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

teddyboy · 03-02-2013 01:52AM #1

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 · 03-02-2013 01:54AM

Oh to be 5 again!

[Wistful stare into distance]

Kichote · 03-02-2013 01:54AM

Old news. Not outraged

Rocket19 · 03-02-2013 01:55AM

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.

03-02-2013 01:56AM

'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 · 03-02-2013 01:57AM

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

donvito99 · 03-02-2013 01:59AM

Daily Mail eh?

/Next thread

AK333 · 03-02-2013 02:00AM

: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 · 03-02-2013 02:00AM

Jimmy Saville just somersaulted out of his grave

03-02-2013 02:01AM

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 · 03-02-2013 02:01AM

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

03-02-2013 02:02AM

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.

03-02-2013 02:06AM

That is extremely weird..

Kichote · 03-02-2013 02:11AM

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 · 03-02-2013 02:17AM

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 · 03-02-2013 02:18AM

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 · 03-02-2013 08:23AM

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 · 03-02-2013 09:15AM

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

Norma_Desmond · 03-02-2013 09:26AM

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

Grayson · 03-02-2013 10:27AM

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 · 03-02-2013 10:29AM

'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 · 03-02-2013 10:30AM

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 · 03-02-2013 10:32AM

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 · 03-02-2013 10:48AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:03AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:06AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:12AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:15AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:16AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:19AM

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 · 03-02-2013 11:19AM

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?

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

Comments