Perceived threat of paedophiles

Odysseus

up for anything wrote: »

I can't see where the issue with this is. I've said it before on the thread, every mother I know/have known/will ever know takes her boys into the Ladies, unless there is a viable alternative, until they reach an age where they start baulking at going in there. For some this is 8, others 10. It's a moveable feast. This alone is not going to have a detrimental affect on the child as an adult, except in some very rare cases, unless it's coupled with an all round over-protective attitude.

Fittle has already said that she is not over-protective of her son but some of you are still attacking her and her parenting skills on all counts and accusing her of putting her her own fears and worries ahead of her son's well-being which is just not the case.

Next time you're in a shopping centre try standing outside the toilets and doing a survey of who takes who in where but try not to look too shifty.

Ok just from my viewpoint, it’s as much of an issue as taking a child into bed after a certain age; not discussing any aged appropriate sexual questions the child may have etc. I’m not saying all of this applies to the poster I’m speaking in general; it’s about the development of the child’s personality and starting to take their place in the world. Personally I did my best not to attack her parental skills, as I tried to keep my post on a general theme rather than directed towards a specific person. What prompted me into posting was this notion of innocence in childhood which in turn implies that we must keep sexuality away from children. As I said if we go with the notion of innocence, is the child guilty of something if exposed to age appropriate sexuality. What about child/infant masturbation?

From my position a child is a sexual being as soon as it’s born, and partially denying of its sexual development, i.e. knowing the difference between girls and boys as well children and adults would not be healthy, imo of course. Part of this is learning that a child’s body will develop as it grows older this is part of the human experience, maybe this doesn’t apply to the poster, but if they are so protective around one part of the child’s life, I find it difficult to believe that this sense of protecting the child will not be present in other areas. Some people gave examples of children who age was in double figures still being brought into the changing rooms of the opposite sex, something is not quite right there. There is a saying within certain schools of psychotherapy “smothered by mother”, the child needs to socialise with other children of the same sex in such examples, as well as adults.

Another poster stated that she stopped doing this when the child started to have issues with it, fair enough; however, maybe the issues where present a while before the child could articulate them, in some cases the issues may be present but not come to light until a later stage. As I stated my work with adults can deal with both sides of the coin varying from plain neglect to being smothered, but these issues come to light in therapy with adults, often the person was unable to articulate it as a child. Now don’t get me wrong no parent will be perfect, everybody makes mistakes and some just don’t care whilst others care too much. I will repeat I’m not attacking anybody’s parenting skills, I arguing against certain viewpoints, based upon my experience of children and my work with adults, I’m not saying I’m right and this is the only way. What I am saying it that these attempts to protect children as any loving parent will do their best to do, can have an effect on the child’s development.

A child will only have one childhood, sexuality and becoming a sexual being is a difficult path for most people, what I’m saying is that being over-protective can have an adverse effect, having difficulties around one’s naked body would be one example. As I said I may be wrong we are merely expressing different viewpoints, but I would find it hard to believe that a parent can only be over-protective in one area, that it will not be present in others. Just because this is becoming more common, doesn't make it right either.

Fittle

'I want to be careful here in that I'm not attacking your parental skills or anything like that, I just want to be clear on that. However, I do strongly disagree with your viewpoint on this matter. If there is no male present in your life, and I'm not say there has to be one, but how are you going to control his first image of a naked male? It's generally is a significant event in some way for a child when they see the difference between their body and an adult's.'

Look, there are many women like me. Single with a young boy and no adult male present. I have absolutely and utterly no idea how I can control his first image of a naked male. You say you have some experience of child psychology? What do you suggest I do? The kid has no issues about his body - he's pretty well tuned in, even if I do say so myself. He's outgoing, mixes well, has a load of pals (I'm sick of them knocking at the door tbh) and as we speak is playing an over 16s game on his PS.

he's a lad. Like all lads.

I can't believe this thread is still on the first page of AH :rolleyes: The boy is brought into the ladies toilets probably twice a month and like I said about a hundred posts back, he often gets told to go in the carpark (discreetly, of course). It's not affecting him in any way shape or form.

SV

Fittle wrote: »

It's not affecting him in any way shape or form.

You don't know that at all.
You do believe it though beyond all shadow of doubt because you want to believe it.


Why can't you admit that you're bringing him up to suit your wants and needs and not his?

kylith

Fittle wrote: »

e often gets told to go in the carpark (discreetly, of course). It's not affecting him in any way shape or form.

Ah, so you're teaching him to be disgusting and have no respect for his environment instead. That's grand so.

caseyann

zuroph wrote: »

I believe the OP ASKED FOR OPINIONS.

I wasnt talking about op,i was talking about your immediate referring to my posting and atitutde about whether i take these alleged attempted abductions seriously.You made a beeline for my post.
And i believe op asked for opinions not judgment on a persons character.

Wolfe Tone

Fittle wrote: »

'I want to be careful here in that I'm not attacking your parental skills or anything like that, I just want to be clear on that. However, I do strongly disagree with your viewpoint on this matter. If there is no male present in your life, and I'm not say there has to be one, but how are you going to control his first image of a naked male? It's generally is a significant event in some way for a child when they see the difference between their body and an adult's.'

Look, there are many women like me. Single with a young boy and no adult male present. I have absolutely and utterly no idea how I can control his first image of a naked male. You say you have some experience of child psychology? What do you suggest I do? The kid has no issues about his body - he's pretty well tuned in, even if I do say so myself. He's outgoing, mixes well, has a load of pals (I'm sick of them knocking at the door tbh) and as we speak is playing an over 16s game on his PS.

he's a lad. Like all lads.

I can't believe this thread is still on the first page of AH :rolleyes: The boy is brought into the ladies toilets probably twice a month and like I said about a hundred posts back, he often gets told to go in the carpark (discreetly, of course). It's not affecting him in any way shape or form.

:eek: You monster!!!!



I hope it is not affecting him, but if I were you I would not take that risk. The odds of anything happening to him in the toilet are minuscule even when compared to the odds of something happening him in school, or at his GAA games etc....
I just read that you are doing something to your son which had an adverse affect on myself. That does not mean it will have an adverse affect on him, but it might, and I think that that is more likely than being attacked in a public toilet.

I know it has been asked and you replied "43" but at what age will you let him use the mens toilet?
He is 8 years old, I do not think I had body issues then, but I have had them in the past, not so much now. What happens now in his life, even seemingly small things, will affect him in the future.

KittyeeTrix

kylith wrote: »

Ah, so you're teaching him to be disgusting and have no respect for his environment instead. That's grand so.

Ah, will ya stop being so bloody dramatic!!!!!:D


Many a parent has had to stop and let a young lad have a pee somewhere

kylith

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Ah, will ya stop being so bloody dramatic!!!!!:D


Many a parent has had to stop and let a young lad have a pee somewhere

If caught out on the side of a motorway it's acceptable. If in the carpark of a supermarket because of a paranoia that the gents are full of paedos then it's manky.

up for anything

This thread has gone from the vaguely sublime to the utterly ridiculous.

Between a piddle in a car park meaning that there is no respect for the environment to the fact that someone finds it hard to believe that someone who is protective in one area won't be overly protective in others and so on the thread has lost what little credibility it had.

Fittle, I'm coming over to yours to punish you. I believe the sentence is burying you up to your chest in sand and stoning you.

Jazzy

very real. just dont go to mordistan!

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

AudreyHepburn

Fittle it would help if you gave us some concrete reason why you think it would be a bad thing for him to see a man's privates? You've stated several times that you don't want him in a man's loo because of all the penises hanging out but you have yet to say exactly why that bothers you.

After all it's not as if it's something new to him......he's male too!

What, honestly, are you so afraid of?

BluesBerry

kylith wrote: »

Ah, so you're teaching him to be disgusting and have no respect for his environment instead. That's grand so.

Your going ott there every kid at some stage in their lives has taking a pee at the side of a road if they were caught short and no toilets about you are getting petty now looking at anything to attack the OP on

And bringing boys into womens toilets is not a new thing My mother always brought my brother into the ladies when he was young (80's) up until he was about 9 or 10

Lets face it children would be out and about with their mothers more and to supervise them make sure they washed their hands or need a buckle opened and personally I dont think its anyone's business if boys are brought to the ladies its not bad parenting its just practical at times

kylith

BluesBerry wrote: »

Your going ott there every kid at some stage in their lives has taking a pee at the side of a road if they were caught short and no toilets about you are getting petty now looking at anything to attack the OP on

Did you read where I said

kylith wrote: »

If caught out on the side of a motorway it's acceptable. If in the carpark of a supermarket because of a paranoia that the gents are full of paedos then it's manky.

And for anyone who thought I meant 'environment' as in rainforests and pandas, it's environment as in 'carpark stinking and covered in human effluent'.

Odysseus

up for anything wrote: »

This thread has gone from the vaguely sublime to the utterly ridiculous.

Between a piddle in a car park meaning that there is no respect for the environment to the fact that someone finds it hard to believe that someone who is protective in one area won't be overly protective in others and so on the thread has lost what little credibility it had.

Fittle, I'm coming over to yours to punish you. I believe the sentence is burying you up to your chest in sand and stoning you.

Do you find it that difficult to believe that statement, its making an assumption of course; however, would you not agree that being over protective in one area would suggest that a person may carry that over into other areas?

caseyann

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you have to be vigilant but you can't wrap children in cotton wool either, that does them no favours. If they are lead to believe there are no dangers or that they are only safe when Mammy or Daddy is there they'll never be able to grow properly.

Since most paedophiles/child molesters are known to the child, I think worrying about them in bathrooms is probably not necessary. I for one have never heard of a child being attacked in a bathroom.

On a slightly different note some-one mention bringing you boys into the girls toilet. I have to say there is a certain point after which I think this is wrong and unfair to the boy. I can't imagine most pre-pubescent boys would be comfortable in a girls toilet. Plus I don't think I've heard of a little girl being brought to the mens with Daddy so why should a little boy have to use the women's with Mammy?

I realise sometimes it might be necessery but I do feel that if at all possible you should try to find a male friend/relative or some-one you consider trustworthy to bring him to the mens toilets.

Also in relation to the posts re the church....can we please not go down that road for once. I realise some people will use any excuse to bash the church and that given the topic it was probably the first thing on a lot of people's mids but it is not the only place these people are found and not every member of the clergy is a paedophile/child molester so can we please just not go there.

That just reminded me,few years back i was using a phone beside the toilets in shopping center,and i had a man approach me and ask me to bring his daughter to ladies with me.I was a bit hesitant,and asked is it ok for her to go into the cubicle alone.He said yes thats ok. I asked why didnt you bring her into the mans toilet,he said he would but they are mangy

As i said before also often encountered men bringing their daughters to the men bathroom and cover the childs eyes or check no man in there before the brought her in.Bringing a boy into a womans toilet isnt anyway bad for a child as they dont see anything and are in cubicles.

caseyann

BluesBerry wrote: »

Your going ott there every kid at some stage in their lives has taking a pee at the side of a road if they were caught short and no toilets about you are getting petty now looking at anything to attack the OP on

And bringing boys into womens toilets is not a new thing My mother always brought my brother into the ladies when he was young (80's) up until he was about 9 or 10

Lets face it children would be out and about with their mothers more and to supervise them make sure they washed their hands or need a buckle opened and personally I dont think its anyone's business if boys are brought to the ladies its not bad parenting its just practical at times

Agree with you hundred percent,everyone i know does it and see it all the time.Never heard of it having a negative effect on a child.
And my mother did it also.

Odysseus

Fittle wrote: »

Look, there are many women like me. Single with a young boy and no adult male present. I have absolutely and utterly no idea how I can control his first image of a naked male. You say you have some experience of child psychology? What do you suggest I do? The kid has no issues about his body - he's pretty well tuned in, even if I do say so myself. He's outgoing, mixes well, has a load of pals (I'm sick of them knocking at the door tbh) and as we speak is playing an over 16s game on his PS.

he's a lad. Like all lads.

I can't believe this thread is still on the first page of AH :rolleyes: The boy is brought into the ladies toilets probably twice a month and like I said about a hundred posts back, he often gets told to go in the carpark (discreetly, of course). It's not affecting him in any way shape or form.

Of course your right there are also single dad's out there too, my own partner brought up two lads by herself, so I have an idea of the difficulties in that. From my viewpoint you brought up an interesting topic, one worth discussing imo; if it came across as attacking your parenting skills that was not my intention. I acknowledge that dealing with sexual issues as a single parent with a child of a different sex is not easy option; but that’s just the way life is for some families.

As another poster mentioned issues around body image [in general I not speaking specifically about your child] are often under the surface. Most people have some issues around their body when you scratch the surface. It must also be noted that there are many theories of child development, so it is important to note that I'm just discussing the topic form one viewpoint.

What would I do? I would have to charge you for that:) Now seriously it is an interesting question, how would I deal with such a situation if I was a single dad with an 8 year old daughter? At that age I would not be bringing her into the gents; I would be sending her into the ladies by herself, and probably be quite worried waiting outside. However, I would recognise it as a normal but also slightly irrational concern. Normal in that most parents are concerned for their child's safety, but irrational in that the likelihood of something happening to her would be very low.

If I was concerned I would imagine I would first look at asking a female to check, but if I was really concerned enough I would imagine I would just go in, and deal with the consequences of that after I had established her safety. Likewise if I was in a similar position to you I would look at trying to get a female family member to introduce her to changing rooms and the like. I don't really think there is a totally right answer here.

A long time ago when I started working in the addiction area I had to supervise male urine samples, it's a common thing in addiction treatment, it is now done by general assistants for each sex. Your dealing with grown people here but your also see how many have various issues around their body parts, but you see that nobody really escapes the body issues part of life. Even training new staff up in the supervision of it highlights how most people are not comfortable around semi-naked people.

That just my own way of saying none of use escape development without some issue or hang up in some way. Life is difficult for both the parent and child in this process.

However, my main point is there are just things that a child needs to be doing by a certain age; I don't think there are set times or anything but you can I believe look at certain situations and say I think something needs to be done here. I think an eight year old using the incorrect gender toilet would be one. Another example would be one that one of my lectures used to give; she used to do some work in a women's refuge. She use to tell a story about a seeing a five year old with his mouth on his mother's breast and a danish pastry in his hand:eek: Like I said it would be wrong to suggest that a child should not be breast fed by x amount of time, however, a child should have moved away from the breast by the age of five.

I hope that is not too wafflely, but I'm trying not to focus exclusively on your own child and speak around the topic in a more general sense. Like other posters I am somewhat baffled by your comment about too many penis’ in the gents, I just can’t make that one out.

zuroph

Just to clarify this to the ladies in this thread.

Its next to impossible to see another man's penis in a men's bathroom, unless you're very intent on looking. The willy only comes out when the man is at the urnial, facing the wall, often with dividers in between each urinal. Your sons are not going to be subjected to seeing hundreds of mickeys. You do not need to "prepare" them for seeing a willy. If they want to sneak a look, they'll sneak a look. Your son will probably be too busy monitoring his own willy progress to bother looking around.

Fittle

I despair of you all, I really do.

My son will have more of a fcuking issue about not having a father in his life, than he will about not going into mens toilets where willies are apparently not on display.

So please attack his father about this one, not me.

SV

Fittle wrote: »

I despair of you all, I really do.

My son will have more of a fcuking issue about not having a father in his life, than he will about not going into mens toilets where willies are apparently not on display.

So please attack his father about this one, not me.

Ah would ya ever fúck off out of that.

storm2811

Fittle wrote: »

I despair of you all, I really do.

My son will have more of a fcuking issue about not having a father in his life, than he will about not going into mens toilets where willies are apparently not on display.

So please attack his father about this one, not me.

Why so?

I have a younger brother who's now 13,our dad passed when he was just 7.
He went on like a little soldier,only getting upset when someone made fun of him for it.(yes,people actually do that.)
But I think if mam started bringing him into womens toilets after he would've had a fcuking shit fit.
Don't blame the father ffs,you're the one saying you will not bring him in because you're afraid he'll attacked by paedos.

Dudess

Fittle wrote: »

I despair of you all, I really do.

What do you despair of? People's opinion that your approach (your choice of course but you did say it) is a bit OTT? And why are you bringing your child's father and his lack of involvement into it?

I'd imagine, with all the hysteria, most men are wired to employ shielding tactics - out of fear - whenever a child enters the gents.

Ironically, it's the protecting kids from genitalia that sends out the message these are sexual things rather than just body-parts that are pee'd from which everyone has... E.g. the person mentioned earlier who gets the kid to cover their eyes when in a gents - mother of Christ. Way to make the kid think they're sinister implements! And what exactly would happen to the child if they saw a penis? Could they feel violated or something?

Also, child abuse was probably more prevalent in the western world in the past rather than now - pay less heed to media generated hysteria and paranoia.

kelle

Recently I brought my 3-year-old daughter to a play centre. She got into a bus (on her own) and started moving around in it so I took a photo. I was immediately approached by one of the workers and told taking photos was not allowed! FFS, it was a photo of my own child - but it was the rule so I put my camera away.

My son is 9 and uses the men's toilets since he was 8. I felt uncomfortable about that at first - mainly because of an urban legend I heard when my brothers were small! But if I was worried he was there too long I would go in and check.

Mickeroo

Fittle wrote: »

I despair of you all, I really do.

My son will have more of a fcuking issue about not having a father in his life, than he will about not going into mens toilets where willies are apparently not on display.

So please attack his father about this one, not me.

Not as much as I despair for you and your kid after that outburst!

At the end of the day it's you who stops him going to the gents toilet not his estranged father.

zuroph

Fittle wrote: »

I despair of you all, I really do.

My son will have more of a fcuking issue about not having a father in his life, than he will about not going into mens toilets where willies are apparently not on display.

So please attack his father about this one, not me.

And we're getting to the crux of the issue...

You know this thread isnt just about you and your son right? we've also been talking about other people sons and daughters, and what age in general is suitable.

I did worry about your specific case when you said you wouldnt let your son use the mens loo at aviva? What exactly do you think is going to happen to him in there? Maybe you can start him on the road to using the loos in your own time, by introducing him to ones you trust a bit more, busier, more public ones, where you can wait outside, and be within earshot.

storm2811

zuroph wrote: »

I did worry about your specific case when you said you wouldnt let your son use the mens loo at aviva? What exactly do you think is going to happen to him in there? Maybe you can start him on the road to using the loos in your own time, by introducing him to ones you trust a bit more, busier, more public ones, where you can wait outside, and be within earshot.

Yeah I've just realised that those toilets would packed and no one would ever do anything to a child in front of so many people,unless she thinks everyone in there would paedophiles?

It seems to be more about him actually seeing a male penis though,as is he doesn't have one himself,I don't see the problem,like someone said,they're just bigger and hairier!

Fittle

So I had an outburst on AH?

How very dare I!

I obviously brought his father into it, because if his father was in his life, I wouldn't be having this 'conversation' and arguing the toss with cyber people who don't have kids, don't know what it's like to want to protect them from any possible dangers and continue with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

Actually, don't bother. I'm not coming back to this.

Mickeroo

Fittle wrote: »

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

Try the nearest one to your house.

Wolfe Tone

Fittle wrote: »

So I had an outburst on AH?

How very dare I!

I obviously brought his father into it, because if his father was in his life, I wouldn't be having this 'conversation' and arguing the toss with cyber people who don't have kids, don't know what it's like to want to protect them from any possible dangers and continue with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

Actually, don't bother. I'm not coming back to this.

Thats not true. My father was around, he just never went out shopping with us, he worked at two jobs.

You are burying your head in the sand, and now that deep down you know that I and other posters are right you are attempting to transfer blame etc to the father. That is bull****.

zuroph

Fittle wrote: »

with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

Actually, don't bother. I'm not coming back to this.

But you had direct anecdotal evidence from someone who admitted that it had caused them problems when they grew up, and you brushed it aside and mocked the poster.

Also, nobody can guarantee 100% safety, but 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% should be good enough, as his odds of being hit by a car are much higher yet you let him play on the road, and his odds of being adversely psychologically affected by seeing adult themes in a computer game that he's legally not meant to have are higher, yet you have no problem letting him do this.

kylith

Fittle wrote: »

I obviously brought his father into it, because if his father was in his life, I wouldn't be having this 'conversation' and arguing the toss with cyber people who don't have kids, don't know what it's like to want to protect them from any possible dangers and continue with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

If his father was in his life, would you still not let him go into public toilets when out without his dad? Because if so we'd still be having this conversation.

Dudess

Fittle wrote: »

if his father was in his life, I wouldn't be having this 'conversation' and arguing the toss with cyber people who don't have kids, don't know what it's like to want to protect them from any possible dangers and continue with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

So what if people don't have kids? You don't need to be a parent to see a skewed logic to protecting a child from seeing a body-part, which they more than likely won't see...
What danger would your son be in anyway once you're accompanying him?

I think the hysteria media in a way is the new catholic church - one large organisation telling us genitalia is dirty and wrong (despite the sexual abuse by members of said organisation) being replaced by another large organisation telling us genitalia is dirty and wrong (despite said organisation's celebration of teen tits and arse).
Not comparing paedophilia to page 3 btw, just noting the double standard...

OutlawPete

storm2811 wrote: »

..they're just bigger and hairier!

For some maybe ..

caseyann

Fittle wrote: »

So I had an outburst on AH?

How very dare I!

I obviously brought his father into it, because if his father was in his life, I wouldn't be having this 'conversation' and arguing the toss with cyber people who don't have kids, don't know what it's like to want to protect them from any possible dangers and continue with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

Actually, don't bother. I'm not coming back to this.

Girl you will find you are ready in your own time(and he will let you know when he is ready,as most parents do
You are only trying to do your best.

ceadaoin.

caseyann wrote: »

Everyone forgetting the macdonalds incident?

Personally i wouldnt let them in a toilet alone if small in size until they are about 13.Would make them go to bathroom before leaving.
Better to prevent imo.

13? Are you for real? If I seen a 13 year old in the ladies with his mammy I would think there was something seriously wrong there.

caseyann wrote: »

Perhaps because men are dangling out everywhere lol.
reminds me of something i was told once.The father had to bring his 6 year old daughter to the gents.He covered her eyes and walked her into the gents and into a cubicle so she could pee.
Not uncommon either.

I'm not a man but I don't think they walk around the toilets 'dangling out everywhere'.

K-9

zuroph wrote: »

Also, nobody can guarantee 100% safety, but 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% should be good enough, as his odds of being hit by a car are much higher yet you let him play on the road, and his odds of being adversely psychologically affected by seeing adult themes in a computer game that he's legally not meant to have are higher, yet you have no problem letting him do this.

Indeed. Poor wee toddler killed last night near me. Another one late last year in Letterkenny as well.

Toddler killed in Donegal accident | BreakingNews.ie

caseyann

ceadaoin. wrote: »

13? Are you for real? If I seen a 13 year old in the ladies with his mammy I would think there was something seriously wrong there.




I'm not a man but I don't think they walk around the toilets 'dangling out everywhere'.

I over exaggerated the age a little by two years.
Did you not see a joke in the second one you commented on

entrep

sorry if this is inappropriate but i've been following this thread, and just gotta say i think it's hilarious.

up for anything

Odysseus wrote: »

Do you find it that difficult to believe that statement, its making an assumption of course; however, would you not agree that being over protective in one area would suggest that a person may carry that over into other areas?

I would agree with you that a person may carry it over into other areas. There are always exceptions to the rule but I don't believe that it is a given. I am overly protective of my children in some areas but probably would seem negligent to others, in other areas of their lives. A balance of sorts.

ceadaoin.

caseyann wrote: »

I over exaggerated the age a little by two years.
Did you not see a joke in the second one you commented on

Ok so when you said you wouldn't let your kids go to a public toilet alone until they were about 13 you really meant 11?

Doesn't really make much difference to be honest, it's still too old

banquo

When I was 4 or 5, my mam told me not to use public toilets by myself because there was "a man in them who cuts off little boys' willies". Nice one, Ma.

banquo

Fittle wrote: »

So I had an outburst on AH?

How very dare I!

I obviously brought his father into it, because if his father was in his life, I wouldn't be having this 'conversation' and arguing the toss with cyber people who don't have kids, don't know what it's like to want to protect them from any possible dangers and continue with a pointless argument about my child having issues because I won't allow him to go into mens toilets.

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

Actually, don't bother. I'm not coming back to this.

I see your child growing up healthily and well will no major sexual dependance or confidence issues.

Wolfe Tone

I think in many cases the mother is overprotective and the father tells her not to be so stupid.

KittyeeTrix

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think in many cases the mother is overprotective and the father tells her not to be so stupid.

Oooooh, this thread just got interesting again!!!:D

mikemac

Fittle wrote: »

And if one of you can tell me that I can could send him into a mens public toilet tomorrow morning and could GUARANTEE ME 100% that he is in no danger whatsover, then bring me to that toilet and I'll let him in.

I can see your child having a lot of confidence issues and hangups. Hope he doesn't face bullying in secondary schools.

Realy, you can be too overprotective.
Does the lad play GAA or soccer or even any sports? I can guarantee he'll get a few belts but he'll deal with it.
Oh no, what he wants a shower afterwards in the changing room, the coaches who are unpaid volunteer adults will be around the place supervising :eek:
No, not watching the showers of course but we do supervise, if a fight breaks out or property stolen then who do you think the parents will blame for not managing the situation. So adults in the area
Better quit sports also

I remember a thread on boards, think it was North Dublin.
Someone posted about a van hanging around schools.
Then we learned it was a white van.....always a white van.
Other posters chipped in about seeing white vans around the place and 15 posts later people were talking about reporting all these sightings to the gardai.

I remember the man in the white van scare stories when I was a child.
"Come straight home after GAA training, the man with the van is around and will take you away"

I'm not alone, I'm sure many other heard this scare story at some stage

Fittle

'You don't need to be a parent to see a skewed logic to protecting a child from seeing a body-part, which they more than likely won't see....'

Actually, you DO need to be a parent to understand the human logic of wanting to protect your offspring from any possible danger.

And 99.9999999999999999999999% of a risk is still to big of a risk, and one that I'm not willing to take.
And yes, the lad plays soccer and hurling.

Wolfe Tone

Fittle wrote: »

Actually, you DO need to be a parent to understand the human logic of wanting to protect your offspring from any possible danger.

Rubbish and wrong.

And 99.9999999999999999999999% of a risk is still to big of a risk, and one that I'm not willing to take.
And yes, the lad plays soccer and hurling.

Better stop him playing hurling then. Or any sport. Or doing anything or going anywhere.

Into the bubble with him, in the basement. Feed him only cold soup, that way he wont choke or burn himself.

Fittle

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Rubbish and wrong.


Better stop him playing hurling then. Or any sport. Or doing anything or going anywhere.

Into the bubble with him, in the basement. Feed him only cold soup, that way he wont choke or burn himself.

Go off and have a kid mussolini and come back to me in eight years, and we'll have this conversation again.

Wolfe Tone

Fittle wrote: »

Go off and have a kid mussolini and come back to me in eight years, and we'll have this conversation again.

Ah yes, everyone sees what is happening here. You have fallen back to the "you don't understand!!!!!!!!" defense after you cannot refute what myself and other posters have said. Pathetic, and transparent.