Sexual harassed DD6 in unisex toilet

[LittleCoffeePot]

I initially posted this using a throwaway account in AIBU for traffic but it got derailed accusing me of lying and being obsessed with toilets(?) and my account deleted. This is my main account so I'm hoping this wont be deleted as I genuinely need help and advice.

Monday night, my DD6 comes and tells me that the week before, when using some unisex toilets for a different classroom at school that she wasn't familiar with, she was struggling to lock the door and a boy offered to hold the door. These unisex toilets are unsupervised. While using the toilet, the boy gathered a group of other boys and they opened the door twice to all laugh at her while she was on the toilet. She was in floods of tears telling me this and now doesn't want to use the toilet at school. She said she told a teacher or TA but they didn't do anything.

Obviously I immediately brought this up with the school and they have 'investigated'. They implied that it was my daughter's fault for not being able to lock the door and that from now on she's going to be accompanied by an adult to the toilet. They said the boy's mother has been told but they're 'working on' an apology from him. They're also 'investigating' the member of staff who was told but did nothing.

I had no idea that the school even had unisex toilets as the ones I'd seen in Early Years were sexed. I'm horrified that the unisex toilets for young children are unmonitored and that the school has failed my daughter in allowing this to happen.

I've escalated the issue with the head but am expecting to be brushed off with a 'well we've sorted it now' as they've informed me that unisex toilets are apparently the norm. How do I go beyond the school? Who do I alert to this safeguarding failure?

Thanks

NOTA and other charities who deal with rehabilitating sexual offenders would see this very differently: and they are the ones who know what they're talking about.

The research suggests that sexual offending is pretty well entrenched by the time a man (it's almost always men) reaches adulthood, but if the amber and red flags are caught soon enough, it can be successfully treated in childhood. I'm sorry - it's a long time since I worked with them and this isn't an area of expertise - but the colleague who headed the MAP initative I was with showed me the peer reviewed papers at the time.

Of course, the amber and red flags would indicate an issue where there is a pattern of behaviour clearly needing intervention. But these boys' behaviour would likely be viewed as an instant red flag.

What this means is that parents who are set on denying that their sons would ever behave in such a way are doing their children a grave disservice. Of course no one wants to believe their sons would do such things, and when they do, it's natural that many parents will want to minimize it with a response along the lines of: 'they're only children, you're sick!' But by failing to interact with the professionals if a flag is raised, they are also failing to protect their sons when they bury their heads in the sand. It isn't a question of shaming, or of disciplining, but of the right kind of fully professional treatment and intervention by the appropriate child experts.

The research was clear. Were this my son, I know that intervention in childhood might, just might, prevent him from growing up with an escalating pattern of similar behaviour that could see him morph into a sex offender. No one, but no one, wants to see that happen to their much-loved sons. Early intervention prevents more serious harm to them, and could also prevent harm to someone else's daughters.

The parents bent on denial need to think about this.

This was a premeditated assault. The boy offered to hold the door, he could not then go and fetch his friends, they must have been in cost proximity, waiting for a vulnerable victim. I would want the school to have a very close look at the boys background. That is not normal "silly" behaviour, it is sexualised bullying, learnt somewhere by this boy and then further facilitated by the schools appalling response. I would question why the lock failed to work, either very poor maintenance or deliberate sabotage perhaps.

Disgusting as they are, I'd like to thank all the apologists for inappropriate sexualised behaviour from boys. We see you.

It isn't a question of shaming, or of disciplining, but of the right kind of fully professional treatment and intervention by the appropriate child experts

Absolutely. I note people feel they need to use words like 'frothing'.

The NSPCC guidelines are pretty clear on what this is; I assume relevant safeguarding professionals would also be clear on a good course of action that will help support OP's DD and also deal with the boys' behaviour.

And as I've said more than once, it isn't about retribution, this is red flag behaviour that could signal that the boy/boys involved are at risk and need help themselves.

This was a premeditated assault. The boy offered to hold the door, he could not then go and fetch his friends, they must have been in cost proximity, waiting for a vulnerable victim.

This is a very good point.

I wonder if they noticed that there was a broken lock - or indeed, if they had broken it?

This thread is very interesting in that it shows how we are conditioned to turn a blind eye to sexually abusive male behaviour and how this shows up in how we deal with early examples of it in childhood. There is still so much reluctance to name the behaviour that the boys are engaging in, to acknowledge that they are using the girl's female body to humiliate her, and therefore a reluctance to educate them accordingly. The PP who said she would refuse to engage with any such complaint against her son is shocking. But then, maybe it shouldn't be shocking, there are enough adult male predators who were clearly not stopped in their tracks before it was too late.

The boys are 6. They don't know how to operate in society and which boundaries can be pushed - and which can't. Pretending that this is non-sexualised bullying or that the nudity was an irrelevant part of it won't help them and it won't help the next generation of girls.

Absolutely this. It's all about 'Not my Nigel', a close relation of 'Not All Men are Like That'. Of course they're not. And we want to believe it's one of our own even less. We all have fathers, husbands and sons we love.

But one thing's for sure and it's this: it's someone's Nigel. It isn't a rare minority of men. It can't be, because practically every adult female you talk to has stories - that's in the plural and sometimes many - ranging from low-level, casual, persistent harrassment to rape. I've been victim to this behaviour repeatedly. I know that I'm not alone. It's not only endemic, it's a behavioural norm. It's de facto legal. And it's society's eagerness to enact DARVO on a mass scale - transposing women from our status as the overwhelming majority of victims into the aggressor for daring to question or challenge it, which in no small part is to blame.

Just look at the thread in which an OP dared to object to an aggressive, intimidatory email in response to a very reasonable gesture made to protect her physical boundaries. She did not consent to that contact. She doesn't have to accept it. The dick-pandering responses on that thread, and censure of her eminently reasonable behaviour, make me sick, as do some of the responses on this thread.

FFS, let's call it what it is. There might then be the smallest hope we can then make some headway. But this can't happen as long as social norms collude with it, rugsweep it and make excuses for it.

Someone said earlier that the fact it's a unisex toilet is irrelevant. I disagree.

As Dumbo12 pointed out, the evidence suggests that this was premeditated. It sounds highly likely that the boys were already lurking near the toilet with the broken lock and already had the plan to pretend to be helpful by holding the door closed.

Had the toilet been in a separate girl's block, they wouldn't be able to lurk there. They also wouldn't have been able to either break the lock, or to have realised it was already broken (if it wasn't them who broke it).

There's a reason why sexual assaults are nine times more likely in unisex toilets - if male people have access to a space where women are vulnerable then that massively increases the likelihood of an opportunist doing something dodgy.

Oh, might this be the issue for some people? A sort of variation on the 'this never happens' theme? It wouldn't surprise me.

We can't know whether this behaviour was premeditated, nor can it ever be proven. But I find it difficult to believe that six-year-olds could be quite that analytical, particularly as regards the possibility of the lock having been deliberately broken and the later waiting for an opportunity to arrive. They don't tend to have such a developed a sense of cause and effect at that age.

That it was bullying with a sexual undertow is quite worrying enough. If there's any question it was premeditated then this is far more frightening and sinister.

An even more frightening issue is the school's apparent determination to stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'la, la, la'.

I think 6 year old boys are more than capable of premeditation. My older brother would catch spiders or find other 'creepy crawlies' and then happily wait in hiding for ages to throw them at girls when he was 6ish.

If the boy had opened the door once and been on his own that would have been bad enough.

But the fact that he deliberately opened the door twice and did so to an audience of several other boys takes it to another level.

I hope you can get the school to start taking this seriously OP.

Yep.

I just wanted to bring this article to the thread, I hope you don't mind, OP.

A very sad and shocking case involving CSA over two generations, but this part jumped out at me and seemed relevant to what has been discussed on this thread:

'The report highlighted that in 2016 police did not look into the allegations of sexualised behaviour because the children involved were under the age of criminal responsibility.
It said: "This deflected the professional child protection network from a more fundamental question: 'Where had the children involved learnt this behaviour?'."'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68629466

Anyone who knows anything about safeguarding knows that inappropriate behaviour by children CAN, not always but sometimes, be a sign of abuse or exposure to inappropriate behaviour or material elsewhere/in the home. It should always be taken seriously.

Didn't the OP say the boys were 6 years old? I don’t see how a 6 year olds behaviour can be sexually motivated. Do 6 year olds even know what sex is?

An act can be sexual harassment without being sexually motivated.

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.

Unfortunately many children will have been exposed to abuse, dv, and inappropriate media by this age.

It's not that their motivation is necessarily sexual gratification, but it's certainly an intent to transgress boundaries, intrude, coerce and humiliate.

The behaviour is the issue, rather than the motivation, partly because of effect on the victim and partly because its a red flag for the children perpetrating the acts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.