't think that's what they mean. And in fact, this Guardian article about a study with that statistic in the UK seems to support that - when they talk examples, it's a girl who refused to have sex was then hit by her (good grief, I hope now ex) bf, a girl was bitten against her will, a girl's bf became a controlling stalker and then punched her in the face. All of this is, I would say, examples of "not rape." Not that any of these things are okay or good in any way, but both that article and the statistics seem to want to lead with the "not nearly as bad" stuff and hide the rape. And it makes me very confused about how to read these sorts of statistics.

 

When having a discussion about the prevalence of sexual assault, then my first thought though, is that the statistics that are the estimates (I think what gets reported is mostly more on point, though I'm pretty sure it also includes statutory rape, which is quite often consensual) are telling us confusing information. And when people say "sexual assault" I don't necessarily assume they mean rape - or not only rape - especially when people say things like, I know so many people who were assaulted.

[Guest]

Speaking of statistics, man, don't get popped in the clink.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing, but the fact is that many, many more people these days have addictions to sex and porn. THIS is statistical fact. Their brains and judgment centers are being rewired by these sensations and images. Boundaries are being broken even more.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors. Seriously. This is a real thing in other nations - read up on sex tourism in some Asian nations in which men can "be" with babies and toddlers.

 

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range. I do not care. Yes, it is likely a sexual problem would occur with someone the child already knows like a family member or neighbor. Maybe "stranger danger" is not such an issue as the known people. But the rules for not being alone should be ingrained now in their learning centers of their brains - safety in numbers and not leaving a friend or sibling to fend for him/her self.

 

Why does this have to factor into parenting at all? Kids can have a lot of other ways of being and showing their independence. Why does a parent want to be free range with this sort of thing when there are a host of other safe alternatives?

 

Let's use the same logic on home projects. Would you invite an uninsured and unlicensed worker into your private nest/home to do a plumbing or roofing project? I sincerely hope not as that opens a home owner up to risk for a poor job with no option for compensation if something goes awry and they cut themselves on your pipe or fall off your roof. Why are kids treated differently in the name of "coolness?" Are children less valuable then one's assets? You would likely protect those assets, why not protect the kids from risk?

This is interesting because I do walk by myself, etc. I tend to do lots of "dangerous" stuff. I tend to give my kids lots of freedom. I wonder if parental tendencies affect what they allow their kids to do.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Bluegoat]

All this is true and I basically have no dispute with this. 

 

However, I do have a problem that there is some kind of 'true' rape that comes with a helping of physical abuse beyond the rape itself. 

 

Rape, or sexual assault (some of the issues above aside) is in and of itself violent. Doesn't matter if your rapist is 'nice' to you, or you don't end up with bruises, kwim? 

 

Just because many women and girls (and some boys and men) are incredibly resilient and rightly choose how to define themselves and their experiences, doesn't make sexual assault non-violent at any stage.

 

I never said anything like that.

 

I said that some people don't find an assault actually affects tham all that much, in and of itself.  But that seems, according to my observation, to be much less likely if the assualt is particularly violent.  People who are violently assaulted - even with no sexual component - usually seem to suffer pretty significant psychological effects in terms of being generally frightened, anxious, and that kind of thing. 

 

That is nothing at all like saying only violent rape is real rape, that rape doesn't always have an aggressive component, or that it shouldn't be taken seriously if the person isn't beat up.

[Bluegoat]

I think many criminal acts involving minors ARE being taken far too seriously these days. When schools are classifying one kindergartener kissing another one as sexual assault against a minor and bringing in the cops, that's too seriously (which is not to say that kindergarteners shouldn't learn consent, just that common sense says that's too much). When the government is criminalizing teens sexting and putting all the teens who do it, even consensually, onto the sex offender registry, insisting they be tried as adults, serve jail time, putting in mandatory minimums, etc. then I think that's too seriously. Or even putting people on the sex offender registry for consensual statutory rape - I have issues with how those laws are applied, and I do think they've come to be taken too seriously sometimes. Like, I don't know exactly what should happen to a 22 yo adult who picks up a girl for a one night stand in bar and it turns out she's 15 with a fake ID, but I definitely don't think it's long term prison and never being able to get off the sex offender registry.

 

Of course, many other sexual crimes against minors aren't taken seriously enough, especially when the abuse is within a family or when it's assault that goes underreported... But I think our whole attitude about sex is pretty screwed up when it comes to kids in this society.

 

I'd also say, for example, flashers are an example of people that I don't think should, in many cases, be treated as serious sexual offenders, or put on a registry.  Yet I've heard some really terrible things suggested as to what should happen to such people, who in many cases are suffering from compulsions and aren't dangerous.

[Bluegoat]

I've read that piece too. I think we agree on that. I guess I see the statistics as the primary conflation issue. I mean, when I see statistics like 1 in 3 girls has been "sexually assaulted" before the age of 17, I think, this cannot possibly mean "raped." Like, a third of 16 yo girls have been raped? I don't think that's what they mean. And in fact, this Guardian article about a study with that statistic in the UK seems to support that - when they talk examples, it's a girl who refused to have sex was then hit by her (good grief, I hope now ex) bf, a girl was bitten against her will, a girl's bf became a controlling stalker and then punched her in the face. All of this is, I would say, examples of "not rape." Not that any of these things are okay or good in any way, but both that article and the statistics seem to want to lead with the "not nearly as bad" stuff and hide the rape. And it makes me very confused about how to read these sorts of statistics.

 

When having a discussion about the prevalence of sexual assault, then my first thought though, is that the statistics that are the estimates (I think what gets reported is mostly more on point, though I'm pretty sure it also includes statutory rape, which is quite often consensual) are telling us confusing information. And when people say "sexual assault" I don't necessarily assume they mean rape - or not only rape - especially when people say things like, I know so many people who were assaulted.

 

Tjis is a huge problem with a lot of the statistics that get thrown around.  Partly because it makes people cynical, but partly because these different kinds of things don't necessarily have the same causes or solutions. 

 

That being said, I tend to use sexual assault in many cases because where I live, there is no rape, legally.  There are different levels of sexual assault, rather like the way murder is categorized.  It isn't perfect, but I don't think that's actually a bad way of collecting information.

[Farrar]

Tjis is a huge problem with a lot of the statistics that get thrown around.  Partly because it makes people cynical, but partly because these different kinds of things don't necessarily have the same causes or solutions. 

 

That being said, I tend to use sexual assault in many cases because where I live, there is no rape, legally.  There are different levels of sexual assault, rather like the way murder is categorized.  It isn't perfect, but I don't think that's actually a bad way of collecting information.

 

But classifying it like that seems to whitewash it. I mean, when you classify murder, "murder" is still a nasty term, whether it's first or second degree or even "just" manslaughter. Pushing someone against a wall and shoving your hand up their shirt and then your victim getting away is a horrible thing to do but really different from managing to have forced penetrative sex with your victim. "Sexual assault" seems to tone everything down. It's like if we grouped murder in with all other assaults involving weapons or something. All bad... but murder is clearly worse.

[Bluegoat]

But classifying it like that seems to whitewash it. I mean, when you classify murder, "murder" is still a nasty term, whether it's first or second degree or even "just" manslaughter. Pushing someone against a wall and shoving your hand up their shirt and then your victim getting away is a horrible thing to do but really different from managing to have forced penetrative sex with your victim. "Sexual assault" seems to tone everything down. It's like if we grouped murder in with all other assaults involving weapons or something. All bad... but murder is clearly worse.

 

Well, the original reason they changed it was the opposite - so serious assaults that didn't meet the technical definition of rape (vaginal penetration, in this case) could be considered as the same thing.

 

I have no sense that sexual assault is intrinsically less or more serious than rape.  I think it is a large category of things that has the commonality of being in some sense sexually motivated or directed, but it can have many other varying traits. 

[Farrar]

Well, the original reason they changed it was the opposite - so serious assaults that didn't meet the technical definition of rape (vaginal penetration, in this case) could be considered as the same thing.

 

I have no sense that sexual assault is intrinsically less or more serious than rape.  I think it is a large category of things that has the commonality of being in some sense sexually motivated or directed, but it can have many other varying traits. 

 

Yes, I think the intention was to not minimize when people were attacked but rape wasn't involved. And to up the seriousness on things like groping someone randomly on a bus or something. But I think it's had the opposite effect. I mean, that Guardian article I linked - the more I think about it, the weirder it is. 1 in 3 teens has been "sexually assaulted" but the examples are all so far from rape that I don't know how to approach it at all. It feels like they wanted to only give examples or think about things that are clearly not rape - so this wasn't even sexual assault in the sense of an attempted rape or, like what happened to a girl at my middle school, which is that she was raped by an object in a bathroom during school.

[Guest]

Legalities aside, I think we'd avoid a lot of this navel gazing theoretical business if when we speak, or write, to one another we use more specific terms.

 

If your legally-considered-assault was actually a flashing or a grope on a train, then say that.

 

That way you avoid lumping things that are not taken NEARLY SERIOUSLY ENOUGH in with things are, as you say, no big deal.

 

Talking about a problem without naming the problem invites shenanigans.

[Guest]

Yes, I think the intention was to not minimize when people were attacked but rape wasn't involved. And to up the seriousness on things like groping someone randomly on a bus or something. But I think it's had the opposite effect. I mean, that Guardian article I linked - the more I think about it, the weirder it is. 1 in 3 teens has been "sexually assaulted" but the examples are all so far from rape that I don't know how to approach it at all. It feels like they wanted to only give examples or think about things that are clearly not rape - so this wasn't even sexual assault in the sense of an attempted rape or, like what happened to a girl at my middle school, which is that she was raped by an object in a bathroom during school.

Where is your one in three states coming from. I only find one in six by 18 and one in three total experiencing at least one sexual assault of some kind over a lifetime.

 

"Only."

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I think the intention was to not minimize when people were attacked but rape wasn't involved. And to up the seriousness on things like groping someone randomly on a bus or something. But I think it's had the opposite effect. I mean, that Guardian article I linked - the more I think about it, the weirder it is. 1 in 3 teens has been "sexually assaulted" but the examples are all so far from rape that I don't know how to approach it at all. It feels like they wanted to only give examples or think about things that are clearly not rape - so this wasn't even sexual assault in the sense of an attempted rape or, like what happened to a girl at my middle school, which is that she was raped by an object in a bathroom during school.

 

Ah, I see what you mean now, I think.

 

Yes. I think using the catagory that way has been negative in the way you mean.  But I'm not sure that is down to the change in terms.  I think people have used it as an opportunity to push their own agenda.

 

A lot of those studies choose how they define sexual assault, and they could make many choices, inluding breaking down the information further, or asking specifically about more serious assaults.

 

I think I've seen two main reason this doesn't happen.  One is that some people and groups what to manipulate the numbers and make them look worse than they are - for one reason or another they are invested in that.

 

The other is that there are some people who do argue, seriously, that all kinds of sexual assault - sometimes even including things like being groped or crude comments - are essentially the same - they are all part of the collective patriarchal oppression of women and need to be treated as such.  I've even seen people who think that a violent stranger rape should be treated the same legally as a boyfriend groping without asking first (not a normal POV, but seems to be argued on that same basis.)

 

I think there is enough utility in the term to keep sexual assault.  For one thing, sometimes it is useful to talk about that - people don't just mean rape, they want to talk about other kinds of assault as well, even non-serious ones.  And rape I think is simply too narrow a term even for serious assaults - I always notice this when I talk to people in places where a man can't be raped by a woman, because he can't be vaginally penetrated.  Not would it include someone forced to perform oral sex, which might be a reasonable thing to include in a survey of serious assaults.

 

Essentially, I think its up to people to be vigilant about these terms being abused.  I think its been really unfortunate that many people have been hesitant to do so because of the kind of treatment given to those who do ask the questions, who typically are accused of minimizing sexual assault.

[Farrar]

Where is your one in three states coming from. I only find one in six by 18 and one in three total experiencing at least one sexual assault of some kind over a lifetime.

 

"Only."

 

When I looked it up, I saw that statistic as well. But several articles said 1 in 3 so I looked that up and turned up several links. One is the UK study that was mentioned in that Guardian article. It specifically says 1 in 3 for sexual assault.

 

But others mixed it with other violence:

https://nwlc.org/press-releases/nearly-one-in-three-teenage-girls-has-experienced-sexual-assault-or-other-violence-new-nwlc-national-survey-shows/

 

Or said 1 in 3 was "dating violence" which is even more vague if you ask me:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/07/dating-violence.aspx

 

But I saw another statistic which I can't seem to find again saying 1 in 9 for sexual abuse.

[Guest]

When I looked it up, I saw that statistic as well. But several articles said 1 in 3 so I looked that up and turned up several links. One is the UK study that was mentioned in that Guardian article. It specifically says 1 in 3 for sexual assault.

 

But others mixed it with other violence:

https://nwlc.org/press-releases/nearly-one-in-three-teenage-girls-has-experienced-sexual-assault-or-other-violence-new-nwlc-national-survey-shows/

 

Or said 1 in 3 was "dating violence" which is even more vague if you ask me:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/07/dating-violence.aspx

 

But I saw another statistic which I can't seem to find again saying 1 in 9 for sexual abuse.

But you did find one in three girls under age 18 somewhere?

 

I thought it was interesting that the CDC stats delineate at twelve years old. Not 18 or something else. I wonder what the reasons are there.

 

.... Also to get on track here, this really points to why most people don't bother cutting stats to justify most of their day to day parenting choices. And I think that's for the best. Find me a stat to justify one position, I'll find you a stat to justify mine and I'll add a personal anecdote to boot.

 

Iow, asking OTHER people to justify their lives with statistics is impractical at best and a jerk move most of the time.

[Guest]

.

 

 

 

Essentially, I think its up to people to be vigilant about these terms being abused. I think its been really unfortunate that many people have been hesitant to do so because of the kind of treatment given to those who do ask the questions, who typically are accused of minimizing sexual assault.

You kept saying "sexual assault" when you meant something completely nonviolent that didn't hurt anyone.

 

If you are going to use a catch all term, don't act surprised when something other than a narrow and specific definition/act gets caught in the drain, as it were.

[Guest]

While it's true that stats are generally far from completely objective, they are certainly less subjective that a random feeling or belief when determining how to handle decisions regarding situations that may carry risk.

 

I have an irrational fear of heights. When DH and I went to Hoover Dam a few years ago, I had to have him hold onto my waist for additional support while I took a picture. The wall was like chest high on me, I would have had to climb up over it to fall. My actual risk was very low, but my flight or fight response didn't care. The thing is, I recognize that my fear was not based on actual risk. And I am ok with that.

Several people, I think namely you actually, have pointed out here that the actual threat level is going to vary from place to place and from person to person.

 

Yes?

 

So accepting that, on the ground and in the moment decision making is going to have, and should have, very little to do with global statistics.

[Bluegoat]

You kept saying "sexual assault" when you meant something completely nonviolent that didn't hurt anyone.

 

If you are going to use a catch all term, don't act surprised when something other than a narrow and specific definition/act gets caught in the drain, as it were.

 

I was in the same position - some people seemed to be using it fairly narrowly, while others less so.  I would generally include whatever would legally qualify though I don't think all are equally serious even then.  , I decided that some others seem to be using it much more broadly than I would, which is what prompted me to bring up what counts as assault.

 

If some were thinking of the broader senses as reasons to restrict pre-teens activities, because they think crude comments or being flashed are serious sexual assaults, I don't think that's reasonable in the same way worries about more serious assaults would be, and I don't think its a good thing to cultivate a sense of those things as being very traumatic.

[MistyMountain]

The stats are all over the place. I tried looking them up since some of the numbers for children especially the stranger seemed high and I saw websites with stats mentioned and sites with very different stats. The better referenced ones are on the lower side and more broken down. It is not rare to have experienced rape but being pulled from a hotel hall or a public bathroom or a store etc is rare. Location and circumstances does effect stats. That never makes it a victims fault though.

Edited July 6, 2017 by MistyMountain

[Terabith]

Sometimes, people say "sexual assault" because it feels vague enough that they don't mind including themselves in the statistics.  "Forced into oral sex and vaginally raped with a gun at the age of seven," for example, just provides a bit too much information, you know?

[Guest]

Sometimes, people say "sexual assault" because it feels vague enough that they don't mind including themselves in the statistics. "Forced into oral sex and vaginally raped with a gun at the age of seven," for example, just provides a bit too much information, you know?

(Assuming, perhaps erroneously, this is in response to some of my posts here)

 

 

I definitely know. And advocate, loudly, leaving figurative space open for that buffer zone so that victims of, ahem, serious violence can engage in discussions in general without getting into their details. But it does not go in the OTHER direction: no space need be made for someone completely unaffected by a non-issue they encountered once. Do you see what I mean?

[Terabith]

(Assuming, perhaps erroneously, this is in response to some of my posts here)

 

 

I definitely know. And advocate, loudly, leaving figurative space open for that buffer zone so that victims of, ahem, serious violence can engage in discussions in general without getting into their details. But it does not go in the OTHER direction: no space need be made for someone completely unaffected by a non-issue they encountered once. Do you see what I mean?

 

Definitely.  I think it can, and does, go both ways. 

 

[Ravin]

Yes. I totally agree with that.

 

As do I. However, earlier in the thread a great deal of behavior was being discussed, including various forms of public harassment such as catcalling. Catcalling and groping someone on the bus (as two instances which came up) being put into the same category of behavior is mystifying to me.

[Ravin]

Having caught up...the question then is, what relevance do the statistics on sexual assault and abuse and rape have on the safety of a 12 year old walking from a hotel restaurant to her hotel room alone?

 

Realistically, how is she any less safe than a fifteen year old or an adult doing the same thing? Or is she? She could get assaulted by a random stranger on her own front porch at home as easily as in the hotel hallway, and there's less likely to be cameras, and statistically she's more likely to be assaulted by a member of her own family than a random stranger, which means that walking alone may not be the most dangerous course of action by a long shot. We don't treat male relatives as potential predators who must always be watched (unless we're the Duggars who apparently punish all their younger sons because of the behavior of the eldest with an extra layer of paranoid rules). 

 

And if these statistics are relevant, then is it a different conversation for a 12 year old boy vs. a 12 year old girl? 

[Guest]

Anything that is non-consensual can definitely be experienced as an assault. Perhaps a 'minor one' with 'minor violence', but really, are we in the business of ranking assaults on girls and women? It's really disturbing to me that a very narrow application of the word 'violence' seems to be being applied in this thread. And it reminds me a lot of the language around domestic violence, where abuse is ranked on the basis of extent of physical violence, with little regard for other kinds of violence.

 

I personally don't keep myself or my kids off the streets and locked in a basement for fear of catcalling or being groped on the bus. But it's f***ing violence for boys men to impose themselves on girls and women by groping and catcalling.

 

It's a spectrum of behaviour, not discrete categories. And just as I would support an individual girl or woman who chose to react with resistance and a sure sense of herself, I'm sure as heck going to support a woman or girl who feels (is) attacked by being groped, or catcalled. Is she likely to need the same level of someone who is raped in one of the worst ever situations? Probably not. But I (you) don't get to say to her, don't sweat it love, that's not assault.

 

The amount of free range activity you have as a child has nothing, nothing, to do with how you may react to culturally condoned violence against girls and women. I was a free range kid, my kids weren't...trust me, none of us would be shrugging off a casual grope on the bus, and neither should anyone else.

 

In terms of the OP, whether the child walks back to the room at 6, at 12 or knows how to do it before she leaves for college - it's all irrelevant. So long as one acquires the skills to be an adult by the time one is an adult, all else is preference and personal comfort.

 

I absolutely resent the idea that we can somehow 'proof' our kids against a toxic masculine culture by just choosing the right parenting philosophy.

 

You know what 'proofs' our kids against that? The toxic masculine culture changing itself to be more respectful of girls and women.

 

Nobody loves their stats more than me. I am cognizant of the fact that 'stranger danger' is over-egged. I have never been sexually assaulted or raped. I would have let the girl walk back to the room at age 12.I use public transport and walk at night.

 

Still. My experience is not all women's experience. I absolutely refuse to get into a stats judging game about who is the most reasonable mother, given violence of men against girls, women and boys is real, and - strangers in a hotel aside - is more common than the lucky amongst us may think.

Word

[Farrar]

It's a spectrum of behavior, but just like how getting punched is clearly not as bad as being stabbed is not as bad as being repeatedly bludgeoned... common sense ranks this stuff already.

 

Surely we can walk and chew gum on this at the same time. We can condemn the "minor" sexual assaults as horrible, something our culture needs to change, something that's not acceptable, part of the objectifying of women, part of "rape culture" and toxic masculinity. I agree with all of that.

 

But I think we can also recognize that not all assaults are equal, that some are more dangerous than others, that lumping everything into this sanitized term of "sexual assault" is misleading and causes people to have a level of fear that's unwarranted for themselves and their kids. And we can recognize that while all experience is individual and that all kinds of things can be traumatic, that seeing a flasher run past or getting catcalled from afar or even getting groped and feeling unsafe after simply are not majorly traumatic events for most people the way that rape typically is. And when we toss all that in together, it does make for misleading statistics. I mean, we don't put the murders in with the other violent assaults. It doesn't somehow make the other assaults okay if we separate them into categories.

 

Why can't all of these things be true?

[winterbaby]

And we can recognize that while all experience is individual and that all kinds of things can be traumatic, that seeing a flasher run past or getting catcalled from afar or even getting groped and feeling unsafe after simply are not majorly traumatic events for most people the way that rape typically is.

 

No, having one of those things happen is not majorly traumatic. Having them happen regularly on an ongoing basis, starting before you're old enough to really understand it, often with a patent element of sadistic pleasure in your fear (e.g. laughing as you run away), never quite sure how far this one will escalate, no clue whether he's been following you in his car for three blocks for jollies or because he plans to make you disappear - yes, that's quite traumatic. And although intellectually I can see the point about degrees of severity, on a visceral level it ruined me for such distinctions because my ultimate overall take on those experiences is that my friends and I were being deliberately terrorized with fear of the worst for men's amusement. Excessive concern for the not-that-badness of the lesser incidents tends to excuse the whole phenomenon. When I was ten years old, I just didn't have enough knowledge of the world to know that someone who was serious about raping or kidnapping you probably wouldn't start by following you down the street loudly making disgusting comments.

 

Also my experience of flashers was not that they "run past," but corner a vulnerable individual.

[Ravin]

I'm really unsure as to how there is not an element of violence in objectifying a woman or girl in front of you by catcalling or groping them on the bus.

I didn't say there wasn't. But they are two very different levels, and neither one is in the same league of badness as rape.

[Ravin]

Okay, so it seems to me that what we need to do isn't so much lock up our daughters, as do our best to make sure our sons learn to keep their hands to themselves and their manners intact before we let them roam free.

[Carrie12345]

We are a bit free range here. My boys have been hiking state land since they were ten, and farm sitting by thirteen/fourteen though never so far from home that I could not get to them quickly in an emergency. Dd had similar privileges and babysat for two year old twins overnight when she was thirteen for a family with an emergency. She was very mature and logical from a young age. She was a paramedic by nineteen and half working in a crime riddled neighborhood, and I do not believe she would have been mature enough for that given the immense responsibility and rationality required if we had not allowed her that measure of independence when she was young.

 

But, I need to cop to being someone outside of "average" in this regard. When we went to Iceland in 2014, middle ds was not quite 16 yet, and we let him wander around Reykjavik and use public transportation alone. When we camped in Canada, I used to let our kids as young as nine go the quarter mile from our campsite to the ranger station by themselves or when they were ten, eight and half, and six together as a group. Poor rangers. My curious kids regularly peppered them with questions about the wild life, history, and geology of the area!

 

I grew up believing I had an overbearing mother, mostly because my curfews tended to be earlier than some friends'.  But, while I didn't have any international travel, I suppose I was mostly free-ranged (before 9, 10, or 11pm, depending on the location and time of year, lol.)  

 

We were a camping family, and I don't have any memories of tagging along with my parents around our regular place or the places we visited.  I was off and running through hundreds of acres of woods with friends as far back as I can remember.  Same at amusement parks, state fairs, zoos, museums, etc.  I was babysitting for neighbors before I was 12, running "summer camp" for my siblings and cousins around the same age, dropping my mom off at work the second I got my license so I could work and run family errands, organized events and fundraisers with my friends all throughout my teens, ran my own troops/groups/classes for kids.

 

The most surprising to me, and I didn't know it as a kid, is that there WERE two little girls killed in my neighborhood less than a year before I started school.  My (girl) friend and I still walked ourselves to kindergarten in the fall.  I mean, the guy was caught and all, but I'm guessing it was still a heavy decision for our parents to make with the case so fresh.  They didn't allow some evil guy to control our lives.

[Guest]

Okay, so it seems to me that what we need to do isn't so much lock up our daughters, as do our best to make sure our sons learn to keep their hands to themselves and their manners intact before we let them roam free.

Not my Nigel 😛

[Guest]

People who have been LUCKY nit to experience violence have absolutely attributed it to their own actions and attitudes, in this thread and everywhere else on the planet.

 

Our ape brains tend toward the if it ain't broke don't fix it model of both self defense and child rearing.

Edited July 7, 2017 by OKBud

[Guest]

What's going on in Vegas hotel resorts at 10pm that isn't going on at other hotels, or at 930 pm?