The word "sex" should barely be used in the presence of a six year old child and the word "sexual" should never be tied to them. Those who do should be taken out behind the barn and put down like the dog they are.

This is just disgusting.

As I often say, the school has taught the kid a lesson, but not the one it intended to teach.

And on further reading, the girl was taught a lesson too... She was fine with the kiss when it happened, but she decided after the fact that it was harassment after her friends teased her about it.

So basically, Cousin Dave, they just taught the girl that when she's a consenting adult, it's okay to cry "rape" later to consenual sex.
Awesome.

Sorry, guys. But, as usual, you react before all the facts are in hand. That child, Hunter, absolutely should have been suspended. The only objection I have is that the term "sexual harassment" is applied to a six-year-old.

It seems that young Hunter has an ongoing history of harassing this little girl and was warned repeatedly.

And the school changed the offense to "misconduct," which solves my only problem with this incident.

And it would solve yours, too. If you boneheads knew what the fuck you were talking about!

I wonder what's on my "permanent record." Just not enough to attempt to find out.

The sexual harassment thing was completely and totally ridiculous. But I'm with Patrick that suspending him for misconduct was not, under the circumstances. It's not OK to keep touching someone who doesn't like it and asks you to stop. The kid clearly wasn't getting that. This is certainly behavior you want to nip in the bud now rather than when the kid is an adolescent, and a repeated "don't do that" apparently wasn't getting through.

Hmmm. As for "a kid that age shouldn't know the word sex". Yeah, good luck with that. My mom actually told me about sex when I was six. I'd been pestering her with a lot of questions, and she went on the (I think correct) theory that if your kid is old enough to persist with concrete questions about sex, he or she is old enough to get the answers. And that was way back in the year humminy humminy. Today's kids are bombarded with a lot more information.

Heh. When I was nine, my best friend whispered to me, "I know where babies come from". I said, "Big deal. I've known that for AGES.". She still reminds me of it.

One of the issues I have with school behavior in general, and I am not certain what this school was doing in particular, is that when my kids were in kindergarten and elementary school they were encouraged by every 'school' authority figure to hug.

I've never seen such a huggy generation of kids.

And hell, that might even be a good thing, but it seems odd on the one hand for adults to be encouraging kindergarten and elementary school kids to hug and then when hugs turn into kisses or other forms of exploration for schools to then start criminalizing the behaviors.

I agree completely that it's ridiculous to call this sexual harassment, but suspension might well be in order for a child who repeatedly misbehaves this way. Kissing another student---even if she is your girlfriend and doesn't mind (which the girl's mom says is not the case)---is not appropriate in the classroom, period, the end. If a child can't or won't behave appropriately in the classroom, he or she needs to be suspended from the classroom and a plan for helping him/her behave needs to be made by the teacher and the parents, and discipline meted out as appropriate.

Arguing about whether the girl was "okay" with the kiss puts her and her mom in a bad spot and it really shouldn't matter. By Hunter's account, she didn't ask for or initiate the kiss, so she didn't misbehave. No matter how she felt about the kiss, it was still inappropriate for Hunter to kiss her.

Well, Canon City is conveniently located near a maximum security federal prison. Maybe the school can just take the boy there for a "Scared Straight" session to scare him into not preying on innocent little girls. Can you imagine how that would play out?

The sexual harassment thing was completely and totally ridiculous. But I'm with Patrick that suspending him for misconduct was not, under the circumstances. It's not OK to keep touching someone who doesn't like it and asks you to stop. The kid clearly wasn't getting that. This is certainly behavior you want to nip in the bud now rather than when the kid is an adolescent, and a repeated "don't do that" apparently wasn't getting through.
__________________________________

Absolutely. Why in the world do people like Dr. John Rosemond get condemned for suggesting that bad behavior needs to be "nipped in the bud" whenever possible, assuming we're not talking about something that really shouldn't be punished for two years or more, such as the crying of a child who is too young to TALK?

Or, as he says, the only punishment that "fits the crime" is the one that stops the bad behavior from recurring. This is why many child "experts" are misguided when they tell parents to put up with kids' "testing limits" by committing the Same Crime over and over. Rosemond's advice, IMO, is no more conservative than that of the old-fashioned liberal parent. Yet some modern parents actually consider it abuse to punish a school-age kid for repeatedly begging or complaining, even after warning the kid to stop. Why WOULD the kid ever stop without a punishment?

More on that:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/25/punishment-really-a-favor-in-disguise/

Quote:

“What’s worse?” I ask. “Imposing a supposedly unreasonable punishment one time and one time only, or fighting the same battle day after day after day after day - chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more?”
__________________________________

Hmmm. As for "a kid that age shouldn't know the word sex". Yeah, good luck with that. My mom actually told me about sex when I was six. I'd been pestering her with a lot of questions, and she went on the (I think correct) theory that if your kid is old enough to persist with concrete questions about sex, he or she is old enough to get the answers. And that was way back in the year humminy humminy. Today's kids are bombarded with a lot more information.
__________________________________

And even back when they weren't bombarded, kids had wild imaginations, just as they've always had, which naturally led to salacious gossip/misinformation on the playground. What good did it ever do to let kids' peers "teach" them first?

"It seems that young Hunter has an ongoing history of harassing this little girl and was warned repeatedly."

According to the girl's mother, who sounds like a raving feminist in the Daily Mail article. I have not seen her story independently corroborated. And no, I don't trust the school to do that.

This is just disgusting.

Yes it is

So basically they just taught the girl that when she's a consenting adult, it's okay to cry "rape" later to consensual sex.

Pretty much

It seems that young Hunter has an ongoing history of harassing this little girl and was warned repeatedly.

Just cause the school terms it harassment, oh wait, this is Patrick - the state is always right to Patrick

And the school changed the offense to "misconduct," which solves my only problem with this incident.

Fair point, and one I agree with. Even though the girls mother doesnt like it and told her daughter not to like it other news stories claim the girl was fine with it. But even if the girl was fine with it, repeatedly disrupting class, what ever the reason should be punished.

It's not OK to keep touching someone who doesn't like it and asks you to stop.

Aside from the girls mother, whom I suspect subscribes to the 'all boys are really rapists' mentality, there are no reports that the girl herself felt harassed until she was instructed to feel that way AFTER the fact.

Arguing about whether the girl was "okay" with the kiss puts her and her mom in a bad spot and it really shouldn't matter.

Now that its no longer labeled sexual harassment and its just about disobeying the teacher during class time sure, but then again the girls mother thinks the boy should be labeled a sex predator, so until she drops that where or not her daughter was OK with the kiss remains a valid point

By Hunter's account, she didn't ask for or initiate the kiss, so she didn't misbehave. No matter how she felt about the kiss, it was still inappropriate for Hunter to kiss her.

So then no one may ever kiss a female, unless she verbally requests it before hand? Thats gonna kill romance for everyone.

It's not OK to keep touching someone who doesn't like it and asks you to stop.

There is no evidence that this was the case.

where the heck are the calm heads to prevail in this situation?

in a big city school, I can imagine the freakout, but in a small town?

all these little kids have learned is that it is adults that are stupid. You stop a little kid from doing wrong by correcting them. Sometimes it requires punishment. Sometimes it requires suspension, perhaps.

Mostly it requires talking to the parents and Letting them deal with it. IFF it keeps escalating, THEN you may have'ta do something on the school level.

"You can't kiss someone unless they agree, AND if you do it again, you'll be in trouble."

is it REALLY that hard?

Kids occasionally do things unexpectedly, or whatever, and you go figure it out. You teach the kid right from wrong, and nobody has to call a TV station 250 miles away...

But then several women in this story think it's "Sexual Harassment" and one of them is the little girls mom. Prolly putting a frog down Cindy Loo Who's dress was that too, right?

The fact that the boys mother didn't take this seriously is also a problem, because she should think about how all this plays out for the kids, and make appropriate actions. This was a multiple case issue, the kid sounds like a rabble rouser. Settle him down a bit now, before it gets to be a problem.

You'd think they would know how to corral him, and his friends all.

What I would like to know, is how this became a NEWS story?

Where are the shields in place for issues like this? Why were names named [his not hers], and why would both mothers talk to multiple news outlets?

Are people seriously that stupid? You think there isn't potential for this to come back to haunt him later?

"where the heck are the calm heads to prevail in this situation?"

You do know you're on the internet, right?

Luj, the reason I say it doesn't matter if the little girl was okay with it is this: Even if she screamed bloody murder as soon as his lips touched her hand, it's still not sexual harassment. He's six. He is not intending to do anything sexual. He just needs to work on his impulse control and regard for the rules---no kissing in class, even if its your girlfriend, is a perfectly reasonable rule that most six-year-olds should be able to follow.

I'd hate to be that little girl. If she likes Hunter at all, she probably feels bad about him being in trouble, but that doesn't mean she wanted him kissing her. This whole thing would've mortified me at that age. I wish her mother hadn't talked to the media, but at least she didn't put the girl's name out there.

Lujilp said: "Aside from the girls mother, whom I suspect subscribes to the 'all boys are really rapists' mentality, there are no reports that the girl herself felt harassed until she was instructed to feel that way AFTER the fact."

Even if the girl herself didn't ask him to stop when it happened -- even if she freaking loved being kissed -- apparently either the teacher or someone at the school DID ask him to stop, since he'd been spoken to repeatedly about it. So he knew it wasn't appropriate behavior, and yet he wasn't obeying. Therefore, while it's ludicrous to call it sexual harassment, it's not ludicrous to suspend him until he gets the message.

If two kids are continually giggling and whispering with each other in the back of the class instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing, obviously neither of them objects to the other's behavior. That doesn't make it appropriate. And if after the teacher has repeatedly taken less drastic attempts to get them to stop, I wouldn't see it as inappropriate to suspend them.

I don't care what the moms are like. I don't care if the girl's mom has a crazy feminist vendetta. The basic facts are the same: the boy did something the school deemed inappropriate. They told him repeatedly not to do it; he ignored them. The kid needs to learn. Suspension (after appropriate warnings and gentler methods of correction have been attempted) is not inappropriate (But sexual harassment it definitely is not.)

Where are the shields in place for issues like this? Why were names named [his not hers]

The alleged rapist is always mentioned never his victim.

For example, this 8 year old boy was molested by his 14yr old female babysitter, so they charge the boy with sexual misconduct. Even when they dropped the charges the papers still mention the boy's familly name, and never the girls.

Luj, the reason I say it doesn't matter if the little girl was okay with it is this: Even if she screamed bloody murder as soon as his lips touched her hand, it's still not sexual harassment. He's six. He is not intending to do anything sexual. He just needs to work on his impulse control and regard for the rules---no kissing in class, even if its your girlfriend, is a perfectly reasonable rule that most six-year-olds should be able to follow.

And that is reasonable. But most people are not arguing that the boy need to only kiss his girl during recess, or not at all IF she says stop.

Most are arguing that the boy is a proto pervert and sexually stalking this girl, and not only should a girl never be expect to say no, but boys need to get a signed and notarized from INVITING them to kiss a girl before they dare express affection

Dont know where the link went

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CBS_8_year_old_boy_sexual_conduct_sitter.aspx

Gail, I agree that disrupting class for anything short of a medical emergency does warrant punishment, and I have no problem it that is the reason the kid is being punished, but as I replied to Jenny Had A Chance most people arent taking that tact.

Dont know where the link went

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CBS_8_year_old_boy_sexual_conduct_sitter.aspx

Gail, I agree that disrupting class for anything short of a medical emergency does warrant punishment, and I have no problem it that is the reason the kid is being punished, but as I replied to Jenny Had A Chance most people arent taking that tact.

And it would solve yours, too. If you boneheads knew what the fuck you were talking about! -- Patrick at December 13, 2013 8:44 AM

Thank you for declaring your perception that you are more intelligent than the rest of us. May you have a good day.

Nuke him from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.