Priest telling boys how to pee at school?

[Downamongtherednecks]

Tween ds is at a private school, not UK. Most staff are female. There were incidents of the boys’ loos being left with pee around the lavatory bowl, so a male member of staff (priest) took the boys into the loos (in groups) to tell them that this was unacceptable and to suggest that they aim better and that they should perhaps practice more (!).

This was not discussed at all with parents.
AIBU to think this was not an acceptable thing for the school to do? It seems far too private and something surely better handled by parents. Priest has form for sexism so it is possible that may be one reason I instinctively don’t like it. DH (robustly boys’ private-school educated) says this was fine, it's a boy/male teacher thing, and he can’t see a problem with it. Happy to be told I am being biased against the sexist priest. No intention of taking it up with school btw, as dc are leaving anyway. AIBU?

I remember the boys getting this talk at my school. Apparently they needed to practice their aim. The girls were told to put their fingers in their ears while the talk happened. Of course we heard everything and teased them mercilessly for months afterwards. Now surely that's the best way to protect their innocence...

Thank you profligatehousewife!

phantomnamechanger - "he was talking to them, not demonstrating how to pee, not asking them to demonstrate their technique, not asking for samples to test against the piss on the floor to publically name and shame the culprits!" - how do you know?

Anna are you serious? Do you think the OP's son wouldn't have mentioned that ? Or that OP wouldn't have winkled exactly what happened out of her son (with encouragement to provide any damning detail given OP actively dislikes the teacher)

Actually I can't be bothered trawling through but I'm sure OP mentioned she quizzed her son about what happened.

er, okay Anna, I don't know as I was not there but as we only have what the OP reported to go on, I think we can safely assume none of what I mentioned DID happen. Others, however, seem determined not to listen to reason and intent on assuming something untoward did happen.

why assume the worst with no evidence?

"
phantomnamechanger - "he was talking to them, not demonstrating how to pee, not asking them to demonstrate their technique, not asking for samples to test against the piss on the floor to publically name and shame the culprits!" - how do you know?"

Because if any of those things had happened, one hopes the OP wouldn't be faffing around on mumsnet- she would have already taken her child out of the school and reported it to the police.

Ds says the priest talked about where to aim into the loo, said he would put cornflakes in the lavatory bowls for them to aim for, said something about shaking, something about lifting the seat. I'm informed by MNetters that he should have said Cheerios which float better (these are the recollections of ds, since contrary to what phaedra might think, I tend not to be in the interrogation business, and if she knew anything about the legal system she'd know that such questioning could result in any investigation if one were necessary declaring that the child was 'coached'). Ds said his group were "giggling like anime characters" and thought the whole thing was "weird and gross". If there had been any practical demonstrations, I most definitely would have contacted law enforcement, the diocese, the local papers, and anybody else I could think of!

All pretty reasonable stuff then.

Personal hygiene has to be pointed out sometimes. Much better coming from a male member if staff than a female one.

So what on earth is your problem Downamongtherednecks? Regardless of whether your DS is a culprit or not, wasn't it entirely reasonable that this took place? If not, why not?

Please somebody explain to me in words of one syllable why this is a problem?

Sounds fine to me
YABU

Are you suggesting that there is anything wrong with the priest telling the boys to aim into the bowl and shake drops or pee off their penises so as to avoid getting pee on the seat or rim or floor?

It is very clear from your cleaner's comment that your DS does not know he should always pee into the bowl and avoid getting drops of pee on the seat, rim and floor.

The way boys and men pee is through their penises, and they can aim. They can also end up with a drop on the tip of a penis when finished.
When they fail to aim and when they fail to shake off the drop, or when they step away from the loo before they are completely finished, the get pee on the rim or seat or floor. One way to avoid getting pee on the seat is to raise the seat. Another way is to aim and then to shake pee drops carefully when done.

I sincerely do not know how the priest could possibly have avoided reference to any of these details and at the same time convey his message.

I don't understand from any of your posts whether you find ignoring the bowl, or leaving pee on the seat, rim or floor acceptable or unacceptable.

I note you mentioned 'DS's bathroom' and a cleaner, so I am guessing you personally do not have to suffer the consequences of your DS's lack of consideration. Perhaps if you did, you would be a little happier to have the priest tackle the problem. Perhaps if parents in general in the school community had taught their sons to pee, the problem wouldn't have arisen.

I wish my DH received pissing lessons whilst at school. From the state our bathrooms get left in, I presume he didn't.

teddy roar

As I have said many, many times. My problem is the setting. Not the subject matter, not the gender, nor profession of the adult. (possibly would have been better with two adults?) I would not be happy for this to be said to dd in a loo either, as I said earlier. By a nun, priest, teacher, whomever. Bathrooms are private, bathroom activities are private, and lecturing children in loos appears a breach of their privacy. This does not detract from the idea that peeing on floors is unacceptable. Just because I have a cleaner, and don't share a bathroom with ds doesn't mean I have failed in his basic standards of hygiene. I don't suffer any consequences from DS's "lack of consideration" because afaik he doesn't show any to me nor to my cleaner. My cleaner is a local woman, whom the children call "Miss FIRSTNAME" and who refuses to vacuum their rooms if there is lego/ pet rat paraphernalia lying around. She also likes the dc very much, and I am lucky to have her. The "Don't pee on the floor" lecture could have taken place ELSEWHERE. Surely it normalises an idea that perhaps children's bodies are not 'quite" as private as those of adults? Because no company on God's earth is going to take adults into a loo to discuss how they pee.

I should point out that Miss Daisy (not really her name) my cleaner, also babysits, housesits, dog walks, fixes minor plumbing issues and has a mean eye for shooting the rabid coyotes which sometimes get a bit menacing around the house. If you think I would risk losing her in order to allow ds to pee on the floor, you can think again!

Sorry but explanation makes no sense.

How remotely does pointing out the unacceptable behaviour and its consequences at the actual scene breach their privacy? None of them were using the toilets at the time.

It's no more a breach of privacy than if they'd been told off in the dining hall after a food fight or the dorm after a pillow fight.

And the lavatory functions ceased to be private due to their own inability to get their urine into the lavatory. Their urine was very far from private for any other toilet-trained children and the janitorial staff.

Like I said, I think for me this is the crux, and where I differ from others. I think it's too private for dc this age. We spend SO MUCH time talking to them about keeping their bodies private, and no one has the right etc etc. Supposing any of the boys had said they were uncomfortable with it (being taken into loo with adult in a group), would it still be okay? (None did in my ds's group of six or so, no clue about the rest of the boys). I ask as my younger dd was appalled when ds was relating what happened, and said she would have said she wouldn't go in as they are supposed to say if something "Makes them feel weird" -- it's specifically taught to them in those words.

But how do you focus their attention on the awful mess and really grab their attention unless you take then straight to the scene of the crime?

That way you show them exactly and without any ambiguity what they have done that is not acceptable, and since you most likely have their attention, the lesson will hopefully sink in.

This is why children are given science labs, and taken on trips to see actual art.

And as for privacy -- tween and teen boys have peeing competitions in the lavatory, and when they are playing sport in high school they will be naked together in showers and changing rooms.

The 8th grade boys in a local school (not the DCs') did a group dump in the boys' bathrooms there as an 8th grade prank. About 20 boys filled every boys' toilet with poo (not at a rate of one boy per toilet -- each toilet held the poo of at least three boys) and then the following co-ordinated flush overwhelmed the plumbing.

Tween boys and teen boys do a lot all together as a group that girls most likely would not do.

I'm afraid equating the teaching of "acceptable" bodily functions with practical science lessons is specious. Unless you are advocating "practical" sex education classes as well. The story of the 8th graders is pretty grim, but unlike the OMG many people are pretending to express on this thread about silly little boys, I am not hugely shocked. You are shifting your argument to say that since little horrors of boys are not particularly "private" about using the loo, that removes their right to privacy. Since my ds IS very private about using the bathroom, does that mean he is allowed to keep his privacy?

'Surely it normalises an idea that perhaps children's bodies are not 'quite" as private as those of adults? Because no company on God's earth is going to take adults into a loo to discuss how they pee.'

No bodies were mentioned.
No bodies were exposed.
Peeing is a bodily function but that was completely incidental.
The fact is boys can pee into the bowl if they take enough care about it.
The fact is these boys didn't care enough, and their parents should be ashamed, not wondering what sort of sacred trust was betrayed.
The priest was teaching self respect.

Children's bodies are not in fact as private as those of adults.

We hang notices in public bathrooms in factories and restaurants and office buildings reminding grown adults to wash their hands.

See, I do think children's bodies are as private as those of adults, at this age. If you honestly believe that children's bodies are NOT private (at this age, and despite the amount of time spent teaching them that they ARE), then that shocks me. That's the kind of thinking that leads children to believe they don't have rights over their own bodies, and that adults must be obeyed and must be right. And we all know where that could lead.

Children learn by being shown things; that is why you would take them into a toilet to see the mess. Adults are supposed to be able to think more abstractly. By the time you're an adult in a workplace, you're presumed to have had a lot more experience peeing in, and cleaning, a toilet yourself. If a boss took a group of adults into the work toilets to demonstrate the mess, it would probably be derided (rightly) as 'treating them like children'.

The children's bodies were not exposed or touched. I do not see how this situation has anything to do with 'privacy over one's body', just because it took place in a toilet.