School going 5-year-old children performing oral sex on each other

teddyboy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272605/Lutheran-school-closes-stunned-parents-learn-5-year-old-children-performing-oral-sex-other.html#axzz2JlQWa3wR

:eek::eek::eek: WTF??

hidinginthebush

Oh to be 5 again!

[Wistful stare into distance]

Kichote

Old news. Not outraged

Rocket19

Kids who are abused often act out said abuse on each other. It's not like kids that young have a sex drive.

I'm no psychologist, but I'm guessing its likely. Sad really.

'It went down in the classroom, it went down in the bathroom and it went down out on the playground.

Even if she was older than the guy I don't think it's fair to refer to her as "it".

Ruudi_Mentari

If their biology teacher had set up the apparatus it'd be more a concern

donvito99

Daily Mail eh?


/Next thread

AK333

:mad: Its disgraceful - the poor children and their parents are rightly worried. I certainly wouldn't have my child associate with a child that had been sexualised at such a young age - this is so wrong on so many levels

RikkFlair

Jimmy Saville just somersaulted out of his grave

Rocket19

Rocket19 wrote: »

Kids who are abused often act out said abuse on each other. It's not like kids that young have a sex drive.

Sex drive? No. Doing weird **** for the novelty? Yes. Get a litter (or whatever the correct term is) of rabbits and see what age they are when they start trying to hump siblings.

I can't believe those quotes from parents either, wondering if their sons are "predators" even though only one girl is mentioned in the article but she isn't a "predator".

Ugh, lack of supervision and adults attributing adult motivations to instinctive and novel behaviours, it's a strange mix.

BOHtox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6fNroLb7ew

AK333

AK333 wrote: »

:mad: Its disgraceful - the poor children and their parents are rightly worried. I certainly wouldn't have my child associate with a child that had been sexualised at such a young age - this is so wrong on so many levels

If it's handled right then "sexualised" will be an irrelevant term. Making a huge deal out of it to the kids is stupid. Kids do weird and stupid things, adults are meant to be around to stop them.

That is extremely weird..

Kichote

AK333 wrote: »

:mad: Its disgraceful - the poor children and their parents are rightly worried. I certainly wouldn't have my child associate with a child that had been sexualised at such a young age - this is so wrong on so many levels

Im dieing to hear the sigh Joe will let out when you tell him this on Liveline 1850 715 815 get dialing!

TheBegotten

One has to wonder where they got the idea from...its not quite the same as saying they have a boyfriend/girlfriend at the same age.
EDIT: What's more disturbing is they had a video of it...

AK333

Kichote wrote: »

Im dieing to hear the sigh Joe will let out when you tell him this on Liveline 1850 715 815 get dialing!

Should I mention the leg and the 3 twins as well

Son Of A Vidic

Kichote wrote: »

Old news.

I think we all can determine whether it is or isn't for ourselves. And don't forget to take two spoonfuls of 'cop on' before posting in future.

smash

They weren't 5 year olds.... They were midgets!

Norma_Desmond

Really don't see why the daily fail had to state it was a "Lutheran" school, pointless really.

Grayson

At 4 I played doctors and nurses with a girl. It did involve running around with no clothes on. It's not like there was anything even vaguely sexual in it.

What's happened in this case is that adults are putting their own desires on their kids. They can't imagine anything like that being non sexual. And the daily mail is of course feeding the frenzy. The people to blame here are the adults with their sick imaginations and if the kids lives are "Ruined" it's because the parents have blown (no pun intended) it all out of proportion.

Irish Guitarist

'It all boils down to a lack of supervision,' Owen said.

What a weird comment. That's not what "it all boils down to" at all. It's not like children just get up to this kind of activity the minute no one is looking at them. There must be something else going on in the school besides teachers not keeping an eye on the pupils.

Grayson

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

Really don't see why the daily fail had to state it was a "Lutheran" school, pointless really.

Cos if they weren't religious nutjobs they'd have viewed it as completly innocent kids who were messing around as opposed to sinful abominations?

Grayson

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

What a weird comment. That's not what "it all boils down to" at all. It's not like children just get up to this kind of activity the minute no one is looking at them. There must be something else going on in the school besides teachers not keeping an eye on the pupils.

It did say that the reason the school closed was a student/teacher ratio that was two high.

And although I think the kids are completly innocent, its not really something they should be doing in school

nucker

Grayson wrote: »

At 4 I played doctors and nurses with a girl. It did involve running around with no clothes on. It's not like there was anything even vaguely sexual in it.

What's happened in this case is that adults are putting their own desires on their kids. They can't imagine anything like that being non sexual. And the daily mail is of course feeding the frenzy. The people to blame here are the adults with their sick imaginations and if the kids lives are "Ruined" it's because the parents have blown (no pun intended) it all out of proportion.

Like you said there were no sexual thing about playing doctors and nurses naked, it was innocence, but to "perform" sexual act on each other is just wrong

Username567

nucker wrote: »

Like you said there were no sexual thing about playing doctors and nurses naked, it was innocence, but to "perform" sexual act on each other is just wrong

It's certainly an interesting moral scenario to ponder. Is it wrong for two five year olds to engage in such activity? Are the children in the wrong? Not in my opinion.

nucker

Username567 wrote: »

It's certainly an interesting moral scenario to ponder. Is it wrong for two five year olds to engage in such activity? Are the children in the wrong? Not in my opinion.

So you don't think it should be illegal for them to engage in sex?

Grayson

nucker wrote: »

Like you said there were no sexual thing about playing doctors and nurses naked, it was innocence, but to "perform" sexual act on each other is just wrong

But it's not sexual at all. That's my point. They might not have even realised that it had any sexual connoctations or that it was something that adults do. You're superimposing what that act means for you onto what they did.

nucker

Grayson wrote: »

But it's not sexual at all. That's my point. They might not have even realised that it had any sexual connoctations or that it was something that adults do. You're superimposing what that act means for you onto what they did.

I never said playing doctors and nurses was sexual, the act of oral sex is sexual

Grayson

nucker wrote: »

So you don't think it should be illegal for them to engage in sex?

Like I just said, was it sex? Was it in anyway sexual? Was it imitating sex? was it imitating adults having sex? Or was it just something they did that happens to be like an aduly sexual act?

If you catch a kid doing something like that, you should nicely tell then that it's not something that's done, like picking your nose and eating it.
But calling it a "sexual" act is shows more about you and your inability to disassociate sex that it does about the kids.

Grayson

nucker wrote: »

I never said playing doctors and nurses was sexual, the act of oral sex is sexual

So every gynacological exam, by a male or female doctor is a sexual act? As is say a prostate exam?

The same act, can be sexual or non sexual depending on what the circumstances are. A child that age has no conception of sex, it's not a sexual act.

Stop imposing your obsession with sex onto a childs acts.

nucker

Grayson wrote: »

Like I just said, was it sex? Was it in anyway sexual? Was it imitating sex? was it imitating adults having sex? Or was it just something they did that happens to be like an aduly sexual act?

If you catch a kid doing something like that, you should nicely tell then that it's not something that's done, like picking your nose and eating it.
But calling it a "sexual" act is shows more about you and your inability to disassociate sex that it does about the kids.

I get your point about the imitating of what adults do, but it is still sexual regardless, why do they need to imitate what adults do?

nucker

Grayson wrote: »

So every gynacological exam, by a male or female doctor is a sexual act? As is say a prostate exam?

The same act, can be sexual or non sexual depending on what the circumstances are. A child that age has no conception of sex, it's not a sexual act.

Stop imposing your obsession with sex onto a childs acts.

Did I say that it was a sexual act to examine a male or female only for medical reasons? No, so stop trying to put words into my mouth. Did I "examine" genitalia when I was playing doctors and nurses? No I didn't even go that far, let alone go naked to play doctors and nurses, sheesh

monkeypants

The number of people joining the priesthood has been dropping for years and this is one of the consequences; the kids have to perform sex acts on each other.

Gosub

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if she was older than the guy I don't think it's fair to refer to her as "it".

I think when they say "it went down... " they are using the Americanisn in the same way as "the drug deal went down..." Not the sexual act known as "going down on"

Or am I just being all innocent, like?

suicide_circus

Gosub wrote: »

I think when they say "it went down... " they are using the Americanisn in the same way as "the drug deal went down..." Not the sexual act known as "going down on"

Or am I just being all innocent, like?

That's the joke

5 year old kids dont randomly start going down on eachother, this is a learned behaviour. Either an older kid told them about it, or they stumbled accross some porn or they were abused.

nucker

suicide_circus wrote: »

5 year old kids dont randomly start going down on eachother, this is a learned behaviour. Either an older kid told them about it, or they stumbled accross some porn or they were abused.

Exactly

0ph0rce0

Its weird but its kind of funny, kids these days are mad.

The chicks will be called sluts, while the guys will be bragging all their lives saying ahhhhh yeah got blown when i was 5 mate.

They'll be legends :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

World';s youngest eiditon to a live sex offender register.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

That's the joke

5 year old kids dont randomly start going down on eachother, this is a learned behaviour. Either an older kid told them about it, or they stumbled accross some porn or they were abused.

We don't know what happened but automatically jumping to abuse doesn't make sense. A lot of kids do proper weird things til they're told to stop.

Grayson

nucker wrote: »

Did I say that it was a sexual act to examine a male or female only for medical reasons? No, so stop trying to put words into my mouth. Did I "examine" genitalia when I was playing doctors and nurses? No I didn't even go that far, let alone go naked to play doctors and nurses, sheesh

My point was that just because something involves genatils does not mean it's a sexual act. What the kids did was as unsexual as a doctors exam. But you obviously have your head stuck in sexville. For some reason what two kids did "has" to be sexual. That's just weird.

Grayson

suicide_circus wrote: »

That's the joke

5 year old kids dont randomly start going down on eachother, this is a learned behaviour. Either an older kid told them about it, or they stumbled accross some porn or they were abused.

Really? Why does it have to be? Kids experiment. They shove marbles in strange places.
http://www.splitcoaststampers.com/forums/family-matters-f64/uuumm-my-son-stuck-marble-up-his-bum-t111612.html

They eat dirt, they eat snot. They'll try licking anything, including pets. they may even do other things to pets.

Kids are just weird and do all these things without it being sexual at all. As adults we tend to view everything that way, but kids are a blank slate that have no preconcieved notions and will do all these things without ever having witnessed the behaviour in adults.

Dublin Red Devil

To me it's not that surprising. Kids are exposed to sex at younger and young ages. They hear extremely explicit pop music. For example "Rude Boy" by Rihanna. and you wonder why they are confused about sex

nucker

Grayson wrote: »

My point was that just because something involves genatils does not mean it's a sexual act. What the kids did was as unsexual as a doctors exam. But you obviously have your head stuck in sexville. For some reason what two kids did "has" to be sexual. That's just weird.

Oh I have my head stuck up in sexville? So you would allow this to continue because you perceive this as normal behaviour? So if it isn't sexual, then it is just "imitating adults"? That is also weird

And are you saying that just because adults do it, its not sexual?

nucker

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

To me it's not that surprising. Kids are exposed to sex at younger and young ages. They hear extremely explicit pop music. For example "Rude Boy" by Rihanna. and you wonder why they are confused about sex

But kids that are likely to listen to Rhianna are teens not 5 years old, yes, some kids at that age are likely to listen to that because of their parents

Rocket19

Grayson wrote: »

Really? Why does it have to be? Kids experiment. They shove marbles in strange places.
http://www.splitcoaststampers.com/forums/family-matters-f64/uuumm-my-son-stuck-marble-up-his-bum-t111612.html

They eat dirt, they eat snot. They'll try licking anything, including pets. they may even do other things to pets.

Kids are just weird and do all these things without it being sexual at all. As adults we tend to view everything that way, but kids are a blank slate that have no preconcieved notions and will do all these things without ever having witnessed the behaviour in adults.

You're not the only one 'enlightened' enough to realise that kids must be socialised in order to learn what is right/wrong in society.

However, your argument is simplistic, and is only ONE theory as to what occurred at this school. Implying other posters are perverted, and projecting adult notions on the children is pretty hysterical.

I agree that it is possible that the kids were just being naturally curious. I would imagine its not uncommon to catch children doing all manner of things they haven't been "trained" not to do yet.
However, it's not hysterical or perverted to suggest that these kids were acting out abuse (on each other) that they may have been subjected to by an adult. It's actually highly possible this is what happened, as abused children often do things like this.

While all kids experiment/play doctor, I find it unfeasible that kids would perform full on oral sex on each other (they are very unlikely to understand it as sex, but still).
Do you know any five year olds? Mention the word "willy" to most 5 year olds, and they'll crack up laughing. Most kids at that age have at least some notion of "private parts", and that some areas are "naughty", or whatever. Especially when you consider this is a religious school.

While you may be 100% correct that the kids were just messing about completely innocently, it's still ridiculous to suggest that other posters have an "obsession with sex", and that there is no reason to investigate, or even suspect anything more dubious going on.

Kichote

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't know what happened but automatically jumping to abuse doesn't make sense. A lot of kids do proper weird things til they're told to stop.

People just love a good proper child abuse moanfest. Nobody can play it down or not take their side without being called a paedophile.

Also it was a religious school, if it can be made out to be abuse this story can be used as a base for an 'Are all religions inherently prone to child abuse' thread by some atheist keyboard monkey

nucker

nucker wrote: »

Oh I have my head stuck up in sexville? So you would allow this to continue because you perceive this as normal behaviour? So if it isn't sexual, then it is just "imitating adults"? That is also weird

And are you saying that just because adults do it, its not sexual?

Who said anything about letting them continue it?

And no, you're reading the opposite of what's being said.

Kichote

Kichote wrote: »

People just love a good proper child abuse moanfest. Nobody can play it down or not take their side without being called a paedophile.

Also it was a religious school, if it can be made out to be abuse this story can be used as a base for an 'Are all religions inherently prone to child abuse' thread by some atheist keyboard monkey

TBH I doubt that, it seems to be the moral hysteria people using this as a stick. Generally keyboard atheists disliking jumping to conclusions.

Grayson

Rocket19 wrote: »

You're not the only one 'enlightened' enough to realise that kids must be socialised in order to learn what is right/wrong in society.

However, your argument is simplistic, and is only ONE theory as to what occurred at this school. Implying other posters are perverted, and projecting adult notions on the children is pretty hysterical.

I agree that it is possible that the kids were just being naturally curious. I would imagine its not uncommon to catch children doing all manner of things they haven't been "trained" not to do yet.
However, it's not hysterical or perverted to suggest that these kids were acting out abuse (on each other) that they may have been subjected to by an adult. It's actually highly possible this is what happened, as abused children often do things like this.

While all kids experiment/play doctor, I find it unfeasible that kids would perform full on oral sex on each other (they are very unlikely to understand it as sex, but still).
Do you know any five year olds? Mention the word "willy" to most 5 year olds, and they'll crack up laughing. Most kids at that age have at least some notion of "private parts", and that some areas are "naughty", or whatever. Especially when you consider this is a religious school.

While you may be 100% correct that the kids were just messing about completely innocently, it's still ridiculous to suggest that other posters have an "obsession with sex", and that there is no reason to investigate, or even suspect anything more dubious going on.

There is absolutely no evidence, absolutely no suggestion that the kids were abused.

There is absolutely no suggestion at all that the kids were acting in a "sexual" manner.

The only place all this is coming from is the heads of the posters. They're incapabale of thinking that it could have an innocent explanation.

The kids involved in this will probably never live it down. Rumours spread and hang around. By the time they're teens, they could be labeled for life. Their parents too. And it's because of people guessing and suggesting. But yeah, I'm the one that's overreacting and being ridiculous. .

Grayson

nucker wrote: »

Oh I have my head stuck up in sexville? So you would allow this to continue because you perceive this as normal behaviour? So if it isn't sexual, then it is just "imitating adults"? That is also weird

And are you saying that just because adults do it, its not sexual?

I'm saying that when a doctor puts his finger in your ass, it's not sexual. when your partner does it, it is. The exact same act in two different ways can have two completly different motives/meanings.

If a child does something it does not make it a sexual act just because it is a sexual act when adults do it.

Like the link I posted where a child inserted something where it's not meant to be. If an adult did it, it'd be sexual. If a 4 year old kid does it, it's moronic. And you just tell them not to do it again.

pH

nucker wrote: »

So you don't think it should be illegal for them to engage in sex?

Can't see why it should be. You think a "trial" and a sentence are needed for these children- to punish them appropriately or dissuade other 5 year olds from following down that path?