Mother gives 9-year-old girl how-to lessons in sex

[PRMoon]

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070211/NEWS/702110531

PROVIDENCE— A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman’s 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold of Woonsocket and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pretrial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex “all the time” in front of the child and that “we don’t believe in hiding anything.”


He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain, Prata said.

Asked why he thought a child that age should know about sexual acts, Prata replied, “We wanted to prepare her so she would know how,” according to a report from the investigator, Vanessa E. Cisela.

The allegations against the couple were revealed in December 2004 after the girl went to live with her biological father in North Adams, Mass., after spending the summer with her mother in Woonsocket. A teacher in North Adams called a child abuse hot line to report that the girl, who is now 11, said her mother and her boyfriend had sex in front of her.

The child told a Massachusetts social services investigator that her mother and Prata never touched her or tried to include her in the sex.

Prata and Arnold are free on bail pending a March 19 pretrial conference.


I'm not sure how to feel about this one. I know it's not a good feeling though. Anythoughts from the class?

 

[dj ben2]

i a bit wierd but ive known kids that had sex in yr 4 at school in the toilet..... these days especially area dependant children get into it quite young some might disagree but as long as she wasnt included int he sex i dont think that theres much wrong with it evne tho if i ever had a child i wouldnt dream of showing a 9 yr old how to fvck

 

[ValleyDJing]

A bit young and even if she was older, if its really that important, couldn't they have shown her a porno or something?

 

[diplomatic_lies]

While I agree with open attitudes towards sex, and that repressing sexual behaviour only makes girls more likely to have sex...

This is taking things a little far. Call me puritan, but there's something a little wrong about this:

He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex.

 

[Shiftkey]

Ehhh, not how I'd raise my kids, but I don't think they should go to jail for something like this. It definitely would hurt the girl more than not if her mom goes to jail.

 

[~attrACTION~]

I know this is not nearly as extreme, but I had a very sexual Biology professor once (who was also quite hot). She told us in class that she taught her 15-year-old daughter how to give good bl0wjobs. It was hilarious.

Edit: Why is the word bl0wjob censored? Is that not one of the goals of this forum, to get bl0wjobs?

 

[PersonalJesus]

Hahaha, now that they're making such a big deal over this and sending mommy to jail, any "psychological damage" that was there is gonna be magnified 1000000x.

 

[spider_007]

I remember as a kid, playing momy and dady with naigborhood girls, laying on top of them....
(wtf happend to me??????)

That being said...I think a frank talk would be enough....no need for a live demonstation.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Should have just given the girl the Dr. Suess book "Pop On Top."

 

[Vulpine]

"Love making", having sex, intercourse, copulation, fornication, masturbation, foreplay... these things are not evil. Kids will see thousands of intimate interactions before they actually do them themselves. Kissing? Hugging? It's the human display of affection. If the law steps in and says "you can't raise your kids to believe anything but what society wants them to believe", then it seems that the next step would be no public displays of affection as a law (among other ridiculously oppressing belief/thought imposition).

Some people are very open sexually. If parents wanted their children to grow up believing that sex is not dirty, sex is not evil, and that you can have sex for pleasure without guilt... I must say, that actually good parenting.

If I was their lawyer, this would be a cakewalk. This falls under "freedom of religion". "Big Brother" is imposing it's beliefs on people, beliefs based on religious ideas, and is out-of-bounds. :nono: Child neglegence? I think they are ahead of the curve in preparing their child for life. Cakewalk. Then I'd turn around and have the city, county, state pay for my lawyer's fee plus a compensation for lost wages.

This story is ridiculous. This is exactly why we can't see b0obs on TV. People are taught that the human form is dirty, sex is wrong, and parents are scared to death of punishing their kids.

People know what's right and wrong. You KNOW there is nothing wrong with this, yet people want to impose their views on others via, well, situations like this. It is no business of the government's what I do with my family. None. If I want to stick my wang in a chick's bung, or another dude's poopchute, that's none of the government's business. But, there are laws against sodomy because someone thinks it's wrong. In the military, you face UCMJ charges if you are caught sodomizing a man OR woman. Who cares? It's my wang and their bung... how does it affect society? If the recipient is willing, who is the law protecting or serving? (I'm not saying I want to plug dudes in the butt, I'm just using the example and drawing a parallel.)

Ridiculous.

Consider this: You can give someone the finger, but you can't go up to them and give them a hug.

 

[KontrollerX]

Ya know if they waited until the girl was a little older and asked her if she would like to see them do this first it might seem a little more ok.

An open attitude for sex is the best way to go but this at that girl's age is just going too far too soon.

She's still a kid for Christ sakes.

I mean sure kids are doing it younger and younger but yeesh.

Like another poster said just hand her a porn vid.

No need for the creepy live presentation.

 

[Vulpine]

She's still a kid for Christ sakes.

So oblivious to what you're saying.

"Christ" is right there in the sentence.

Look. Think.

Creepy? Is it? Is it "Creepy for Christ sakes."

Oh, and notice how you even capitalized "Christ"? You are pushing your religious beliefs and influences onto others whether you are aware of it or not.

Freudian slip and fall.

 

[KontrollerX]

I'm just giving my opinion.

Also I'm an Atheist and that was capitalized too.

Big freakin deal, its my style not something for you to read some hidden deep meaning into.

You assume too much.

Anyway stuff like this has been proven by psychiatry to fvck kids up but go on believing what you want.

Never said you couldn't.

 

[Charm]

I'm just giving my opinion.

Also I'm an Atheist and that was capitalized too.

Big freakin deal, its my style not something for you to read some hidden deep meaning into.

You assume too much.

Anyway stuff like this has been proven by psychiatry to fvck kids up but go on believing what you want.

Never said you couldn't.

If you are so sure of yourself, point us to ONE proven case study that proves that "Stuff exactly like this" is proven to fvck kids up. This isn't about believing what you want, its about a family being accused of child-neglect for allowing the daughter to watch a completely natural act in a sex-repressed society.

 

[spider_007]

" Love making", having sex, intercourse, copulation, fornication, masturbation, foreplay... these things are not evil. Kids will see thousands of intimate interactions before they actually do them themselves. Kissing? Hugging? It's the human display of affection. If the law steps in and says "you can't raise your kids to believe anything but what society wants them to believe", then it seems that the next step would be no public displays of affection as a law (among other ridiculously oppressing belief/thought imposition).

Some people are very open sexually. If parents wanted their children to grow up believing that sex is not dirty, sex is not evil, and that you can have sex for pleasure without guilt... I must say, that actually good parenting.

the question you have to ask your self is; what's best for the kid. Is it alright to teach you kids to "be complete sluts" when they grow up....will that impact thair realationships in the long run....There is a line between general peranting, and the point where the goverment has to step in because your abusing your child.

This story is ridiculous. This is exactly why we can't see b0obs on TV. People are taught that the human form is dirty, sex is wrong, and parents are scared to death of punishing their kids.

I agree with you partialy here. I live in canada, where boobs on tv, and foul language can be broadcasted on national tv (even though it rarly happens).

It is no business of the government's what I do with my family. None.

That child will grow up and will be part of the society that the goverment has to care for....it's in their best interest.

In the military, you face UCMJ charges if you are caught sodomizing a man OR woman. Who cares? It's my wang and their bung... how does it affect society? If the recipient is willing, who is the law protecting or serving? (I'm not saying I want to plug dudes in the butt, I'm just using the example and drawing a parallel.)

It goes against what the military stands for and what it is. It's a group people trained to fight and kill....there needs to be a trust there and discipline. All that goes against it.

Consider this: You can give someone the finger, but you can't go up to them and give them a hug.

Giving somebody a finger is non-invasive (sp?), giving someone a hug is invading their personal space....it makes people uncomforatable....if you shoot them a finger, they can just turn the head........

 

[spider_007]

its about a family being accused of child-neglect for allowing the daughter to watch a completely natural act in a sex-repressed society.

1)GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR AZZ.

2) LOOK AROUND

3) There are more whooores now ( and chicks that dress like it) then there ware ever in the human hystory.

 

[Vulpine]

the question you have to ask your self is; what's best for the kid. Is it alright to teach you kids to "be complete sluts" when they grow up....will that impact thair realationships in the long run....There is a line between general peranting, and the point where the goverment has to step in because your abusing your child.

Who said anyone was teaching the kid to be a "complete slut"? Do you not see that having a responsible and mature view of sex is contrary to being a slut? And, "be complete sluts"? Who's measure or gauge are using to determine if the woman is a "slut"? Again, you are imposing your beliefs. What's good for you might not be good for others.

It goes against what the military stands for and what it is. It's a group people trained to fight and kill....there needs to be a trust there and discipline. All that goes against it.

How very acute of you to say that. What the military stands for? Then what exactly does "I am an American fighting soldier, fighting for America and it's way of life." actually mean if it doesn't imply "defending freedoms"?

How would you know anything about what the United States military stands for? Were you in? Are you from the United States? Hmm. Maybe the Canadian military stands for "Whatever, whatever, and protection against buttsex." but not the United States military.

Giving somebody a finger is non-invasive (sp?), giving someone a hug is invading their personal space....it makes people uncomforatable....if you shoot them a finger, they can just turn the head........

Again, you didn't think past the obvious. The point is that you can display negativity towards other people legally, but can't display affection legally. The concept of "personal space" is exactly what this thread is about. The government is violating this couple's, and this child's, "personal space" and imposing views that can't be proven right or wrong.

 

[Vulpine]

That child will grow up and will be part of the society that the goverment has to care for....it's in their best interest.

This is amazing. This sentence makes me want to break things.

"care for"

"government has to care for"

"society that the govenment has to care for"

"part of the society that government has to care for"


Let me ask you this: Why do we even let children be raised by parents at all since, apparently, government has to care for society anyway? Why not send children to a government home to be raised in accordance with what it wants? It seems far more proactive.

My point is that the government isn't my babysitter. The government certainly has no place in telling me what to believe or think.

 

[Vulpine]

1)GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR AZZ.

2) LOOK AROUND

3) There are more whooores now ( and chicks that dress like it) then there ware ever in the human hystory.

"were"

"history"

"GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR AZZ."

 

[djbr]

This is amazing. This sentence makes me want to break things.

"care for"

"government has to care for"

"society that the govenment has to care for"

"part of the society that government has to care for"


Let me ask you this: Why do we even let children be raised by parents at all since, apparently, government has to care for society anyway? Why not send children to a government home to be raised in accordance with what it wants? It seems far more proactive.

My point is that the government isn't my babysitter. The government certainly has no place in telling me what to believe or think.

DAMN I HATE THAT SH!T TOO!!!

The worse thing is, in the end people just cease to think waiting for the government to do the "right" thing.

Take care of them. Putting food on their mouths. Protecting people from themselves.

Pathetic.