Is this inappropriate behavior?

[Hackney]

Gavia said:

I’m not making it sexual. It is an inappropriate area for anyone to touch, poke, grab, punch or whatever. The child is too young for it to be sexual, but needs to understand that the area is private. It is a completely different area form the arm, leg or whatever.

If it were sexual, I’d be state that. I do not believe the child did it to give her a good finger banging (modern enough for you?). That would be sexual. However, the genitals are an area that should not be touched and children should be well aware of that.

If they’d hit the arm then it would be a completely different discussion.

You seem incapable of understanding what I’m saying. The child should not under any circumstances touch other people there. Punching them elsewhere is wrong too, but not as wrong. And that is not sexualising it.

Here’s an example if I kicked you in the balls it doesn’t mean I want to bum you, but it is seriously wrong. It’s significantly more wrong than me kicking you in the leg. If I poked you in the arm you’d be annoyed, if I poked you in the balls you’d be more annoyed, if I poked your wife in the fanny you’d erupt. Even if it turned out I’m gay and have no interest in the opposite sex so it can’t be sexual.

EDIT. I’ve already said the other children should be dealt with but not sure punishment is the only way forward.

Sorry but I think you are, because you're treating the child / the instance differently simply becasue of where the children were hit.
I don't believe a child is making that distinction. If it's not sexual why are you making a distinction
"The child should not under any circumstances touch other people there" - is it touching that's bad, or touching "there"? Then you're making it sexual
"Punching them elsewhere is wrong, but not as wrong" - again, punching in one area is worse than punching in another area?
And as for your example, the whole thing is littered with adding your "sexual" for want of a better word, aspect to it.
Hitting is wrong
Kicking is wrong
To someone who doesn't understand sexuality, genitalia beyond perhaps "it hurts more when I'm kicked in the nuts than on the leg", then you are sexualising this distinction by making it special, or worse to hit or kick the genitals.

If you kicked me in the balls I'd assume you'd kicked me there because you knew it'd hurt like hell, not that you wanted to "bum" me
So why would that be different for a child who - and I repeat - does not have the sexual knowledge that you or I do (and as you use a word like "bumming" I'm not 100% sure that you have adult sexual knowledge in all honesty

My point is, that differentiating the behaviour in a child *is* sexualising the behaviour.

[Gavia]

Hackney said:

Sorry but I think you are, because you're treating the child / the instance differently simply becasue of where the children were hit.
I don't believe a child is making that distinction. If it's not sexual why are you making a distinction
"The child should not under any circumstances touch other people there" - is it touching that's bad, or touching "there"? Then you're making it sexual
"Punching them elsewhere is wrong, but not as wrong" - again, punching in one area is worse than punching in another area?
And as for your example, the whole thing is littered with adding your "sexual" for want of a better word, aspect to it.
Hitting is wrong
Kicking is wrong
To someone who doesn't understand sexuality, genitalia beyond perhaps "it hurts more when I'm kicked in the nuts than on the leg", then you are sexualising this distinction by making it special, or worse to hit or kick the genitals.

If you kicked me in the balls I'd assume you'd kicked me there because you knew it'd hurt like hell, not that you wanted to "bum" me
So why would that be different for a child who - and I repeat - does not have the sexual knowledge that you or I do (and as you use a word like "bumming" I'm not 100% sure that you have adult sexual knowledge in all honesty

My point is, that differentiating the behaviour in a child *is* sexualising the behaviour.

This is like talking to a brick wall. A child does not understand that it’s sexual. A child should understand that the area is private. A child should not expect to be touched, hit, poked, grabbed or whatever there by anyone child or adult. A child should equally understand not to do it.

There is nothing sexual about it. I’m not sure how many times I can say this. When a child goes to places without their parents they need to understand what are “bits” and what aren’t. What is OK and what isn’t. It’s as much for their own protection as anything else. That’s it. Once again, it is not about anything sexual. It is about learning and understanding what is and isn’t acceptable. It’s that simple. For the child who is the subject of this topic to do it once isn’t ideal, but understandable and put down to an innocent or naive mistake. To choose to do it twice suggests that it needs addressing.

I just can’t see your argument that differentiating the behaviour makes it sexual. It doesn’t it makes it clear what is absolutely unacceptable.

I can’t say this anymore so I’ll shout it in big letters.

DESPITE WHAT YOU’RE ALL SAYING, MY ISSUE HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH IT BEING SEXUAL. IT’S ABOUT MAKING THE CHILD UNDERSTAND WHICH AREAS ARE PRIVATE

[Bill]

Trophy Husband said:

I would suggest child services are involved to protect the Scouting movement against confused accusations later down the line? In other words a formal record of the incident, logged in perpetuity. Let us not forget that, in a similar manner to the Catholic priesthood, the Scouting movement has always been a good place for paedophiles to hide in clear view.

Plus they don't know what else has been reported. For all they know they may be a string of minor incidents that build a bigger picture.

[Hackney]

Gavia said:

This is like talking to a brick wall. A child does not understand that it’s sexual.

Then

Gavia said:

lots and lots of words that do in fact make it sexual or "different"

We're probably very close to agreeing with each other - most online arguments are - but what I'm saying is that by enforcing on to a child who doesn't understand sexuality or "different bits" that you shouldn't hit, but especially don't hit there.
Why not?

That's probably very confusing for a child. Why is it worse to hit there? What's special about that bit?
See what I mean.

[Vaud]

Hackney said:

We're probably very close to agreeing with each other - most online arguments are - but what I'm saying is that by enforcing on to a child who doesn't understand sexuality or "different bits" that you shouldn't hit, but especially don't hit there.
Why not?

That's probably very confusing for a child. Why is it worse to hit there? What's special about that bit?
See what I mean.

Well starting with "its much more painful than other parts of the body" would be a start. No need to sexualise.

[andy_s]

Gavia said:

MAKING THE CHILD UNDERSTAND WHICH AREAS ARE PRIVATE

...because they are sexual...


Only winding you up - sort of

[SloppyClock]

daddy cool said:

The first rule of Beavers is: "you don't talk about Beavers".
The second rule of Beavers is: "aim for the beaver".

literatly made me lol

[Hackney]

Vaud said:

Well starting with "its much more painful than other parts of the body" would be a start. No need to sexualise.

Exactly!
Which is why the child probably went for that area in the first place. The head beaver's handling of this has sexualised it when, as we all know, if you want to have maximum effect hit someone where it hurts most. If I'm being mugged I'll kick the mugger in the nuts, not because I'm interested in "bumming" him, but because I want to hurt him. (See also, eye balls etc)

The incident is not sexual, the handling of the incident has sexualised it, as has some of the comment on here when it's completely unecessary and risks causing more heartache..

[otolith]

Not to piss on anyone's rant, but I believe kids are now routinely taught this;

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-...

[Gavia]

Hackney said:

We're probably very close to agreeing with each other - most online arguments are - but what I'm saying is that by enforcing on to a child who doesn't understand sexuality or "different bits" that you shouldn't hit, but especially don't hit there.
Why not?

That's probably very confusing for a child. Why is it worse to hit there? What's special about that bit?
See what I mean.

See below, unless you think the NSPCC are now all about sexualising children. It’s simoly about what is and isn’t acceptable.

otolith said:

Not to piss on anyone's rant, but I believe kids are now routinely taught this;

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-...

[Zigster]

Gavia said:

Hackney said:

We're probably very close to agreeing with each other - most online arguments are - but what I'm saying is that by enforcing on to a child who doesn't understand sexuality or "different bits" that you shouldn't hit, but especially don't hit there.
Why not?

That's probably very confusing for a child. Why is it worse to hit there? What's special about that bit?
See what I mean.

See below, unless you think the NSPCC are now all about sexualising children. It’s simoly about what is and isn’t acceptable.

otolith said:

Not to piss on anyone's rant, but I believe kids are now routinely taught this;

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-...

Those guides are all about how to help children protect themselves from sexual abuse. Doesn't that support Hackney's point rather than yours?

[TooMany2cvs]

Zigster said:

Those guides are all about how to help children protect themselves from sexual abuse.

If you're saying "Not these bits" to protect against sexual abuse, then doesn't that tie in with "not these bits" when it comes to playground scuffles, too...?

[Gavia]

TooMany2cvs said:

Zigster said:

Those guides are all about how to help children protect themselves from sexual abuse.

If you're saying "Not these bits" to protect against sexual abuse, then doesn't that tie in with "not these bits" when it comes to playground scuffles, too...?

Exactly this.

[Zigster]

The guides are simple and aimed at children. An adult should understand the difference between sexual abuse and a playground scuffle.

Plus, the “PANTS” guide clearly doesn’t cover this playground scuffle anyway. Have a look at the five points in that simple guide.