Protect your children from the sins of others?

[Guest]

Take this "for instance" scenario.

One of your very best friends is married to someone with a porn addiction. It comes out that he has done some really abominable things. Nothing involving children or violence, but pretty much every violation of the marriage covenant that you can think of. Things are hard and the marriage almost ends, but he seems very repentant and they both decide to work hard at saving their family.

Would you feel that you need to change how to socialize (or not) with him? Would you feel it necessary to keep your kids from him?

[beefche]

What do you mean keep your kids from him? Do you mean not let him be alone with them? Why do you feel he is a threat to the kids?

[Guest]

I don't, I'm trying to get a feel for a situation I'm observing.

And it's literally more a, "we're having this get-together, you and your kids can come, but we don't want your husband around our kids so he's not invited".

[beefche]

Then, if I have worked things out with my husband (or am trying to and he's cooperating), then I wouldn't attend. It appears they are dictating the social structure. If they don't want to socialize with my husband, then they are essentially cutting off socialization with me and the kids. IMO

[Just_A_Guy]

Can anyone point out a cogent argument as to why this male poses a danger to children, or is this just a passive-aggressive attempt to punish wrongdoing?

I've been in divorce court where moms (mostly in Utah County, incidentally) tried to end or limit their ex-husband's time with their children on the grounds that dad uses porn to some extent or other. But when you try to get them to produce a clinician who will testify as to why Dad is a danger to the kids . . . the arguments tend to evaporate pretty fast.

[Guest]

I'm as anti-porn as anyone, but I agree. I don't see the harm in having him with his family at social events. At this point in recovery I probably wouldn't send my kids to their house without me, but that's not the question.

I think it really does come down to punishment in this specific case, and I have good reason to believe so. I just wondered if anyone objective could give me a good reason that they might be right.

[pam]

If I found out he was addicted to kid porn that might be a different thing.

[Guest]

I agree, pam. Thankfully that's not the case.

[Bini]

I'm probably one of the more liberal people on this forum and yet when I had my daughter (our first) I wanted to shield her from virtually everything. Still do I suppose but I pick my battles.

I have a BIL (currently has his act together) that I felt did nothing right -- NOTHING. He mooched off family, was mid 40's living with the parents, didn't pay child support to his kids from a first marriage that are now above 18, had a nasty habit of bringing nasty girlfriends to family functions, started a whirlwind fling with a married LDS woman, always made inappropriate comments to me, and overall was just creepy. I told my husband that I didn't want him touching, let alone, just being around our daughter because he put me off so much. All that said, no matter how imperfect he was, I didn't believe that he would ever hurt my child, so I didn't hide her from his presence. But, I make sure that I'm always present when he's around my daughter because he does tend to revert back to a lifestyle that I don't approve of, and if I see stuff that I (we) don't like, we leave.

[Backroads]

I think it would all depend on his social behavior. We have no reason to suspect he is a threat to children. But what sort of remarks would he be making? Would he be discussing porn? (I doubt this, but it's all for the sake of the discussion.) Would his behavior be lewd? Or can he be expected to be a decent guy who just happens to have a porn problem?

[Traveler]

As a backdrop to my comment I would like to highlight somewhat a meeting I recently had with one of my customers. As an outside expert I was brought in to research a problem and report at company meeting. The tenor of the meeting was quite hostile. The company is involved in sophisticated high tech manufacturing that employes significant automation and robotics. A major failure had occurred in their primary manufacturing facility that resulted in the lost in excess of several million dollars. In today's economy the mishap was devastating to the bottom line and the ability of the company to remain competitive.

As part of my research I had isolated the problem and reported to the company the failure. The CEO and several of the top management bristled somewhat concerning the report and after a short recess they demanded forcefully that I provide for the company a solution (money no object - which is never really true) that would insure that this failure never happen again.

This is what I do - I deal with these problems to make companies successful. I turned to the CEO and informed all at the meeting that they and the wrong attitude towards the problem - that part of the reason of failure was this very attitude. The solution was not in preventing the problem but in being able to identify the initial stages of the problem and knowing what to do to minimize the effect.

One of the things going on inside the company was the fear of being associated with the problem and blamed. This fear drove responses to run from the problem rather than anyone running to the problem to do what was necessary to minimize the effect. I suggested that the company take what we had learned and put a step by step process into place a procedure outlining exactly and preciously what was to be done with assignments of management to monitor and identify the initial stages (since management was in key position to oversee and realize what was happening). I also suggested a different focus - rather than drill down on individuals to blame for specific loses that the company drill down on individuals to incentive them for savings that their action realized for the company.

I think the same attitude applies to raising children. No doubt children are far more valuable than high tech manufacturing facilities and G-d has intrusted parents with managing the universe's most precious resource - children. Do not misunderstand me - we should never through (encourage) our children into bad situations. But shielding them form all possible harm just is not possible and I personally believe is the wrong focus. I believe we need to teach children how to recognize the initial stages of problems and then what they need to do when they recognize problems. Sometimes I believe that children (like the rest of us) become afraid to respond to difficulties because they think that if they act they will be blamed in part for what is happening.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Maybe this rewrite might shed some light:

One of your very best friends is married to someone [who is sinning regularly, possibly suffering from some sort of addiction]. It comes out that he has done some really abominable things. Nothing involving children or violence, but pretty much every [type of sin that can fit in this particular category of sins]. Things are hard and the marriage almost ends, but he seems very repentant and they both decide to work hard at saving their family.

Would you feel that you need to change how to socialize (or not) with him? Would you feel it necessary to keep your kids from him?

I don't know if it helps or not, I just like to remind myself that everyone's a sinner.

[Suzie]

Take this "for instance" scenario.

One of your very best friends is married to someone with a porn addiction. It comes out that he has done some really abominable things. Nothing involving children or violence, but pretty much every violation of the marriage covenant that you can think of. Things are hard and the marriage almost ends, but he seems very repentant and they both decide to work hard at saving their family.

Would you feel that you need to change how to socialize (or not) with him? Would you feel it necessary to keep your kids from him?

In order to answer the question, I would need more details about the kind of abominable things he has done. If you cannot share, I totally understand.

[Finrock]

I've done some really abominable things. Do I think people need to protect their children from me? Absolutely not. Do I understand that people would want to keep their children away from me if they knew the abominable things I've done? Absolutely. That doesn't mean they are justified in how they may or may not treat me, but I would certainly understand.

I happen to be, perhaps too much so, a bit paranoid about my own children. I know from personal experience that just because you know someone doesn't mean that you can always trust them. Being a victim to child abuse from family members I tend to never really trust others with my children and I always follow up with my kids to make sure nobody mistreated them.

Regards,

Finrock

[mirkwood]

If you are concerned about his contact with your kids you really have two options that I feel are appropriate. You can not attend and keep your kids away, or you can be vigilant at the get together and act only if you see/hear/feel something is wrong/dangerous. If there is no active threat, I personally would go with the second option.

[Gwen]

If he can behave like a normal person then I'd have no issue inviting him to my home. That is an environment I control. However, I might be hesitant to let my kids go to their home without me. Not for fear that he would do something to them but what if he's had a slip and has porn around the house the kids could find?

I find it very rude to invite all but one member of the family to an event. It's a family event or not.

To address the question in general topic of the thread title.....

I think we should keep our kids safe from danger but that is not the same as not exposing them to "other's sins". I try very hard not to shelter my kids from different ppl. They need to learn that everyone has different values and lifestyles. They need to learn how to accept and respect that. They need to learn proper manners around it.

My kids have seen my brother covered in tattoos and smoking. They understand this is their uncle and we love him. As they get older they will begin to understand what the bar in my other brother's garage is. He is their uncle and we love him. Both men respect my family as well, they don't drink/party with my family there and when smoking they take it away from everyone outside. They are coming to understand my sister's partner, they know our personal values but they also know that is their aunt and we love her and anyone she loves. My kids are safe around all of them but they are not sheltered from "their sins". I think it's more important for them to learn unconditional love than to be sheltered from ppl who are different.

[Guest]

I don't feel that he's a direct threat to kids, and nothing he's done would indicate that he would be. We're talking about adultery, mostly, and everything required to succeed at being adulterous. But the people who are shutting him out of the social circle, as it were, are using their kids as their reason. Again I just wondered if I'm missing a valid reason for that, because although I abhor what he's done, I recognize how hard he's trying to make it right and I see no threat in having him at the same birthday party or barbecue with me and my kids.

[mirkwood]

It sounds to me like there are family members that are continuing to punish him for his past actions.

[pam]

Forgiveness is a hard concept. We expect it from others but yet find it hard to return.

[beefche]

I have been thinking about this over night. Here are my two sides of thinking.

I have a friend who ended her marriage for reasons that I think were the most ridiculous and frivilous of reasons. I have no say in her decisions in life, but I was still angry at her for ending her marriage. I never told her of my anger (I'm sure she felt it as our relationship cooled at that time for various reasons). But, I had no right to anger. Neither she or her now ex husband are related to me. As much as I disagreed with her decision, it had no impact on me or my life. My anger was from my own sense of right and wrong. I had to learn to let go of the anger.

Had I had children, I can see how my anger would have kept us away from her and her family. Instead of telling her that I was angry at her (for which I had absolutely no right), I might have found some other excuse to avoid social situations with her.

However, in the scenario given, that's the only thing I could understand why family #2 wants nothing to do with husband #1. They just don't want to associate with him because they are angry at him or perhaps even disgusted with his actions/behavior. And sometimes, that anger takes a long time to get over.

Again, if I am wife #1 married to husband #1 and we are working on our relationship, then no matter the feelings from family #2, if they don't want to associate with my husband, then I cannot support that. Even if they are family. If we are having a family gathering (meaning, ALL family), then I will either bring my husband with me or we will all stay away. If family #2 invites us to a get together with them but tells me that husband isn't welcome, then I will tell them we will not be attending. They can work through their anger/disgust/whatever, I can still keep in contact with them, but social gatherings are for my family and as long as he is my family, we will attend or stay away together.

Easier said than done, I know.

[Finrock]

I don't feel that he's a direct threat to kids, and nothing he's done would indicate that he would be. We're talking about adultery, mostly, and everything required to succeed at being adulterous. But the people who are shutting him out of the social circle, as it were, are using their kids as their reason. Again I just wondered if I'm missing a valid reason for that, because although I abhor what he's done, I recognize how hard he's trying to make it right and I see no threat in having him at the same birthday party or barbecue with me and my kids.

I don't agree with the behavior you describe of shutting the man out, particularly when he is showing forth the fruits of repentance. Even though I am paranoid about it at times, I allow my children to go and do things with others. What I do is to make sure I always counsel with my children before they go. I remind them that their body is their stewardship and noone should be touching them in their private parts. I tell them that they should never be afraid to speak out if they feel uncomfortable, etc. Then, I also always follow up after they have been away or at someone's home and ask them if anyone did or said anything weird or uncomfortable. I guess a big difference between what I do and what you are describing is that I don't discriminate. I don't care if my kids are going to the home of the people next door or to the bishop's home. I treat everybody in an equally paranoid fashion.

Regards,

Finrock

[Backroads]

I don't feel that he's a direct threat to kids, and nothing he's done would indicate that he would be. We're talking about adultery, mostly, and everything required to succeed at being adulterous. But the people who are shutting him out of the social circle, as it were, are using their kids as their reason. Again I just wondered if I'm missing a valid reason for that, because although I abhor what he's done, I recognize how hard he's trying to make it right and I see no threat in having him at the same birthday party or barbecue with me and my kids.

His adultery has no bearing on the kids in the social circle, correct?

[Praetorian_Brow]

So we are to conclude from your initial observation that anyone who sleeps around, cheats and has or will look at pornography is some kind of perceived threat to children? Perhaps there is more information that you are not sharing, but its obviously quite outrageous to say a large portion of the world is a threat to a child, based on assumptions about their sexual habits.

My sister has a friend who is originally from Utah and before she could sleep over at my parents house, the friends parents came over to interview my Father and Step-Mom. My step-mom is on the board for her Catholic church and my Dad was a bishop, so their perceptions and assumptions were not only ridiculous but insulting and had no merit.

I understand the theory about spiritual danger and protecting ones kids, but man, I think some take it too far. Mormons do shun people on a regular basis and its sad to see the effect it has, on the ward, the person being shunned and the family.

It still astonishes me that so much hypocrisy exists. In my case, I was shunned and labelled as dangerous by drug addicts and unworthy people who declared themselves worthy, all because I was honest about my porn use, mind you it was a select few, but they seemed to have the most emotional impact.

I am still amazed at how sheltered some people are, which can be a good thing, but talk about the Scarlet Letter treatment.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[Guest]

His adultery has no bearing on the kids in the social circle, correct?

None that I can imagine.

[Guest]

I think the biggest thing is that he is- or seems to be- extremely contrite and repentant, and he's doing absolutely everything he can to treat the addiction and heal his family. If he was unrepentant about it, or sitting around whining that it was too hard to change, that would be another thing. He's even taking the social consequences in the chin. It hurts him that he's lost friends, but he recognizes that actions have consequences. For time being they're putting their energy into fixing things at home, though, and those who are harshly cutting him off will have to deal with their own problems. It hurts his wife the most that people she thought were her friends have essentially abandoned them in their worst hour.