Sleepover?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Not sure where I should ask this. I couldn't find a section for Young Women questions.

Can someone tell me what is the church stance on sleepovers now? In the past the Young Women have had sleepovers at the homes of leaders but has this been banned now?

[MarginOfError]

Not that I'm aware of.

But if it's done, I would suggest that proper supervision be in place, with at least two adults, and no adult ever be left alone with a youth.

[Suzie]

My solution is NO SLEEPOVERS. Whether they are leaders or not makes no difference to me. Unfortunately in the world we live in makes no difference.

[MarginOfError]

That seems a bit paranoid to me. I'm curious if you feel the same way about scout campouts.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I know that when my stake does youth conferences they try to have the YW stay in homes with only daughters or the sons sleep over at another house.

[Suzie]

That seems a bit paranoid to me. I'm curious if you feel the same way about scout campouts.

Why paranoid? Yes I feel the same way about any sleepover.

[MarginOfError]

Why paranoid? Yes I feel the same way about any sleepover.

Because it is paranoid.

Anyway, if you're looking for some ideas on how to protect youth, the BSA has done a lot of research and developed great guidelines. You can get a preview through their website.

BSA - Youth Protection

[Wingnut]

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/30126-no-more-sleep-overs-kids.html

[Melissa569]

True, I did do a post about this a while back, when I heard about it in my local ward. I thought it was just us, but then my friend from church told me that they are attempting to make is a church-wide council everywhere.

I'm all for safety of children... But not for isolationism. Isolationism is one of the key features of a cult. And while I do not feel we are a cult, there are millions of people out there who are covinced that we are. There have been television programs about it and everything. I don't think its a good idea to play further into that hand... Particlarly in matters of future converts.

Our ability to reach new people will greatly suffer, if we keep giving everyone reasons to think that we're "too controlling". I think as a church, we should try to avoide the majority of the "top-ten signs of a cult" as much as possible. The reason people think we might be, is because there are a few of these things that we ARE doing, so we need to proceed with caution:

Top Ten Signs Of A Cult:

1. The group/leader having absolute authority, without meaningful accountability, and is always right.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry; anyone who questions or doesn‘t agree with the group is wrong, evil, or being influenced by the devil.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies, persecutions, and constantly staying prepared for these things.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative, or even evil.

6. Former members often relate the same stories and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs about the group or leader being considered a cult.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". They cannot simply come to church on Sundays, believe in god, and strive to be a good person. They must always be striving to do more, and give more of their time to the group or leader, in order to achieve salvation.

9. The group/leader gradually cutting off more and more of the members’ connections to people and influences outside the group, and striving to gain control over more and more aspects of the followers’ personal lives.

10. The group/leader, or their designated book of faith, is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

I highlighted a few things that resemble us a bit. I do notice other things too, but I didn't highlight them because I figured it might offend... So yeah, like I said, love the LDS church, but we REALLY need to be careful about how far we push it...

Edited April 15, 2010 by Melissa569

[Guest mirancs8]

I've spoken to my older son about what is right and what is not right. He sleeps over his friends house sometimes once a month and I always make sure the mother is going to be there. Once she was going to Utah for something and I told my son let's do it next weekend or his friend can sleep over our house. Not that I don't trust the father he's awesome but you never know. It's always someone you would NEVER think could do something like that.

I made sure my son knows the difference between wrestling for fun and when it become inappropriate. I have a family member (close family member) who is a child molester and his wife has been a rock through the entire thing. I think it's because of her that he's kept himself in check all these years. It take a very special type of women who can stand by her husband and help him through something like that.

I'm not against sleep overs but you do have to make sure your kids are educated to know what is OK and what is not. It's our job to keep them safe. Knowledge is power. My older son can pick up on something that doesn't feel right. I make sure to keep the communication lines open between me and the children. What makes me feel OK about my son sleeping over a friends house is knowing the mother is there. Also I have to know the family well.

[beefche]

I've spoken to my older son about what is right and what is not right. He sleeps over his friends house sometimes once a month and I always make sure the mother is going to be there. Once she was going to Utah for something and I told my son let's do it next weekend or his friend can sleep over our house. Not that I don't trust the father he's awesome but you never know. It's always someone you would NEVER think could do something like that.

I think it is really, really sad that this man has done nothing to implicate himself as a potential molester except be born of the male gender.

[MarginOfError]

I think it is really, really sad that this man has done nothing to implicate himself as a potential molester except be born of the male gender.

That's all it takes. 80% of boys that are molested are molested by men.

Not saying I necessarily agree with what was said, but statistically speaking, the molesters are far more likely to be male than female, indicating that being more suspicious of males than females is a reasonable response.

[beefche]

That's all it takes. 80% of boys that are molested are molested by men.

Not saying I necessarily agree with what was said, but statistically speaking, the molesters are far more likely to be male than female, indicating that being more suspicious of males than females is a reasonable response.

True and although you are the statistical genius, I believe that most molesters are related to the child.

I just think it is sad that one would suspect the father and never, ever the mother to molest a child. We are seeing more and more women coming out as sexual predators. I just wonder if the stats are inflated because of no reporting of women molesters.

[nbblood]

Here is my personal stance.

I absolutely refuse to allow paranoia and fear rule my life or that of my family! Period. Unfortunately, as times progress, dangers progress with them. But I will absolutely accept prudent risk for activities that allow me and my family to experience the joys of life, whatever they may be.

In order to mitigate risk, as a parent, I must be involved and informed in the activities of my children. But I absolutely will not EVER put them in a bubble to protect them from life. Sleepovers are a fun part of kids' lives, whether it's a night over at a friend's house or a scout campout or whatever the situation may be. It's a form of social interaction and a means for children to learn and grow socially through experience. Shutting them out of that, IMHO, is not helping them. Sure, maybe, just maybe, you may be preventing them from immediate harm. But in the long run are you doing them any favors? I don't think so.

Accepting prudent risk requires involvement and knowing who, what, when, where, why and following up with supervision when needed. But I can't imagine a world where a kid can't sleep over at a friends house when the answers to these questions are suitably answered. Where does it end? Lock the kids in their room and slide sanitized food under the door until they're 25?

Again, I refuse to live in such absurd paranoia and fear.

/End Rant

[applepansy]

when I saw the title I remembered a conference talk from like 20 + years ago. The prophet (I'm remembering Pres Benson but I could be wrong) strongly counseled against sleep overs. I'll see if I can find it...... sigh..... lots of reading ahead.

[Guest mirancs8]

I wasn't trying to point to a gender. It could be any gender. I'm just taking it from my own experiences and that I have a child molester in my family. He's a man and that's the experience I had. I'm not speaking for anyone else. I have a few friends that have been molested when they were young (male and female) and most were molested by men. Like I said I'm not pointing a finger to an entire gender I'm just stating my opinion from my own experiences. My caution comes from my own experiences.

My family member is someone who you would never ever think could do such a thing. I love him dearly even though he has in the past done those things. But it has opened my eyes to the fact that you just never know. I still have a very difficult time believing he did the things that he did. Having children changes you as well. I'd rather be cautious on a sleepover then to be blind and naive. But then again I've always had trust issues.

[nbblood]

That's all it takes. 80% of boys that are molested are molested by men.

Not saying I necessarily agree with what was said, but statistically speaking, the molesters are far more likely to be male than female, indicating that being more suspicious of males than females is a reasonable response.

And what percentage of men are molesters? Clearly this is how you are justifying this claim, so let's examine the fraction of a single percent of men that are molesters rather than the glaring, eye-catching 80% figure you throw out there to catch attention.

I'm not trying to diminish the act of molestation. It's devastating. We know that. But fact is, you've lumped the entire male population into a stereotype based on the acts of less than 1% of that population. A bit over-the-top don't you think?

[NeuroTypical]

I have an understanding of the very real threat of child molestation. I understand that molestors come from most every demographic, income level, race, political affiliation, and age. Most of them are men. I understand that much abuse comes from relatives. Most of the incestual stuff comes from 13-24 yr old males. Most abuse comes from perpetrators who know their victims. Most abuse happens in places where it can - in someone's home, or on an activity, or a sleep over.

Understanding these things, and taking them into account when having my kids go somewhere or not go somewhere, does not mean I am in the grips of paranoia and fear.

A few rules - my kids don't go on sleepovers to homes where there will be 13-34 yr old boys present, or unmarried adult males. They don't go unless my wife or I feel comfortable with the kids and adults involved. Fear and paranoia don't enter the equasion. I know the chance of something happening is small. But the impacts of that thing are huge, so I judge the risk unacceptable.

LM

Edited April 15, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest mirancs8]

I absolutely refuse to allow paranoia and fear rule my life or that of my family! Period. Unfortunately, as times progress, dangers progress with them. But I will absolutely accept prudent risk for activities that allow me and my family to experience the joys of life, whatever they may be.

In order to mitigate risk, as a parent, I must be involved and informed in the activities of my children. But I absolutely will not EVER put them in a bubble to protect them from life. Sleepovers are a fun part of kids' lives, whether it's a night over at a friend's house or a scout campout or whatever the situation may be. It's a form of social interaction and a means for children to learn and grow socially through experience. Shutting them out of that, IMHO, is not helping them. Sure, maybe, just maybe, you may be preventing them from immediate harm. But in the long run are you doing them any favors? I don't think so.

Again, I refuse to live in such absurd paranoia and fear.

/End Rant

Can't agree with you more. I would not want to stop my kids from experiencing that fun in their lives. BUT I do believe you have to be more cautious and educate your children to know what is right and what is not right. You have to keep the communication open between you and your children. Yes things will happen and you can't stop everything unfortunately but you just do the best you can do. I do not keep my children in a bubble because you just cause unnecessary paranoia. I do however follow my instinct and take from my own experiences what would be best for the children.

My son goes to the camp outs, sleeps over friends houses, and does all that fun stuff but I always keep a cautious eye to anything that might be a signal something isn't right.

[MarginOfError]

And what percentage of men are molesters? Clearly this is how you are justifying this claim, so let's examine the fraction of a single percent of men that are molesters rather than the glaring, eye-catching 80% figure you throw out there to catch attention.

I'm not trying to diminish the act of molestation. It's devastating. We know that. But fact is, you've lumped the entire male population into a stereotype based on the acts of less than 1% of that population. A bit over-the-top don't you think?

I'm struggling to see the inaccuracy in anything I said. In fact, I'm quite certain that you've wildly misunderstood what I said.

But let me rephrase like this--suppose we are tasked with assigning a level of suspicion that any individual may be a sexual predator. For the purpose of this exercise, let's assume that 80% of molesters are male (in actuality, it's probably higher). Now, give me a randomly selected male and a randomly selected female. Now, suppose that by whatever process, I assign the woman a level of suspicion x. By the assumption that 80% of molesters are male, I have to assign the randomly selected male a level of suspicion 4x.

It has nothing to do with who may or may not be, or who is or is not a molester. It only has to do with probability.

[Suzie]

Because it is paranoid.

Your opinion. Unless you know my circumstances and my kids, you can't really say that.

[Wingnut]

80% of boys that are molested are molested by men.

And what percentage of men are molesters? Clearly this is how you are justifying this claim, so let's examine the fraction of a single percent of men that are molesters rather than the glaring, eye-catching 80% figure you throw out there to catch attention.

I'm not trying to diminish the act of molestation. It's devastating. We know that. But fact is, you've lumped the entire male population into a stereotype based on the acts of less than 1% of that population. A bit over-the-top don't you think?

If 80% of child molesters are men, and only 20% are women, then regardless of what percentage of men (or women) are child molesters, a child is still more likely to be molested by a man than by a woman.

[nbblood]

I'm struggling to see the inaccuracy in anything I said. In fact, I'm quite certain that you've wildly misunderstood what I said.

But let me rephrase like this--suppose we are tasked with assigning a level of suspicion that any individual may be a sexual predator. For the purpose of this exercise, let's assume that 80% of molesters are male (in actuality, it's probably higher). Now, give me a randomly selected male and a randomly selected female. Now, suppose that by whatever process, I assign the woman a level of suspicion x. By the assumption that 80% of molesters are male, I have to assign the randomly selected male a level of suspicion 4x.

It has nothing to do with who may or may not be, or who is or is not a molester. It only has to do with probability.

I'm not saying anything you said is inaccurate. I'm sure it is quite correct. And your comparison makes sense. But, what can be PERCEIVED from your data is that 80% of men are molestors.....I know that's not what you're saying but that's what the perception is.

As long as we're talking about probability....line up 100 men. Chances are that, at the most, 1 of them is a child molester. Even though they are 4 times more likely than a woman, the are MOST CERTAINLY NOT likely at all. But you've lumped them all into that stereotype by an incredibly small sample of the population. It's over the top.

Again, I don't want to diminish the gravity of molestation and certainly parents should be aware and involved with those which their children are exposed. But labeling every man a potential molester based on the very, very low probability that they actually are is quite insulting. That is the impression I get from your justification. Maybe that's just my perception, but that's what I took away from your post.

[nbblood]

Can't agree with you more. I would not want to stop my kids from experiencing that fun in their lives. BUT I do believe you have to be more cautious and educate your children to know what is right and what is not right. You have to keep the communication open between you and your children. Yes things will happen and you can't stop everything unfortunately but you just do the best you can do. I do not keep my children in a bubble because you just cause unnecessary paranoia. I do however follow my instinct and take from my own experiences what would be best for the children.

My son goes to the camp outs, sleeps over friends houses, and does all that fun stuff but I always keep a cautious eye to anything that might be a signal something isn't right.

Absolutely agree. That's what parents do. Or at least what they should do. Unfortunately too many parents don't. Anyway, I agree 100%.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thank you all very much for your personal opinions which I appreciate, but what I was actually asking was if anyone cantell me if the Church has an official policy regarding sleepovers. Has the Church in fact banned them worldwide?

I can't help thinking about EFY and such like and the fact that children sleep away from home for several nights on thos occasions, usually with adult in charge who the parents have never seen n their lives before.

I do find it incredibly sad that every man is a child molesting suspect these days and daren't even speak to a child in the street for fear of being classed as a paedophile. Although it has been said that 80% of cases of child molesting have been by men it must therefore follow that 20% of cases have been women and yet people seem to have no fear of leaving their child with a women. There is still a 1 in 400 chance she could be a danger to the child if there is a 1 in 100 chance that a man could be.

I remember a time when if a child fell off a bike you could pick them up and check if they we OK, bathe a grazed knee, give them a glass of lemonade. Now you daren't even look at a child falling off a bike in case you get arrested for molesting them. Human kindness has been legislated out of our lives.