Why did he have that in his bum?

[IfIcouldturnbacktime217]

So tonight DD asked me when she was going to bed about something a boy in nursery had on his bum. She said he pulled his pants down and showed her a worm then starts showing me her mini saying she doesn't have a worm! I've tried to ask how this happened and not got a lot of sense from her (she's 3) I think it may of been in the toilet but she said there was no teacher there. AIBU to be thinking they shouldn't be going the toilet together without a teacher and slightly alarmed by this?

Really is this normal practice for men to have it all on show in front of their kids? I don’t know anyone that said they saw their dad’s dick casually when growing up. My husband would never dream of letting it all hang out in front of children, and I don’t know anyone else that would think this appropriate.

Did you or your DH never have the kids in the shower with you when they were young? Bath time with young kids is such a faff, as soon as they were old enough to independently stand and were steady for long enough ours just shared shower with an adult. Was easy to give them a quick wash and they loved sitting on the shower floor catching water in little buckets and other stuff while you washed your hair.

What about going to the toilet? No way we could have shut the toilet door when using the loo, ours banged it down, they hated shut foors with someone behind them so was easier to leave toilet or bathroom door open while you were there, no such thing as modesty. Due to range of ages we didn’t have a shut door for donkeys years and then just became normal. Unless we have visitors everyone still leaves all bathroom and toilet doors open and kids are nearly all adults now.

Please use the proper names for body parts . Should she be touched in an inappropriate place an adult might not be alarmed at her saying ' so and so touched my mini ' but would be at he touched my vagina.

@Hertsgirl10 I'm most certainly under 40 but I have never heard mini used. Loads of others like floof, Mary, front bottom etc but never mini. I think mini is less likely to cause an issue than flower and cookie, these are common words that are likely to cause confusion.

Really is this normal practice for men to have it all on show in front of their kids?
I don’t know anyone that said they saw their dad’s dick casually when growing up.
My husband would never dream of letting it all hang out in front of children, and I don’t know anyone else that would think this appropriate

Do your children ever see you naked? If so, what's the difference? If not, how?!

DD is in the room when I'm getting dressed, she will sometimes wander in when I'm having a wee, when we go swimming we get changed together, she sometimes wants to talk to me in the bath. And same with my husband. It's just normal family life isn't it?

[quote MooseBreath]@Sofiegiraffe If a child said "someone touched my pizza", you'd seriously be concerned? Because that's the equivalent for loads of people with mini, cookie, fairy, cupcake, etc. If they don't know it's ambiguous, their brain processes as if it's not.[/quote]
Yes, if it's you would. If you're a teacher or their football trainer and there's no pizza in sight.

You'd ask more questions - which might lead to realising it was an actual pizza or a replacement term for something they don't know the correct name for.

Children said random things without a doubt, but cop on is needed.

I mean, "Licking my cookie" the verb doesn't tie up to noun that well does it.

[quote MooseBreath]@Sofiegiraffe If a child said "someone touched my pizza", you'd seriously be concerned? Because that's the equivalent for loads of people with mini, cookie, fairy, cupcake, etc. If they don't know it's ambiguous, their brain processes as if it's not.[/quote]

Same point as previously- I'd ask follow up questions. If a child started a sentence with "someone touched my.......(insert whatever word you like)", then yes, I'd be seeking clarity on what they are referring to.

Well, maybe if you already use cutesy food names for genitalia, "pizza" would set alarm bells ringing. But for the large portion of the adult population who use the proper biological terms, a child saying "he touched my cookie" wouldn't automatically set off the alarm bells that "he touched my vulva" would.

There's no benefit to using mimsy names for body parts and there may be active harm or at least confusion as a result. So why do it? It makes me roll my looky balls so hard when I hear mini or foofoo or fairy being used.

@Devastatedyetagain

I find it concerning that lots of posters are so concerned about ensuring their child knows the correct names but would brush off a comment because of an assumption that it means something else. Whilst there is no issue with calling things by the correct name surely there must be an acceptance that children who are being abused will more than likely not use the correct terminology. We need to engage with our children not just ignore their "silly stories". I have had lots of conversations with children who have referred to something by the incorrect name, an example a three year telling me about a bouncy bouncy. Through engaging with them I ascertained it was a trampoline. Please, please if a child tells you something that sounds a bit odd, engage, ask questions. Grandad licking my cookie is a bit odd isn't it? Someone touched my mini - don't assume it's a cuddly toy.

100% this

I doubt anyone is saying that if a child said eg "Uncle John touched my mini yesterday" they'd think, "Hmmmm I've heard mini used as a term for the vulva but as the child hasn't specifically referenced her genitalia, I won't dig any deeper here".

They're saying that if a child, in passing, who doesn't seem distressed, said "My step-brother touched my cookie yesterday", it might not set off alarm bells. If the same child said "John touched my vulva" there's no ambiguity. So why on earth are people arguing FOR introducing ambiguity?

Especially if they're unfamiliar with the euphemism being used. I know people use foofoo and foof and mini and cookie and fairy and Mary and flower and twinkle etc etc mainly because of threads like this! If I wasn't on MN, I doubt some of those terms, not in clear context, would register at all with me.

Really is this normal practice for men to have it all on show in front of their kids?

If you mean "is it normal for men (and women) to shower/get changed/get dressed in front of their young children?" then yes, totally normal. My dad is private verging on prudish and even he did that. And I'm sure you've seen family changing rooms at your local leisure centre.

I'm not personally arguing for introducing ambiguity, and if anyone has taken that from my posts then that's quite an impressive misinterpretation.

What I'm saying is, some children are not taught the correct terms for their body parts. Rightly or wrongly, they are not. Therefore, if a child uses a term or phrase in relation to reference to touch, and the context isn't immediately clear, then I would without a doubt be asking further clarifying questions. At best, the child views me as someone who is interested and engaged with their world. At worst, they disclose abuse to me. Neither is a bad outcome imo.

@HoppingPavlova This sounds like my friends, lovely and relaxed. I remember once escaping for a shower and turning round to find the three youngest lined up looking at me through the steam 🤣 But I'd been a sort of combi friend/nanny/second parent for the first year or so with the oldest, so a lingering familial vibe. When I first moved away, I'd try sneaking off for a relaxing bath during a visit, but no! Out would go the glorious hot water, in would come the cold water, bubbles, bath toys, wee boy. Treasured for being fleeting moments, in a chilly chatty cluttered way! We stopped allowing it when he started school, just in case innocent stories of a less conventional home raised eyebrows.

I don't know if it's a true story, or just to give an example, but I read something similar on a Facebook post that had been widely shared. A little girl who apparently told her teacher her uncle kept touching her "cookie", and the teacher told her just to keep it away from her uncle and tell him not to, not realising she wasn't talking about an actual cookie.

Stupid and almost definitely fake. If a child says "my uncle touched my [insert blank]" any childcare worker would ask follow up questions.

@Sofiegiraffe
Well, some people are arguing that these terms are harmless and fine to use. I think that's arguing in favour of introducing ambiguity. I'm not saying that's what you've said. Yes, care-givers should investigate further if something sparks a concern but my point is that some of these terms wouldn't necessarily prompt concerns, especially in a busy childcare environment with a lot of chattering children.

@SilverGlassHare

I doubt anyone is saying that if a child said eg "Uncle John touched my mini yesterday" they'd think, "Hmmmm I've heard mini used as a term for the vulva but as the child hasn't specifically referenced her genitalia, I won't dig any deeper here".

They're saying that if a child, in passing, who doesn't seem distressed, said "My step-brother touched my cookie yesterday", it might not set off alarm bells. If the same child said "John touched my vulva" there's no ambiguity. So why on earth are people arguing FOR introducing ambiguity?

Who is arguing for it?

There's multiple terms used - nothing cam be done about that - what's needed is for adults not to close their ears because vulva or vagina isn't specified.

lts not like all that's needed for children who are being sexually abused by a family member is for that family to teach them the correct term. What a likely thing that is.

"Touched my cookie" is odd out of context.

It's possible that a euphemism could be missed. It' extremely unlikely that the correct terminology would be. So better to teach your child to use the correct terminology, no?

Has anyone said that's all that's needed to stop child abuse or is that a bit of a strawman you've built there?

JeffThePilot

A child saying mini instead of an anatomical word would in no way prevent the CPS from prosecuting, stop spreading nonsense. The interviewer would use appropriate questions, diagrams, dolls etc to draw out what the child meant.

And consider this. A 3 yr old alleges that someone touches her vagina? Is it case closed, no questions asked, because they’ve used the correct word? Of course not. An astute questioner , doing their job properly, would still seek clarification, bearing in mind the child’s age. And perhaps would have to be alert to the fact that 3 year olds don’t generally say vagina and it might be suggested that an adult had put them up to it.

Don’t get me wrong, you can all teach your 3 year olds the anatomical words, that’s fine, just don’t pretend that will solve all potential difficulties or that there’s any great danger in saying ‘mini’ or whatever.

[quote SilverGlassHare]@Sofiegiraffe
Well, some people are arguing that these terms are harmless and fine to use. I think that's arguing in favour of introducing ambiguity. I'm not saying that's what you've said. Yes, care-givers should investigate further if something sparks a concern but my point is that some of these terms wouldn't necessarily prompt concerns, especially in a busy childcare environment with a lot of chattering children.[/quote]
I see your points. But my original comment was prompted by this comment:

If a child told me someone touched her mini, I would have assumed it was a toy car or stuffed "Minnie Mouse". I would have encouraged sharing and brushed it off as children tattle all the time (which is entirely the opposite of what I would do if I knew the actual meaning). It would not be recorded as a concern, nor would it be passed on to a safeguarding lead. The child would likely continue to suffer abuse.

That's worrying to me. That isn't referring to multiple children chattering in a setting and things being (understandably) missed. That's a clear and direct communication being dismissed as "tattle". The poster says they would make an assumption and not ask questions, but "encourage sharing".

I find that approach concerning.

Regardless of what's she called his Willy, I agree the children should be supervised in the toilets. At the age of 3 it's not sexual it's purely curiosity. However, the nursery should be monitoring this and I would raise this immediately

@Sofiegiraffe I didn't say what work I do, but in this context, there would be 15+ children in my care in a busy setting. A lot can be missed in these environments (especially when other languages and cultures are involved), which is why it's so important to teach children correct terminology.

@Sofiegiraffe yes, that makes sense.

[quote MooseBreath]@Sofiegiraffe I didn't say what work I do, but in this context, there would be 15+ children in my care in a busy setting. A lot can be missed in these environments (especially when other languages and cultures are involved), which is why it's so important to teach children correct terminology.[/quote]

I do agree that teaching the correct terminology would be helpful. But alongside this, I believe it's equally helpful and critically important for adults who are told by a child that someone touched their (insert ambiguous phase), that this is followed up with a few simple questions to establish context. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive responsibilities of adults.

@eastegg

JeffThePilot

A child saying mini instead of an anatomical word would in no way prevent the CPS from prosecuting, stop spreading nonsense. The interviewer would use appropriate questions, diagrams, dolls etc to draw out what the child meant.

And consider this. A 3 yr old alleges that someone touches her vagina? Is it case closed, no questions asked, because they’ve used the correct word? Of course not. An astute questioner , doing their job properly, would still seek clarification, bearing in mind the child’s age. And perhaps would have to be alert to the fact that 3 year olds don’t generally say vagina and it might be suggested that an adult had put them up to it.

Don’t get me wrong, you can all teach your 3 year olds the anatomical words, that’s fine, just don’t pretend that will solve all potential difficulties or that there’s any great danger in saying ‘mini’ or whatever.

The point people keep making is not that using a different word would impede an investigation - it's that it could possibly result in something getting missed in the first place. If a little girl shouts that a mean man touched her cookie that's likely to get a clear followup. If she says it to her mum, who knows what she means, it would get a clear followup.

However a lot of kids don't feel comfortable saying these things to their parents, especially if the person doing something is a family friend (sadly common) and/or they have been taught that their private parts are in some way shameful (also sadly common, especially among people who make their kids use extremely cutesy names for them). In that case, a child who makes a single shy and glancing reference to another child wanting to share her flower, in the middle of a busy period in a nursery, could easily be missed, and never have the courage to say it again. Words like 'willy' are fine too, they're unmistakable, or even 'foufou' or 'front bottom' just not the words that aren't usual euphemisms (like mini) or have very common alternative meanings.

People on this thread do keep making that very point, actually (that using a different word would impede an investigation) which is why I’ve responded to it.