Bizarre, Creepy Incident w/My DD and Potential Pervert (long)

[VSL]

The rules of Egypt didn't preclude the marriage of a brother and sister, father and daughter. . . . You can't put 2006 laws and morals on a world that died over 2000 years ago.

I'm an Egyptologist . No need to try and explain the laws of AE to me, and the differences in society/culture. And I do not know of any instances of babies being married off. The girl may have been as young as 8yrs in some cases, but certainly not babies, and they usually married after the start of menstruation. Boys were often a little older.

Secondly, I was simply using an extreme example to point out that paedophilia is nothing new. It might not have been illegal back then, but it still happened.

Goodness, even Romeo would be considered a peadophile today. He would have been in his early-mid twenties, while Juliet was only about 12yrs old.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Thanks. It may interest you to know that I'm an Egyptologist. No need to try and explain the laws of AE to me, and the differences in society/culture. And I do not know of any instances of babies being married off. The girl may have been as young as 8yrs in some cases, but certainly not babies, and they usually married after the start of menstruation. Boys were often a little older.

Secondly, I was simply using an extreme example to point out that paedophilia is nothing new. It might not have been illegal back then, but it still happened.

Goodness, even Romeo would be considered a peadophile today. He would have been in his early-mid twenties, while Juliet was only about 12yrs old.

Makes you wonder how primative and weird we will look in 1000 years doesn't it.

 

[va32h]

Really, I doubt that there are any more paedophiles today than there were 100+ years ago (we're just more aware of them).

There are also more people than there were 100 years ago. And even if the overal percentage of people with pedophilic tendencies has stayed the same, our society is drastically different.

We have the internet, porn movies and magazines that can fuel and nurture the pedophile's fantasies. 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, perverts would not have such a ready outlet for their desires. People tended to be more religious, 100 years ago; a pedophile might have felt more pressure from his church and his society to conform his behavior.

These days, perverts know there are lots of other people out there like them - they don't have to feel quite so out of the mainstream. Heck, there are associations like NAMBLA that promote pedophilia as normal and natural.

There may be the same number of people with pedophilic desires as there were 100 years ago, but I think those desires are acted on more frequently in this day and age.

And every interpretation of Romeo & Juliet I have ever read viewed both of them as young teens, not that it matters.

 

[VSL]

Makes you wonder how primative and weird we will look in 1000 years doesn't it.

People tended to be more religious, 100 years ago; a pedophile might have felt more pressure from his church and his society to conform his behavior.

Didn't stop those Catholic priests (or whatever - I'm not right up there with the facts/titles) though

Heck, there are associations like NAMBLA that promote pedophilia as normal and natural.

I know this wasn't your intention, but I've only ever heard of NAMBLA through a South Park episode, so the mere mention of them just makes me laugh. On a more serious note, I have no idea how extreme they are, so I cannot comment on them.

There may be the same number of people with pedophilic desires as there were 100 years ago, but I think those desires are acted on more frequently in this day and age.

But is it? I mean, I believe that the vast majority of sexually abused children are abused by someone that they and their family know and trust. Maybe children were less likely to speak out a few decades+ ago. Maybe it was just kept quiet to avoid embarasment(sp?).

 

[va32h]

But is it? I mean, I believe that the vast majority of sexually abused children are abused by someone that they and their family know and trust. Maybe children were less likely to speak out a few decades+ ago. Maybe it was just kept quiet to avoid embarasment(sp?).

We'd probably both have to do a great deal of research in that regard. Yes, I have also read the statistic that children are more likely to be abused by someone they know than a stranger.

And yes, it is probably more likely nowadays that a child's accusation would be believed and acted upon by the parents, rather than hushed up.

But in terms of people being more likely to act upon their desires - I absolutely feel that people are far less inhibited than they used to be, and in a very negative way.

100 years ago, if you felt sexually attracted to a child, you would probably know that the feeling was wrong. So wrong that you couldn't even talk about it, so you wouldn't know that two or three other people in your town felt the same way. Obtaining child pornography probably involved some level of difficulty and risk.

Today, if you are sexually attracted to a child, you might know that it is wrong, but you would also know that hundreds of thousands of people feel the same way that you do. You can access child pornography from the privacy of your home, with a few clicks online. You can find chatrooms and organizations to talk about your perversion with like-minded people, and maybe even learn some new ways to access children.

As for Catholic priests - I would wager that they make up a small percentage of the total number of pedophiles.

And NAMBLA is very much a real organization. Google it for yourself, I don't want that garbage on my cache.

 

[VSL]

I agree that people are definitely less inhibited than they were even half a century ago. As a result, it may very well be that paedophiles are far more likely to act on such desires (and the sharing of info on how to 'groom' maybe does encourage this behaviour). I guess I was just saying that paedophilia is nothing new. The newness is in the fact that it is now illegal and (as you said) the info/temptations may be far more widespread than before.

I very much believe that NAMBLA is real - I just don't know that much about them (and I agree about not wanting that kind of stuff on my PC). I think I'll check them out on Wikipedia though.

 

[Anc96]

I think the OP should trust her instinct and say something in a non-accusing manner about this guy. If he is innocent, then it could save him from a particularly nasty lawsuit or whatever in future, and if he did have other intentions then at least they are aware.


I think this is nonsense though. Really, I doubt that there are any more paedophiles today than there were 100+ years ago (we're just more aware of them).

Why, even in ancient Egypt there was paedophilia. Akhenaten married and had children with all three of his daughters.

Actually, I never said there were more instances of pedophilia now than at any time in the past (I have done no research on this and couldn't say either way).. the statement was meant to imply how much more aware we are now, and of the damaging lasting effects it could cause a child.
These days It's all over the papers, TV, and internet... we are not ignorant anymore (at least most of us).

Also.. to say "I disagree" with a statement/person is much more effective than to say "I think this is nonsense". To 'disagree' might insue further polite debate. To label someone's opinion or statement as "nonsense" could envoke an angry response.
Usually I would regard someone who replies with seemingly disrespect, as ignorant themselves...
But I'm sure you didn't mean any disrespect

 

[VSL]

Also.. to say "I disagree" with a statement/person is much more effective than to say "I think this is nonsense". To 'disagree' might insue further polite debate. To label someone's opinion or statement as "nonsense" could envoke an angry response.
Usually I would regard someone who replies with seemingly disrespect, as ignorant themselves...
But I'm sure you didn't mean any disrespect

No disprespect intended, but I do think that it's nonsense. I think that children needed to be protected just as much in the past as they do now. I'm sure you can tell by the way that I worded the rest of my post and that I don't throw insults around that I'm not ignorant or ill-educated.

Now, if I had said, 'WOW, this is the most stupid thing I have ever seen! What an idiot!', then that wouldn't be productive But I just stated my opinion.

I think it's rude to tell me how to respond to something

 

[Anc96]

I think it's rude to tell me how to respond to something

I respect your opinion... But I disagree
I don't feel I was telling how to do anything.. simply suggesting a different way may be more productive.

 

[Anc96]

No disprespect intended, but I do think that it's nonsense. I think that children needed to be protected just as much in the past as they do now.

Hmmm.. don't remember saying they didn't.

I think she just wanted an opinion of whether or not she should say something. I don't think she expected so many people to come to the man's defense. I wouldn't have expected it either. Especially not in this day and age when children really need to be protected.

Rereading it I can see how I could have been more precise, I should have said "Especially not in this day and age when we are more aware that children really need to be protected"

But I think I clarified that in my later post. I don't think I ever said anything about children of the past needed less or no protection.

Hope that clears it up

 

[magicmouse2]

I dont Think anything could have happened to your child in that workplace, there will be cameras and stuff. DONT PERSECUTE YOURSELF, but in future I would not let the child out of your sight. I would have spoke up that I felt uncomfortable with her going off with a stranger.

 

[VSL]

Rereading it I can see how I could have been more precise, I should have said "Especially not in this day and age when we are more aware that children really need to be protected"

But I think I clarified that in my later post. I don't think I ever said anything about children of the past needed less or no protection.

Hope that clears it up

I apologise - I think I'm one of those people who needs things totally spelled out for them

I think you're definitely right in saying that now we are aware of such problems it is our responsibility to protect children (and animals for that matter - I cannot stand the abuse of children and animals who cannot speak out for or defend themselves).

 

[VickiVM]

You said "it happened in seconds," IMHO that was plenty of time for you to speak up. If you had been reading those papers in the park while your daughter was on the playground would you have taken that long to process a man grabbing her and walking off behind some trees with her? Why is it any different?


Anne

I have to agree with Anne here - our instincts serve a real purpose and ultimately, it's the parents that bear all accountability. I don't think over reacting is wrong whenever a red flag goes up. I wouldn't accuse anyone of doing wrong, but I certainly would have told someone in that office (an HR person, perhaps) that what that gentleman did was inappropriate and he needs to know that. His superiors can figure out a way to inform him in a professional manner.

Now having worked with the general public most of my life, I know how difficult it can be for moms to do business at an establishment when a toddler or young child is in tow and often the employees feel like they need to 'entertain' or distract the child so Mom can do what she needs to do. But to remove your child without asking first is completely inappropriate. Just a question - was your daughter getting antsy or impatient?? If not, there there was really no reason for this man to come out at all and take her to photocopy her hands. Really, think about it - how many men seek children out just to entertain them? Although his intentions may have been good, it's just a little too out of the ordinary.

I thank you for sharing this with us - I might have done the same thing myself, but this reminds me that I need to remain vigilant when it comes to protecting my children. I have daughters - 10 and 7 years old - and their innocence is precious to me!

 

[Disney Doll]

Respecting other people's privacy is sad? My children and I share plenty of affection. But share. I don't force them to hug me or kiss me if they don't want to. Most of the time, they want to. If they don't, they are entitled to have that feeling, and have it respected.

I honestly do not understand why that is a bizarre or sad thing.

I have talked with plenty of children and families at the store, at WDW, in the course of my work. I have never felt that I needed to hold or touch those children, or that I should be allowed to.

Imagine that you are at the grocery store and the clerk says "oh you are so cute" and starts tickling you. Are you okay with that? Wouldn't you ask them to stop? Why is okay for an adult to have that kind of limit, but a child is expected to accept any kind of physical contact from an adult who happens to like children.

Well, I would probably think someone tickling me at the grocery store was a bit odd, since I am an adult, but I have had the grocery baggers put their arm around my shoulder or touch me on the shoulder and say "have a nice day". And I didn't ask them to stop. I just took it for what it was worth...a kind gesture.

Again, your kid, your call. But I'd be craeful about bringing up pedohilia and tell the lead attorney in the office that he/she might want to speak to the person about taking a child without the parent's permission.

Sorry you are not liking some of the responses you are getting. One of the dangers of an Internet BB is that you may hear answers to your questions that you do not like.

 

[va32h]

Sorry you are not liking some of the responses you are getting. One of the dangers of an Internet BB is that you may hear answers to your questions that you do not like.

That's fine if people don't agree about the particulars of this. People I have told this story to in real life have not agreed.

I did take exception to someone calling me "sad" because I don't force my children to accept physical affection from other people. And I am getting tired of hearing this:

You said "it happened in seconds," IMHO that was plenty of time for you to speak up. If you had been reading those papers in the park while your daughter was on the playground would you have taken that long to process a man grabbing her and walking off behind some trees with her? Why is it any different?

Yes, and I have said at least twice in this thread that I feel HORRIBLE. HORRIBLY HORRIBLY SICK WITH GUILT. Okay? I am VERY SORRY. I feel like crap that I let someone walk off with my child. I am incredibly sorry, I deeply regret it. Thank you for reminding me again what a huge, stupid lapse in judgement I made. I screwed up. I should have stopped him. Do you think I haven't spent the last 36 hours thinking about that? I was wrong to let it happen. It was my fault. I am sorrier than you could possibly imagine, because it was MY kid after all, and none of your finger wagging could possibly hold a candle to how harshly I have judged myself since this happened.

When it comes to Britney Spears, hey no one's perfect, we all make mistakes. But in this case, people need to remind me every ten posts that it's all my fault, I obviously didn't care enough about my child to do the right thing.

 

[va32h]

Just a question - was your daughter getting antsy or impatient?? If not, there there was really no reason for this man to come out at all and take her to photocopy her hands. Really, think about it - how many men seek children out just to entertain them? Although his intentions may have been good, it's just a little too out of the ordinary.

No she wasn't (which I also said a couple times in previous posts, but this is a long thread, so I understand if that was missed.)

This guy is not involved in my case in any way, shape, or form. We had never laid eyes on him prior to yesterday. He stopped what he was doing and came out to the reception area unasked. My daughter wasn't making a peep. She wasn't crying, wasn't fussing, wasn't touching anything. We never would have left the reception area, if this guy hadn't come out to engage my daughter in an activity.

Yet another reason I thought it was odd. Distract a child who is making a fuss, okay maybe I accept that. Drop what you are doing and deliberately go out of your way to make contact? Weird.

 

[momrek06]

OP: Stop beating yourself up about this! You will have many more instances in your young life as a Mom to most likely re-think something you did or didn't do!!

CALM DOWN! Another one of those Life's Lessons Learned!! Each incident like this will only make you WISER!!! You know that ole saying..."WE LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES!"...yup, happening HERE!!!

Move on and UPWARD. Put this incident in the back of your mind and do not let it freak you out on a regular basis.

You are obviously a very good, caring mom, or this would have not bothered you so much as to Post here and get all our opinions!!

Bottomline: DD is fine...now get to the Mall and get something for DH from DD for Father's Day!!!

 

[disneynutt1225]

Personally, I don't find this weird. As others have said, some people just gravitate toward children - it's not always deviants that do so.

I'd let it go. You're only going to turn an uncomfortable situation into an even more uncomfortable situation. It's not an accusation an employer can take lightly - and any way you slice it, you'd still be saying that what that lawyer did with your child was inappropriate - it could cost him his job. And it was most likely an innocent thing that's being blown out of proportion.

Listen, I've been sexually assaulted. I'm not one to take it lightly. But, I really don't get the feeling that this guy was going to do anything to your kid. And the important thing is, you know she's safe, happy, and home with you. I would never bring her to the office again and let that be the end of it.

 

[summerrluvv]

Yet another reason I thought it was odd. Distract a child who is making a fuss, okay maybe I accept that. Drop what you are doing and deliberately go out of your way to make contact? Weird.

Since when does a child have to be acting like a brat for someone to want to interact with them? Like I posted before, maybe he didn't know what you were there for. Maybe he thought he was helping by taking her away from a situation where she would hear discussion about divorce, lawsuits, etc.? I highly doubt he was intending to do something sexual to your daughter in an office full of people and at a copy machine which I'm sure is used by the entire office and a high traffic area. I would let it go.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I'd bet he thought he might have been doing you a favor so that you could complete your business more quickly. He might have been a dad of a young child who likes to make pictures of his hands on the copy machine. I really think this was a harmless incident and that you may have taken it the wrong way. Not everyone who likes small children is a pedophile.

Both my husband and I will talk to little kids when they look like they are bored at WDW while waiting in lines or in elevators. Of course, their parents are right there and we don't touch the children at all. And our 12 yr old is right with us. Our conversations usually go like this - "Did you get to see Mickey? Have you had fun today?" Then the parents will usually chime in as well.

Not all strangers are dangerous. Some are just kind individuals who like kids.