From today's paper, AP:

Mother of a nine year old girl and her boyfriend are arrested in Providence, RI for having sex in front of the girl.

The mother and boyfriend said that they are always open about their sexuality with the girl and that she was present but never made to participate and that she could leave if she wanted to.  They felt that it was educational for her to view sex between them.

The fact came to light when the daughter, now 11, mentioned it in school in front of a teacher who then reported it to an abuse hot line.

My quick take:  No harm, no foul.

I think that it is societal squeemishness about sex that causes us to over-protect children and to condemn people who are open about sexuality.

These were not strangers and the context of all the actions appears to be related to sexual openness, not expliotation.

It will be interesting to see how a jury (or judge) rules in this.  I'm not aware of a similar situation arising ever.

Sorry that I have no link to the story.  I searched a number of web news pages and could not find it listed.

I tried to find an AP site, but couldn't find one that lists stories.  Do they have one?

Vox populi, what do you say?

Throw the book at them. This sort of thing HAS happened before. Its been the first step in many a child abuse case in which the child was first exposed to "observing" sexuality, as was the case here, then later initiated into the act itself.

This one was just caught early on. Thank God.

if a child accidently walked in on parents doing the deed and continuing in front of the child   or not having sex behind closed doors when children are nearby.  Choosing to coverup in a somewhat casual manner when surprised may help a child's esteem relative to their bodies and nakedness.  I'll also defend families that embrace a nudist lifestyle. However the latter actions that invlove open displays of active sex acts are signs of depravity and are acts of abuse on a child.

But actually it's very cultural, when you figure that before the 17th century, there was no such thing as privacy. Nobody was ever alone.  If you go back two centuries, except for the lords, families lived in one room.  If you go back 5 centuries before that, even the lords lived in one room with the peasants.  Children must have witnessed sex then.  

In other cultures, they think that we're quite cruel to children by making them sleep alone.  

So, I'm with you on this, Mr. Fisher.  As long as it's the natural father and mother, and not say the father and another woman, the mother and another man, or the father over the internet or over the phone.  

-- Modified on 2/11/2007 11:31:37 AM

There is a huge difference between peasants of bygone days who had no choice about privacy, and a couple in today's modern world who go out of their way to have sex in front of thier kid. People did ALOT of things years ago that would no longer be acceptable by today's standards - things like slavery, and the right of the lord to deflower all the maidens in his domain on their wedding night, executions carried out for petty crimes, etc. Just because something used to be done a certain way doesn't make it acceptable.

Finally, in this case it WAS the mother and her boyfriend.

Sins, I'm with you. In the middle ages, peasants' lives were nasty, brutish and short (not original, bu I don't remember the source). Although there may have been a warm regard toward children, their main value in medieval times was as workers. Boys were especially esteemed because they were able to perform more labor, girls only insofar as they were the producers of future workes. Fathers may have loved their daughters, but they looked to marry them off ASAP after puberty. It was one less mouth to feed.

With all the wound tight as a clock child protection organizations incessantly lobbying Big Brother to legislate on parental rights & choice it will soon be illegal to have two young children of the same sex sharing the same bedroom.

25+ years ago I was standing naked in my bathroom shaving. My neighbor’s 4 year old daughter wandered in the open front door of my apartment and surprised me in my bathroom. Flustered; I quickly dressed and informed my neighbors/friends of the incident. They informed me that they often both walk around their apartment in the nude in front of their child and that I should feel no guilt or embarrassment.
Are THEY wrong for raising their child free of puritanical dogma?
Am I technically culpable of indecent exposure to a minor?

 As provocative as it may be; the MOTHER feels it is alright to have sex in front of HER daughter. This should NOT be a concern for the judiciary.  

Sins, It's important to consider: it may be far more traumatic for the girl to have her mother put in prison.  Now **that's** traumatic.  Now **that** could be damaging.  

They might have changed their architecture a little to accommodate it, with just thin walls.  They didn't do it.  

It wasn't just the peasants of the middle ages, either.  It was in every culture before that, including and especially hunter-gatherer tribes.  Including for people who were very well off.  In fact for almost all of them, it was thought peculiar and shameful to want to isolate yourself.

I'm not saying that they were better for it; on the balance I would say it's better to have privacy, but some good things are sacrificed from having it.  

I missed the part that it was a boyfriend.  I read too quickly sometimes.

There's some things I'd like to ask: does sexual abuse usually start this way?  Maybe but I never ever, heard that.  Did she walk in while they were having sex and they just continued?  Since it was two years since it happened, (reading a little more carefully now) it should be easy to determined if sexual abuse did follow.  With two years passed, how traumatic does the girl think it was?

Yes, you're right, I do find it strange is they "shared" about sex and nothing else.  I find that suspicious, but nothing else.  Nothing to put people in years of prison for.  

I am not aware that there are cases of psychological damage to children who have viewed sex between their parents (or a parent and a friend).  The existence of such damage would make me change my mind about this.

I'm going to go over to The Erotic Highway right now and ask The Love Goddess about this.  She is very up on the psych/sex business and should know.  I'll abide by her expertise.

What that be abusing animals?

as a parent, i realise and reconise the natural need to empower children to embrace their bodies and sexuality, there are more appropriate ways of doing so.

there are numerous cted cases of sexual abuse that began with children being invited to witness their parents sexual acts and later on join in.

the key points to note in this case are:

"The mother and boyfriend said that they are always open about their sexuality with the girl and that she was present but never made to participate and that she could leave if she wanted to"

"They felt that it was educational for her to view sex between them"


both statements imply that this was not a one time occurance or accidental viewing. the fact that the child was subject (or invited) to repeat viewings (2 or 22) of the couple is cause for alarm.  it implies or can be constrewed as repeat abuse or inappropriate ehavior with a minor. (and i would agree).

similarly, note that the male is the BOYFRIEND, not the spouse or    other parent.  another fact that could put the mother in question for her concern (or lack of) for her child.

it's unfortuate that his little girl may  be headed for years of emotional scarring and stress as a result of the decisions her mother made.

exposing your child to nudity and sex in an age and emotionally appropriate manner is empowering. subjecting your nine year old to a live sex show for "educational purposes" is abuse.

These links have a lot more information about the incident including parts of investigator interviews with the mother, boyfriend and girl.  From what I read, the mother and boyfriend sound messed up.  Their excuse was they thought it was important for the girl to know how to perform sex acts because they didn't want anyone to make fun of her and they wanted to "prepare her so she would know how."  The boyfriend said the girl would also be present when he masturbated on the couch while watching pornographic videos.  It was only a matter of time before the girl became a participant rather than an observer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251296,00.html

http://www.projo.com/news/content/neglect10_02-10-07_3T4C0QV.1b19c86.html

-- Modified on 2/12/2007 12:45:22 AM

over on The Erotic Highway Board.

You may want to read it as well as an interesting link she has given.

It is amazing how conservative most sex providers are when it comes to anything other than their own situation. As long as one protects against pregnancy and disease sex is not bad. There is nothing wrong with a child seeing sex, it is the violent murder and war movies that are the problem?

Out on the prairies, the sod houses had one room, and for purposes of conserving enough body heat to survive the winter, there was usually one bed. So guess what the kids saw/heard during those 6 day long blizzards. Did this shape the character of the plains states? (And was it any different in the first Mather household there in Mass. Bay?)

More generally, it's probably only been since the industrial revolution that common people could afford more than one sleeping room, and that only in the "developed countries." In, say, Mumbai, Lagos, or Rio, there are hundreds of thousands who still share sleeping accommodations.

Is/was this a horrible thing, which lead/leads to child abuse?

Children who don't live on farms don't witness either the copulation or the slaughter of animals.
Does this mean they are no longer traumatized? Or just that things are different?

Anon O'Male

I had the misfortune of walking in on my parents when I was about ten or so. Let me tell you that while I was not traumatized, I did wonder what the hell was going on there. Fortunately, they didn't see me and I was able to exit quietly.
Only later on did I realixe what the hell was happening. As for the couple in question, they are just proof that the gene pool in this country is getting shallower by the minute. As punishement, lets get The Donald and Rosie together, and make them have sex in front of the mom and her boyfriend. I wonder how educational they'll think that is???

There is a HUGE difference between demistifying sex for a child by not acting as though anything remotely related to sex is dangerous or shameful......and deliberately setting out to desensitize a child to sex as a first step to manipulating a child into becoming an active participant.

Read up a little more on this case. The "open sexuality" policy was suggested by the boyfriend, who also made a habit of watching pornography and masturbating in the presence of the child. Are we still talking harmless?

The boyfriend was NOT original in his ploys to manipulate the child into becoming an active participant rather than observer. Its been done many times before. The only difference here is that she told a school friend before it had an opportunity to escalate further.

Many of the responses here seem to be attempting to characterize the situation as one where the adults simply chose not to act embarrassed when the child caught them in the act, and instead regarded her presence as harmless. Yet reading the excerpts of both of their interviews leaves no doubt. At the boyfriend's suggestion, the adults deliberately set out to include the child by having sex in her presence and actively encouraged her to watch. The fact that he also encouraged her to watch him masturbate to pornography only serves to emphasize that their behavior had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to raise her without sexual hang-ups, and everything to do with including her as part of their sexual relationship - with observation being only the first step.