Posted on 09/08/2007 2:52:54 PM PDT by decimon
These days, if Rian Romoli accidentally bumps into a child, he quickly raises his hands above his shoulders. "I don't want to give even the slightest indication that any inadvertent touching occurred," says Mr. Romoli, an economist in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif.
Ted Wallis, a doctor in Austin, Texas, recently came upon a lost child in tears in a mall. His first instinct was to help, but he feared people might consider him a predator. He walked away. "Being male," he explains, "I am guilty until proven innocent."
In San Diego, retiree Ralph Castro says he won't allow himself to be alone with a child -- even in an elevator.
Cont...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Are you starting school soon?
Sounds logical to me. So why preclude having children interact with men that are approvable?
That's not pimping their kids. Sometimes we hear an occasional story like that but it's far from as common as the ones where men are sexually abusing kinds.
Besides, none of what you posted answered the question. You're previous comment sounded like it implied more mothers pimp their kids than men sexually abuse kids. So what's your answer to the question?
Let's be on the safe side and instruct all men to ignore lost children and women in need. Better yet, to be really safe, let's make it illegal for a man to approach a child or woman. You can't be too safe.
I'll try to remember that the next time I see toddler alone down at the river.
But out of curiosity, what if the lost child was with their father?
I'm not trying to set public policy to put a stigma on men, so perhaps the burden of proof should be on those who are.
The mental reasons for a mother's negligence and bad parenting aren't recorded in crime statistics. My personal experience on seeing who shows up to collect the children is that the majority are pimping them. Pimping them in the sense that they are getting something from the abuser that they desire more than the safety of their children.
On the whole, I think fathers are far more protective of their daughters than are mothers.
The only defense I can offer is that I can't afford to be falsely accused of any indiscretions whatsoever by a child who may have psychological issues of his own.......
It's too bad because I think I could be a good mentor to a child in need of a male figure in his life........
Whatever you say.
I have already told you that you are right.
As always.
I am totally wrong.
I will respond to you no more.
i don’t cap!
Best for me, thanks to the atmosphere your way of thinking has created.
How cute.
I bet you are glad of the minimum wage increase.
Most folks who cannot write properly will benefit.
Guilty!, guilty!, guilty! Don't ask of what, you're just guilty. :-)
Unfortunately, you are too easily stigmatized.
Not good enough, though a current version of that number would help set a lower limit.
I don't understand why the statistics that I want are so hard to find. With all the data they collect, the DOJ statisticians should be able to come up with numbers that provide some answer to the question, "How afraid of strangers should I be?"
Years ago I had a friend who was a father of three children, two boys and a small girl, tell me that as a father he would not wash his first or second grade daughter fearing she might tell a friend at school that her daddy “washed her” and that statement would be taken the wrong way once it got back to the administrators in that school. I personally was in the men’s bathroom at Lowe’s Home Center using the urinal and as I looked down to my left ther was about a four year old boy with his pants around his knees using the children’s stall next to me. I got the hell out of that bathroom as fast as I could and on the way out I noticed a woman who I thought was his mother. I wanted to tell her how stupid she was for letting her child go in there alone. What makes her actions more inexcusable is Lowe’s has a third bathroom choice, a unisex for mothers and fathers with children.
How does durasell conclude that you are a pervert? If you are in a crowd of strangers, aren't you the only one that you know for certain isn't a pervert? Why do you need to run get a mommy to chaperon you for the child's safety?
It can only be that the "best protective care" involves you assuming that you are prone to become a sexual abuser at any moment due to your sexual nature.
What if the policemen is a man, then what?
What if a man insists that he is the child's father and wants custody? Should you force the man, via the mommy you found, to produce his own mommy first?
Keeping in mind the confusion that a lone man with a child represents, shouldn't men be required to have an adult female of the family present if they wish to leave their house with a child?
Take a hard look around the next time you are at Walmart at all of the 300 pound women trying to jerk their kids arms off as they drag them through the store screaming at them to "shut the f#$% up" and remember, on their worst day, they are a safer choice than you are to take care of a lost child.
If they are bleeding, I move away as fast as I can.
This is getting tiresome. The reason you would look for a mom w/kids is that she and her kid(s) are more apt to be a soothing influence on a lost/upset kid. And, needless to say, two heads are better than one in that situation.
Secondly, of course if some kid is in a dire situation, i.e. about to run into an eight-lane highway, a guy should intervene by himself.
Thirdly, nobody is talking about demonizing men. The typical kid has interaction with men every single day, including school staff, relatives, family friends, etc. etc. What we are discussing is teaching kids who to go to for help when lost, etc.
And this is his warm, fuzzy side. Give up now! (and he’s right anyway)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.