to think it's inappropriate for DD to share a bed/room with a boy twice her age?

[princessj29]

DD is only just 5. She sees her father every other weekend. He has a girlfriend who has a ten year old brother who often sleeps over when DD is there. Her father bought a bunk bed for her room with a double bed on the bottom, which she says they usually share. There is another spare room in the house so no need for them to share rooms let alone beds IMO. She spoke about his 'bits pointing up' when he woke last week and I feel very uncomfortable about them sharing a bed/room. AIBU?

[AThingInYourLife]

Don't you people understand the meaning of the word "potential"?

It doesn't mean actual, or likely, or probable.

[crashdoll]

There is nothing wrong with listening to a child's concern. I did not say that! I said it is vile to label all people as potential sexual abusers. You have no idea what some people might have been subjected it and how upsetting it is to hear that from someone pushing their own agenda.

[Floggingmolly]

I'm not implying anything; just making the point that she's made her point many, many times now - quite over bearing really. Does endless repetition ever really change someone elses's mind?

[seeker]

"Don't you people understand the meaning of the word "potential"?

It doesn't mean actual, or likely, or probable."

So whqt does it mean? I could say I am a potential prime minister, because an am a political person, or a potential supermodel, because I am a female. . Both would be stupid things to say.

[shesariver]

"Don't you people understand the meaning of the word "potential"?

So by that reckoning are we all "potential" abusers just because we are human? Dont get this at all, and certainly dont agree with it.

[thebody]

Crash, really no one normal does label any group as abusers? No one who works with children in a professional capacity do anyway .

Seeker yes that's what child protection is all about! Potential and risk! Most people understand this. You are not saying anything new here chik!

[MrsSham]

This is all rubbish. What the OP describes concerns her enough and many others on this thread. Not because they are hysterical or its a boy slaying thing. It is about boundaries no matter matter what gender, as I previously said, in families and homes where boundaries are unclear or undefined abuse is far more likely to occur.

Wether that be sexual, physical, emotional or whatever and OP has in her opening and subsequent posts described a home where boundaries are unclear and her dds ability to communicate her needs, wants, desires, concerns, likes and dislikes are limited, then this child is vulnerable.

As is the 10 year old. Because the fact a 10 year old is happy to share a bed with a 5 year old child displays enough about unclear boundaries. Either that or they are forced into it and that is of equal concerns.

What happens in your own homes is fine by your own informed standards and levels of supervision and boundaries between siblings. But this is not the case in what OP describes. The circumstances and concerns are very different and very significant. Because of these unclear boundaries and levels of trust.

[AThingInYourLife]

I'm beyond baffled at recent reactions to what I have written.

[thebody]

Shesariver guessing u don't work in child protection?

Totally get your disgust but your attitude of no can't believe.... is an abusers allows abusers to flourish, see jimmy saville.

To keep kids safe its really important to say yes anyone can be an abusers!
It's real life not mumsnet fluffy bunnies life... Very sad reality and shocking.

[MrsSham]

And yes we all do have the potential to be abusers in the correct circumstances that would influence, teach or increase abusive behaviour.

[apostropheuse]

It's completely inappropriate for children of that age of the opposite sex to share a bed, including siblings.

It's completely naive to think that there isn't the potential for abuse/inappropriate behaviour.

Children are learning boundaries and understanding their own bodies, exploring things. It's unfair to put them in a position whereby they MAY act in a manner which they are not mature enough to control, or really understand what is going on.

Sometimes children need to be protected from themselves too.

[AThingInYourLife]

"So whqt does it mean? I could say I am a potential prime minister, because an am a political person, or a potential supermodel, because I am a female. . Both would be stupid things to say."

No more stupid than what you have been saying about entire groups of people not being potential abusers.

You introduced the idea of the "potential abuser" to this discussion by insisting that it was not OK to say that ten year old boys were potential abusers.

But some 10 year old boys are abusers. We know that.

And so obviously there is the potential for 10 year old boys to abuse.

So a unknown 10 year old boy might be abusive.

It's a possibility. That's not really deniable.

That doesn't mean all 10 year d boys are abusers. Or most. Or many.

But it does mean that there is the potential that a 10 year old boy might be abusive.

Your examples are not equivalent.

If you said that no mothers were potential prime ministers because you were not.

Or that a certain woman you had never met was not a potential supermodel because she could not possibly be beautiful enough, despite you never having seen her.

That would be closer to the kinds of statements you were making earlier about the lack of potential for abusiveness in 10 year old boys.

[shesariver]

thebody where did I say I was disgusted?

I actually work with adults who have been sexually abused as children and a big part of my job is helping them understand that they are not somehow predestined to abuse to - just because they have been abused. Or seeing all (usually) men as potential abusers so much so it destroys their life. So no by saying I dont agree that everyone has the "potential" to abuse doesnt mean I am minimising the subject or dont have an understanding of the issues, what patients tell me is most definitely their real life and is not "fluffy bunnies."

[MrsSham]

And a potential to be any of these things are just as likely in the correct circumstances to encourage them, however the difference is any of those things, supermodel, prime minister etc, does not put others at risk.

Look into simple learning theories and there is your answer.

[shesariver]

And thebody Im actually quite offended by your sweeping assumption that I "cant believe" referring to abuse helps paedophiles like Jimmy Saville to flourish - at no point did I say anything remotely like that. I hear it every day what adults do sexually to children and the emotional impact this has had on their lives.

[shesariver]

mrssham are you really saying any one of us has the potential to sexually abuse a child? Really?

[MrsSham]

But you are viewing that in a very narrow way then shesariver. What you describe is about resilience and countering oppression. MA y other professionals deal with people who have experienced abuse as an influence on their own abusive behaviour. It is not an exact science unfortunately.

[MrsSham]

I believe so, given the correct circumstances we do.

[shesariver]

Not wishing to get into a huge debate but there is no way I accept that....ok help me understand why you believe this - then what "correct circumstances" would make you sexually abuse a child since this is what you are stating you are capable of?

[MrsSham]

When abuse is the only influence you know. Shocking and disturbing life long circumstances.

My judgement is that the potential to continue that behaviour is as strong as the potential to break the cycle.

[MrsSham]

And not to discredit your role, as that is so important to empowering and enabling cycles to be be broken and given that message to everyone that the influences of abuse and the negative effects can be powerful.

[MrsSham]

Giving not given.

[shesariver]

No I do understand about shocking and "disturbing life long circumstances" thanks and the risks involved with poor attachment relationships - but doesn't automatically turn you into an abuser however, in my experience people who have been sexually abused as children are more at risk to themselves than others e.g increases the risk of suffering borderline personality disorder with an associated higher risk of self-harm.

So that doesn't really answer the question as to why you think anyone could be abuser when you are now just referring to people who have been abused themselves....

And Im glad I dont believe "My judgement is that the potential to continue that behaviour is as strong as the potential to break the cycle" thankfully.

[shesariver]

And not to discredit your opinion but none of my patients need to learn the message that "the influences of abuse and the negative effects can be powerful"....as they live it every day of their lives, which is why they end up in therapy in the first place.

[MrsSham]

Like I said you are viewing it from a narrow professional point of view. The influences of abuse are not as clear cut as that.

I can accept that cycles can be broken with the appropriate influences and interventions and the effects of abuse can be varied.

but there is the likelihood that abuse and unclear boundaries can lead to certain risky and abusive behaviours associated with experiencing abuse.

As can increased chances of MH. And so your argument is just as strong as it is open to critique, just like my own opinion.

because you can't also argue that people who are abused are a risk to them selfs or at risk of personality disorders.

Because some are not. But the potential is there because of the abuse.