Sexual harassed DD6 in unisex toilet

And what label are you arguing is accurate?

Sorry I don’t know what you mean by that? Mocking?

Excellently put.

Then you should know better than to mock people for accurately labelling the children's behaviour, no?

In the case of sexually abused children, that includes sexually abusive behaviour. That is sometimes how abuse is uncovered, actually- when teachers and other responsible adults investigate why a child is engaging in sexualised behaviour, including sexualised bullying

Yes I know that. I said something similar upthread.

They replicate the behaviour they see around them. They may not understand the adult motivations for the behaviour they're copying, but that doesn't prevent them copying it.

In the case of sexually abused children, that includes sexually abusive behaviour. That is sometimes how abuse is uncovered, actually- when teachers and other responsible adults investigate why a child is engaging in sexualised behaviour, including sexualised bullying.

I'd disagree. There'll be a reason if a child is moved to do something antisocial.
Children that young do not necessarily realise what is and isn’t anti-social.* *They know what their parents say are right and wrong but they have no context for it.

But this is more than antisocial, its problematic sexualised behaviour
So you think 6 years go around sexualising things?

Poor little girl. For those saying she was sitting down so the boys couldn’t see her vulva, she was basically trapped as she couldn’t move to pull up her pants without potentially exposing herself and she would have had no idea what the boys would do next. It would have been humiliating but also frightening. As others have said repeatedly, letting this sort of behaviour go with a boys will be boys attitude is wrong. Surely nobody wants their sons to grow up thinking that they can frighten and humiliate girls and get away with it?

'Pants are private'

'Your underwear covers up your private parts and no one should ask to see or touch them. Sometimes a doctor, nurse or family members might have to. But they should always explain why, and ask you if it's OK first. Remember, what's in your pants belongs only to you.'

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

The Pants rule is great because it's so clear and easy to understand.

Presumably everyone can see that its relevant here.

Yes I think dd’s school is very good at reiterating the PANTS rule, given how confidently dd can refer to it, also age 6

OP I read and commented on your other thread. I would have been apoplectic at what happened too.

I really hope that you get this resolved and your DD is ok.

I find the minimisation on this thread sickening.

The teaching of boundaries and consent starts early, these boys would have known the pants rule at the very least, and at the worst they need additional help.

The sexual assaults statistics in mixed sex secondary schools are disturbing, it's why these situations at primary should NOT be minimised.

Maybe the simplest way for people to understand this without balking at the idea that sexual boundaries have been broken, given they do not believe this is a reasonable description of these 6 year olds’ action that day, would be to say that:

• all the 6 year olds at the school will have learned the PANTS rule.

• The little girl in this school had her PANTS rule boundaries broken by a group of 6 year old boys and is naturally very upset.

• A group of 6 year old boys broke a PANTS boundary and need that explained to them.

• Yes, the 6 year old boys also ought to say ,” Sorry little girl/name. We will never do that again.”

• The school needs to teach the PANTS rule again.

• The school needs to work out how children can use this lavatory without fear of this sort of thing happening again.

You are creating a very misshapen strawman.

Nobody is 'labelling children as sex offenders'.

The issue is that this behaviour needs to be recognised and dealt with. In an age appropriate way, as many have said over and over again.

It means recognising problematic sexual behaviour, noting the red flags, carrying out an investigation (this may just mean sitting down with the boys and asking them about it), listening to the victim, reassuring the victim, working out the causes of the problematic behaviour, addressing any potential wider issues, acknowledging and facing the issues, a discussion of clear boundaries and appropriate behaviour, a plan going forward and monitoring of the situation.

Education staff do all of this every day in many small ways, if they're doing their jobs properly.

Ignoring the issues risks allowing/encouraging the behaviour to repeat, lets down the victim and yes, eventually, when taken as part of a million small ways, contributes to a society where rape is effectively ignored and legalised and women are expected to just live with it, internalise the suffering and accede to being second class citizens.

Some batshit posts, insisting the kid will grow up to be a sex offender and should be labelled as such now. I wonder if any of you actually had young children who have now grown up. Children, girls as well as boys, do stupid and nasty things. They are told off, they learn it's not acceptable, they grow up and develop adult brains. A 6 year old will not have a fully adult brain for another 19 years.

Excessive fuss at this age tends to reinforce bad behaviour rather than curtail it.

Obviously the boys knew that looking at a girl undressed was wrong. They clearly knew they were transgressing boundaries.

Yes I know adults know there are sexual characteristics in your knickers, what I’m saying is children don’t know that. A six year old shouldn’t really know what the genitalia of the opposite sex looks like, much less what its for and how to weaponise it.

I also do think you have to be careful when it comes to casting young children as villains. I remember reading in a book once with a similar scenario in it. A boy of primary school age who kept trying to look up children’s skirts and telling them about the pornography he watched with his father. Now showing a child pornography is itself sexual abuse but the author of the book seemed to mentally blip over this and was going on about how the boy was an example of the patriarchy.

Is there anywhere outside of school that you can escalate this? I wonder if the governors for example or a regulatory body.

I am both concerned for your daughter and the boy involved- what’s happening in his home life as a 6 year old for this to be normal? Was he purposely hanging around the toilet to do this? Social services perhaps may need to know.

Plus with the other boys, has the school been able to identify them?

The lock on the door being difficult to work should be looked into. It shouldn’t be a 6 year old’s fault for not being able to lock it. It should be simple enough and straightforward enough to use for litttle kids. Do you know what sort of lock it is - I’m
wondering if it’s worth the lock being changed or adapted if it’s eg too high, too stiff or needs too much manpower to use. What difficulty did your daughter have, and what do the school advise should be the protocol if another child can’t lock the door? Use another toilet?

At that age children are not socialised to adult level and do not have as much empathy or self-awareness therefore they will do antisocial things if allowed to

I'd disagree. There'll be a reason if a child is moved to do something antisocial.

But this is more than antisocial, its problematic sexualised behaviour.

Effort and planning has been invested.

These boys wanted to mock a girls body. They understand its wrong, that's where the thrill is coming from.

Adults raising them need to ask why.

This behaviour is a red flag that needs to be checked. The boys need to understand the impact on the victim. They need to have it made totally clear its unacceptable and why.

All in an age appropriate way.

Six year olds know that what's in your knickers is private. The reason why kids are taught that what's in your knickers is private is because the grownups know that what's in your knickers is a sexual characteristic.

This boy doesn't need to know what sex is to know that:

• the girl will be humiliated if he shows the contents of her knickers to his mates.
• that he will get social status from doing this.

Re:
However I think saying that the boys behaviour indicates they will grow up to be sexually violent is stretching it a bit.

I had said ‘potentially’:

this behaviour by little boys towards a vulnerable little girl without her knickers is potentially a budding version of what some men do later more violently and more sexually.

The most important point is how the little girl was made to feel by the boys; and also by grown up people not standing up for her.

The second important point is that the boys need to be taught that what they did was wrong.

Thirdly the school needs to reinforce some safeguarding

Well I would agree with all of that. However I think saying that the boys behaviour indicates they will grow up to be sexually violent is stretching it a bit.

At that age children are not socialised to adult level and do not have as much empathy or self-awareness therefore they will do antisocial things if allowed to. The thing is they are not meant to be allowed to. They are meant to be reprimanded and taught what they have done is wrong and a 6 year old boy should not be that difficult to bring to heel.

The real issue IMO is that the boys behaviour was not dealt with by the school. All this “working on an apology” nonsense. That is the real problem I think.

I disagree. At 6 years old they will certainly know that genitals are private and that showing them is shameful. That is exactly what they were counting on. They weren't laughing at her feet or her nose. They were laughing because her pants were down. That's not a coincidence.

They were weaponising her need for privacy while her knickers were down.

The behaviour is not identical to being sexual in the way grown men’s would be.

But in the same way a little boy is not identical to a man, but is a budding man,
this behaviour by little boys towards a vulnerable little girl without her knickers is potentially a budding version of what some men do later more violently and more sexually.

The most important point is how the little girl was made to feel by the boys; and also by grown up people not standing up for her.

The second important point is that the boys need to be taught that what they did was wrong.

Thirdly the school needs to reinforce some safeguarding.

White van man shouting "get your tits out for the lads" at a female runner has no expectation that she will actually take her top off. Sexual harassment means weaponising her sexual characteristics (i.e. vulva or breasts) to humiliate her
**
And you think a 6 year old boy is weaponising sexual characteristics even though he doesn’t know what sexual characteristic are? 🤔
And I’m sorry but a 6 year old does not know unless he’s been forced to watch endless porn by abusive parents or something. A 11/12 year old maybe but not 6.