Camp complains son's behaviour was "sexually inappropri

Post Reply New Topic

For The Win (FTW)

LOL that would take balls to say to their faces or in a letter.

It might if you want to ever use their services again, but if you are done with them - as in REALLY AND TRULY DONE - I would quote Yippy / Sheldon but in person, as personal deliveries are always way more fun than letters and such !

Keep a pleasant expression, smile, and say, "I would like to apologize to you, Ms. So-and-so. I am sooooooo very sorry that you are soooooo very stooooopid, Ma'am", in the politest manner possible,

What are they going to do ? Fire your kid from the camp ?

No I just don't like confrontations. Some people have no issues with it or have no awareness what could go wrong. Maybe when I am pissed I might have no issues saying it because I don't care then what can happen, especially if I get insulted. I am sure you heard the phrase, "some people can dish it in, but they cannot dish it out" however it goes.

I am also afraid it would be hypocritical of me to say it because I have said in the past how it's not nice to call people stupid and put them down and then I turn around and call someone that in a letter. Some people do like to use things against you and call you out on petty stuff such as this when they see it.

Haven't read to the end of the thread, but I come from a region/place where 'behaving like a heathen' is a very common turn of phrase - as is 'behaving like a bunch of heathens' - etc. Just meant kinda wild and un-schooled in behavioural norms and in my area it was often said with affection - though not always. Just a guess, but probably a hangover from the wildness of people of the heath (i.e. lowland Scots who settled the area I grew up in) and its religious connotations developed similarly but separately.

Anyway, doesn't sound like the camp handled it well.

My mom used the term as well, usually about us kids. She is from the South. Most of the time anyone from my family used with affection. Similar to the "boys will be boys" term. However, occasionally it would mean they some kids were wild and uncivilized. I never heard it used in a religious way.

Still very wrong of the camp to use that term though.

I'm not sure about that etymology. In Dutch it is called "heiden". Anyway, it is almost always a derogatory term for pagans. Imagine someone saying "We can't have our children behaving like Jews". And the association with bad behavior is not really appropriate either. I'd say the pagan Romans were somewhat more advanced than the medieval Christian society that came after.

So, is punching someone sexual harassment then? That's a really weird definition. Heck, if you grab a kid to hold them still when they're trying to go somewhere they shouldn't be going, are you sexually harassing them?

There are many different kinds of unwanted touching, most of which are not sexual. Sexual harassment should refer to either making sexual comments or touching private parts. Calling all unwanted contact sexual harassment is just ridiculous.

And I say this as someone who has had unwanted sexual touching - it is completely different from having some kid poking me or playing with my hair. Both are unwanted, but it's like comparing a stubbed toe to a severed limb.

Sexual harassment has a much broader definition than that, although I'd agree that there are unwanted forms of physical contact that don't involve sexual harassment.

For instance, one of the things many AS kids get in trouble with is staring - which can be considered sexual harassment if it is taken to be stalker-ish behavior by the recipient. I know that most kids who stare don't mean it that way, but if it makes a girl (or boy) feel like they are being stalked, they get to decide how to label the unwanted behavior. I would guess hair-touching falls into this category.

Another area of sexual harassment that isn't well defined that may be a minefield for kids on the spectrum: language, jokes and humor. There are times when a joke with sexual overtones will be accepted as appropriate, and times when it will be considered harassment (see Clarence Thomas.) Mentioning body parts - and not just private ones, but things like lips, earlobes, etc. can be considered harassment.

There are also times when touching private parts isn't considered harassment - think of boys slapping each other on the butt in sports.

There is a LOT of grey area, and unfortunately the only way to really avoid it is to learn to notice the other person's social cues, as it's defined by the person who is upset by it. That's why I recommend the book A Five Is Against the Law - even though it doesn't cover every possibility, it frames a lot of behaviors that are likely to be construed as sexual or violent as such.

Question, is this book good for adults as well or is it designed only for kids?

It's designed for medium-functioning (whatever that means) teens. I suppose it could be helpful for adults as well - though the information is specific to individuals who don't have any idea about social rules at all and its focus is on extreme behaviors that could lead up to arrest. Knowing you, I don't think it will tell you anything you don't already know, but it's always worth taking a look, I suppose.

Do you think 9 is too young for that book? It sounds like a book DS could use, if it's not too mature for him.

I would wait a couple of years - it might not make sense to a kid who hasn't entered puberty yet. You might want to preview a copy somewhere (I wonder if public libraries carry it? It is one of those sorts of books that only needs to be read once, really.)

But you have to factor in the cognitive level of the so-called perpetrator. This child was no more capable of "sexual harassment" than a 4 year old. I've witnessed actual sexual harassment, both obvious and subtle, as well complete cluelessness and unintended harassment on a guy's part, and given all that has been said about the girl's reactions, this was not it.

I feel like the camp overreacted, and I would word the apology letter from a standpoint of "I am sorry that you didn't like it, and I did not respect your right not to be touched."

The camp has a duty to be proactive in preventing situations like this from arising. They can physically keep the two children apart and the aid can take advantage of the teaching moment to help the boy understand why one can NEVER touch another person without permission. The child isn't going to learn unless people can break this down for him into components he can understand. He is at an age where it will rapidly become critical for him to learn this lesson, but being accused of sexual harassment isn't exactly going to teach it.

He does have to learn this, most definitely, and quite quickly. Some extreme situations and predictable overreactions may be part of that. But, still, the responsible adults around him need to see and use the teaching moment, not just fling into accusations.

I will note that the camp may have felt forced into the protocol. Having been interviewed in one sexual harassment related lawsuit, I can say that decisive action on the part of the camp is their best defense against being sued for maintaining an unsafe environment. So, while it is an overreaction, understand that they may have felt their hands were tied once they had failed to be adequately proactive.

Saying this might ruffle a few feathers, but honestly, I'd be a bit concerned about someone whose mind automatically jumps to sexuality because of beaded hair touching working around kids, especially special needs kids who might not understand what's happening or be able to tell if (s)he does something to them.

Either that or whoever said that is also autistic and didn't have the theory of mind to realize that your son was attracted to the beads/braids in specific and not the girl, herself. Or both. (Or neither.)