Is this ok to talk about?

[EasterJoy]

Would you say the same thing if it was a grandfather making comments about the “perky” breasts of a young woman?

I can think of two separate instances, both in my schooling and my employed life, of “dirty old men” whose off-color comments, and “handsy” behavior were overlooked for years due to the same kind of “charity”, and because they were otherwise accomplished in their fields of work.

But both of the men involved were eventually hustled off into an earlier-than-planned retirement. In the case of one man, someone actually did file a formal sexual harassment claim, and in the case of the other, “new management” took over and didn’t feel the same loyalty to him as his old cronies, certainly not enough to risk a sexual harassment suit that would have affected the whole company negatively.

Due to our really messed up sexual mores, I think many people are actually longing for some boundaries to what is permitted, and in the case of “sexual harassment” or “nonconsensual sexual contact”, they are happy to come down hard on those who transgress those minimal boundaries. Certainly, I wouldn’t expect much charity for those seniors who are still employed even if they have lost control of their frontal lobes.

This was not someone working at a store. This was an old lady talking about her granddaughter.

If someone talked like this in a professional or volunteer setting, of course they’d be done working anywhere near children. A grandparent who talks like this isn’t one that the grandchildren are going to want to be alone with or that they ought to be alone with, for obvious reasons.

Even among totally secular people, that was a vulgar, inappropriate and embarrassing thing to say. I’m not saying it should not be taken seriously by those with some place to take it seriously. When my mother started saying inappropriate things, it was one of the signs that she literally needed to be in the care of a geriatric psychiatrist.

Even among totally secular people, however, there is an understanding that you don’t just lock Grandma up when she’s afflicted with mild or moderate dementia. Well, if Grandma is still allowed out in public, someone is going to overhear her. The kindest thing to do for her relatives is act as if you heard nothing, change the subject and to let them handle it.

Yes, unfortunately there are a few people out there who never had any sense of propriety. That doesn’t mean this kind of talk is “OK” with anybody. It’s just that there is a limit on when others step in and when they don’t. This is not one of those times a total stranger would step in. The stranger should not by any means conclude that “this is the way people talk now.” It is not.

 

[AnnArbor]

What are you going to do about it if it’s just strangers in a store, though?

If I heard someone say something like that and I actually knew them, sure, I might try to figure out if something is going on besides just rudeness. But I think it’s frankly odd for the OP, at least based on the information provided, to be so concerned about the sayings and doings of total strangers. Is it unfortunate? Yes. A sign of the times? Potentially.

But what is the use, really? I am not trying to be flippant. I’m annoyed when people talk loudly in front of my kids and use coarse language. I’m annoyed if it’s just me, too, because frankly I don’t want to hear it. But at some point you have to let that stuff roll off your back. That’s NOT at all the same thing as saying that it is OK or permissible talk. There have always been rude people saying or doing rude things.

This. If these are total strangers, it falls into the category of weird things you hear in the course of a day. Not that it’s OK, but it could have been the grandmother talking to her husband and lamenting how her own body has changed. It sounds as if the granddaughter was not present to be embarrassed, so it is definitely odd and inappropriate – but really not the OP’s concern.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

This was not someone working at a store. This was an old lady talking about her granddaughter.

If someone talked like this in a professional or volunteer setting, of course they’d be done working anywhere near children. A grandparent who talks like this isn’t one that the grandchildren are going to want to be alone with or that they ought to be alone with, for obvious reasons.

Even among totally secular people, that was a vulgar, inappropriate and embarrassing thing to say. I’m not saying it should not be taken seriously by those with some place to take it seriously. When my mother started saying inappropriate things, it was one of the signs that she literally needed to be in the care of a geriatric psychiatrist.

Even among totally secular people, however, there is an understanding that you don’t just lock Grandma up when she’s afflicted with mild or moderate dementia. Well, if Grandma is still allowed out in public, someone is going to overhear her. The kindest thing to do for her relatives is act as if you heard nothing, change the subject and to let them handle it.

Again, would you say the same if the person making inappropriate comments was a Grandpa, not a Grandma? Now I think this particular comment is fairly mild and can be laughed off as “Grandma being Grandma” but sadly, it has been the case for a while that Grandpas (more than Grandmas) are allowed some leeway in being a “dirty old man” and their victims are merely advised to “not be alone with Mr. X”, much as you have suggested people not be alone with the Grandma in the OP.

I am happy that you concede a “dirty old man” or “dirty old woman” has no place in a professional setting among young people. Hopefully you have never been given advice by another student that “when you’re in Mr. X’s class, be sure to sit as far back in the room as possible”. For after all his odd comments were just “Mr. X being Mr. X” and he was harmless, no big deal if he touched his students on the behind once in a while? The unstated subtext being “if you have an issue with him then it’s YOU who have the problem”.

Yes, sadly, some senior citizens don’t just make blatantly sexual comments, they go as far as to touch young people inappropriately. Some, I am sure, acted in a similar way when they were younger though likely were less open about it. They may or may not be guilty of mortal sin, but I think there is a danger in being “charitable” to the point that you are being complicit in the victimization of innocents. Much as a rabid dog is not morally culpable for indiscriminately biting people, that does not mean that if a neighbor has a rabid dog, the most charitable response is to “act as if you heard nothing, change the subject and to let them handle it.”

ETA: Now I do think the particular scenario by the OP is harmless enough that one should be charitable and assume it was just a “senior moment” but I think in the past society has tended to be TOO charitable to seniors, especially those in positions of authority, of course the Church has weathered its own storm regarding sexual abuse, but sadly I think this is one of the reasons sexual predators often get away with their actions, at least historically. BTW “Mr. X” AFAIK got off scot-free, he is not even among the first 2 examples I gave of seniors who did eventually get punished in some way.

 

[EasterJoy]

Again, would you say the same if the person making inappropriate comments was a Grandpa, not a Grandma? Now I think this particular comment is fairly mild and can be laughed off as “Grandma being Grandma” but sadly, it has been the case for a while that Grandpas (more than Grandmas) are allowed some leeway in being a “dirty old man” and their victims are merely advised to “not be alone with Mr. X”, much as you have suggested people not be alone with the Grandma in the OP.

I am happy that you concede a “dirty old man” or “dirty old woman” has no place in a professional setting among young people. Hopefully you have never been given advice by another student that “when you’re in Mr. X’s class, be sure to sit as far back in the room as possible”. For after all his odd comments were just “Mr. X being Mr. X” and he was harmless, no big deal if he touched his students on the behind once in a while? The unstated subtext being “if you have an issue with him then it’s YOU who have the problem”.

Yes, sadly, some senior citizens don’t just make blatantly sexual comments, they go as far as to touch young people inappropriately. Some, I am sure, acted in a similar way when they were younger though likely were less open about it. They may or may not be guilty of mortal sin, but I think there is a danger in being “charitable” to the point that you are being complicit in the victimization of innocents. Much as a rabid dog is not morally culpable for indiscriminately biting people, that does not mean that if a neighbor has a rabid dog, the most charitable response is to “act as if you heard nothing, change the subject and to let them handle it.”

ETA: Now I do think the particular scenario by the OP is harmless enough that one should be charitable and assume it was just a “senior moment” but I think in the past society has tended to be TOO charitable to seniors, especially those in positions of authority, of course the Church has weathered its own storm regarding sexual abuse, but sadly I think this is one of the reasons sexual predators often get away with their actions, at least historically. BTW “Mr. X” AFAIK got off scot-free, he is not even among the first 2 examples I gave of seniors who did eventually get punished in some way.

We’re getting a bit far afield of the original question, which was that the OP had overheard an older woman making a vulgar comment and wanted to know, “I was mortified to hear what she was saying. Do I need to lighten up and go with the times?” The answer is no, not even the totally secular people talk like this about adolescent girls. Even though older people have been known to blurt out creepy things, because they’re losing their filter on their speech, it is of course still vulgar and creepy, and not any reflection of prevailing norms of polite conversation. Secular society has not gone entirely to the devil in a hand basket.

I’m sure the OP was not half so mortified as the granddaughter would have been, had she heard a comment like that. Yes, it is different when your grandmother, who was herself a young girl once, says something like that, as opposed to a grandpa who would have been a leering and entirely inappropriate boy at the same age.

Yes, I’m only saying that when you overhear something like this, you should neither presume that secular people talk like this now nor take a lot of offense. There is a third option, which is to assume the older woman is either losing her buttons or taking advantage of her matriarchal position, someone the family doesn’t presume to be able to correct.

And no, I do not think that older people, regardless of gender, should be making comments like this and considered “harmless.” Talking like this is mortifying at the very least (to the subject of the comment, especially) and grooming behavior at the very worst. Such a person would not be allowed to volunteer around young people, but you can’t keep her from talking out loud in restaurants. There is rarely a “duty to report” when you overhear a comment like this made by a stranger. In that case, you try to mind your own business and not make the situation any more mortifying than it already is, that is all I mean.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

We’re getting a bit far afield of the original question, which was that the OP had overheard an older woman making a vulgar comment and wanted to know, “I was mortified to hear what she was saying. Do I need to lighten up and go with the times?” The answer is no, not even the totally secular people talk like this about adolescent girls. Even though older people have been known to blurt out creepy things, because they’re losing their filter on their speech, it is of course still vulgar and creepy, and not any reflection of prevailing norms of polite conversation. Secular society has not gone entirely to the devil in a hand basket.

I think some who are very religious assume “godless” people are all total heathens and certainly I’d disagree with that.

And no, I do not think that older people, regardless of gender, should be making comments like this and considered “harmless.” Talking like this is mortifying at the very least (to the subject of the comment, especially) and grooming behavior at the very worst. Such a person would not be allowed to volunteer around young people, but you can’t keep her from talking out loud in restaurants. There is rarely a “duty to report” when you overhear a comment like this made by a stranger. In that case, you try to mind your own business and not make the situation any more mortifying than it already is, that is all I mean.

Thank you for clarifying. I certainly don’t think old people should be “locked up” or not allowed in public for making gauche comments, but I also have come across instances of people making too many excuses for such people, and the well-being of others is not taken into account. AFAIK, nobody ever reported “Mr. X” to his bosses because everyone saw his behavior being allowed to continue, and so we (being kids) assumed Those in Authority found it acceptable, and those who found it creepy must just be overly sensitive.

Of course this was decades ago, and attitudes about such behavior in general were pretty lax. Hazing used to be seen as a rite of passage, now even fairly mild instances such as highly paid pro athletes being “forced” to wear Halloween costumes in public for a Rookie Hazing Day, are banned.

However, despite my sensitivity to such actions, I agree that I don’t think a random person coming across Mr. X in a restaurant, and hearing one of his off-color comments. had some “duty to report” him to anyone.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think some who are very religious assume “godless” people are all total heathens and certainly I’d disagree with that.

Thank you for clarifying. I certainly don’t think old people should be “locked up” or not allowed in public for making gauche comments, but I also have come across instances of people making too many excuses for such people, and the well-being of others is not taken into account. AFAIK, nobody ever reported “Mr. X” to his bosses because everyone saw his behavior being allowed to continue, and so we (being kids) assumed Those in Authority found it acceptable, and those who found it creepy must just be overly sensitive.

Of course this was decades ago, and attitudes about such behavior in general were pretty lax. Hazing used to be seen as a rite of passage, now even fairly mild instances such as highly paid pro athletes being “forced” to wear Halloween costumes in public for a Rookie Hazing Day, are banned.

However, despite my sensitivity to such actions, I agree that I don’t think a random person coming across Mr. X in a restaurant, and hearing one of his off-color comments. had some “duty to report” him to anyone.

Point well-taken. For instance, the protection-of-children training for parents in our archdiocese makes it clear that it is a bad practice to force children to hug a relative or friend of the family who makes them uncomfortable for any reason. Even if that relative is indeed harmless, forcing a child to accept intimate gestures gives the child the message that his or her intuition about who is safe and who is not safe or who they do and don’t want to be intimate with isn’t good enough to say “no” to an adult who wants to touch them.

After all, if you want your children to have the courage to say “no” to their romantic interest who is going too fast, asking for inappropriate intimacies or just being disrespectful, you have to bring them up knowing they have the authority to say “no” to someone they love and respect.

Children need to be given the authority to say “no, that person creeps me out,” even when it is Grandma or Grandpa. That is how they develop the confidence to say “no” to anybody who creeps them out or even gives them an uneasy feeling, regardless of the person’s social status. That is a very powerful and necessary thing for a person to have, even as an adult.

In this case, the message ought to be: “No, it is not OK for Grandma to talk like that, but my sense at the time was if I had also said something to her in the restaurant she might have gotten embarrassed or else loudly defended what she said and embarrassed you even more. I said something to her in private, though. It was OK for you to tell her you didn’t like it, of course it was. No matter who else in the world thinks that was OK, if you don’t like the way someone talks about your body you should always feel you can put your foot down and say you don’t want to be talked about that way.”

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Point well-taken. For instance, the protection-of-children training for parents in our archdiocese makes it clear that it is a bad practice to force children to hug a relative or friend of the family who makes them uncomfortable for any reason. Even if that relative is indeed harmless, forcing a child to accept intimate gestures gives the child the message that his or her intuition about who is safe and who is not safe or who they do and don’t want to be intimate with isn’t good enough to say “no” to an adult who wants to touch them.

I agree with this and I think that is one pitfall people used to have, to see nonsexual touch as no big deal and that children should not offend their elders by refusing such touches. It’s interesting to see how mores change. The modern version of Family Feud includes off-color language and topics that would have been completely verboten in the first version, that is still being shown in re-runs on Buzzr.

But, the original also had the male show host, Richard Dawson, kissing all the female contestants as a matter of course, albeit on the cheek. Steve Harvey, host of the current version, does make off-color comments at times, but he certainly would NOT be allowed to do that! It seems we have a better understanding of the importance of bodily autonomy even when it comes to kissing on the cheek.

Children need to be given the authority to say “no, that person creeps me out,” even when it is Grandma or Grandpa. That is how they develop the confidence to say “no” to anybody who creeps them out or even gives them an uneasy feeling, regardless of the person’s social status. That is a very powerful and necessary thing for a person to have, even as an adult.

I agree, especially because most sexual predators do not fit the stereotype of the “scary stranger” but either take time to “groom” their victims so that they do see them as a “friend” they have some obligation to, or choose to work or volunteer in fields that give them authority over children, or both.

In this case, the message ought to be: “No, it is not OK for Grandma to talk like that, but my sense at the time was if I had also said something to her in the restaurant she might have gotten embarrassed or else loudly defended what she said and embarrassed you even more. I said something to her in private, though. It was OK for you to tell her you didn’t like it, of course it was. No matter who else in the world thinks that was OK, if you don’t like the way someone talks about your body you should always feel you can put your foot down and say you don’t want to be talked about that way.”

I think this is quite reasonable.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree with this and I think that is one pitfall people used to have, to see nonsexual touch as no big deal and that children should not offend their elders by refusing such touches. It’s interesting to see how mores change. The modern version of Family Feud includes off-color language and topics that would have been completely verboten in the first version, that is still being shown in re-runs on Buzzr.

But, the original also had the male show host, Richard Dawson, kissing all the female contestants as a matter of course, albeit on the cheek. Steve Harvey, host of the current version, does make off-color comments at times, but he certainly would NOT be allowed to do that! It seems we have a better understanding of the importance of bodily autonomy even when it comes to kissing on the cheek.

I agree, especially because most sexual predators do not fit the stereotype of the “scary stranger” but either take time to “groom” their victims so that they do see them as a “friend” they have some obligation to, or choose to work or volunteer in fields that give them authority over children, or both.

I think this is quite reasonable.

As it was explained to us, when all adults are expected to avoid grooming behaviors, children have a much easier time recognizing those behaviors as not quite right. The behaviors “stick out like a sore thumb” next to ways of showing affection that are appropriate in what they avoid. This makes the predators more likely to set off the child’s “creep radar.”

Being able to say “no” just because you aren’t comfortable also means you don’t have to make a “legal case” that this particular adult is* in fact* a creep. You can merely say, “no, thanks, I don’t think so” without giving any reason why, firmly and without giving offense.

Children who are given a strong sense that they have the authority to decide their own boundaries will also be well-served by that attitude in adolescence and young adulthood, when their peers start to try to pressure them to do things they don’t want to do.

 

[Elena321]

Would you say the same thing if it was a grandfather making comments about the “perky” breasts of a young woman?

I can think of two separate instances, both in my schooling and my employed life, of “dirty old men” whose off-color comments, and “handsy” behavior were overlooked for years due to the same kind of “charity”, and because they were otherwise accomplished in their fields of work.

But both of the men involved were eventually hustled off into an earlier-than-planned retirement. In the case of one man, someone actually did file a formal sexual harassment claim, and in the case of the other, “new management” took over and didn’t feel the same loyalty to him as his old cronies, certainly not enough to risk a sexual harassment suit that would have affected the whole company negatively.

Due to our really messed up sexual mores, I think many people are actually longing for some boundaries to what is permitted, and in the case of “sexual harassment” or “nonconsensual sexual contact”, they are happy to come down hard on those who transgress those minimal boundaries. Certainly, I wouldn’t expect much charity for those seniors who are still employed even if they have lost control of their frontal lobes.

The Catholic Catechism states:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

There’s a difference between covering something up versus charity.
What you described as happening in your school,work etc sounded more like covering up,or not taking things seriously,ignoring sexual harassment due to the “offending” employee being high up or otherwise valued for their work or mates protecting mates etc…

Charity is different.It means not assuming things rashly and being willing to consider the different posssibilities (within reason) for a persons behaviour or certain situation.

There are elderly men sadly with Dementia who do make such comments without “wilful intent” but there are also “sleazy” healthy older men who do so too (as we all know).
Sometimes you can easier get a clearer understanding of the underlying cause of a situation by observing factors such as general demeanour of the people,emotion -eg: is the person crying and looking hysterically distressed or rather do they just look embarressed or non-chalant etc…

 

[mommy_k]

Charity should be extended to the children first… No excuses for putting them in harms way. Who knows what nuts heard this comment in public.

Anyone with virtus training for knows this. If an adult has a condition like this…they should not be around children.

 

[EasterJoy]

Charity should be extended to the children first… No excuses for putting them in harms way. Who knows what nuts heard this comment in public.

Anyone with virtus training for knows this. If an adult has a condition like this…they should not be around children.

I don’t understand your meaning. The OP overheard a grandmother being a little too graphic in describing her granddaughter’s body in the context of shopping for lingerie she had previously had no need for. You are not suggesting that Virtus training ever suggested that a stranger overhearing this comment should have intervened in any way, right, but only that the comment was indeed inappropriate and not something that would be tolerated from someone volunteering around children?

(Even then, a person saying something like that about their own granddaughter in that context would be corrected, not expelled after one offense from volunteering at a Catholic organization serving children.)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t understand your meaning. The OP overheard a grandmother being a little too graphic in describing her granddaughter’s body in the context of shopping for lingerie she had previously had no need for. You are not suggesting that Virtus training ever suggested that a stranger overhearing this comment should have intervened in any way, right, but only that the comment was indeed inappropriate and not something that would be tolerated from someone volunteering around children?

(Even then, a person saying something like that about their own granddaughter in that context would be corrected, not expelled after one offense from volunteering at a Catholic organization serving children.)

I think it is always a balancing act between the obligation of being “charitable” to others and the obligation to protect innocents from the not-so-innocent. The debate over “should the US accept immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries” touches on the same underlying issues.

I also realize there have been cases of “witch hunts” of innocent people falsely accused of sexual abuse, so I am not advising that “protect the children” can be used to justify any behavior.

 

[mommy_k]

I don’t understand your meaning. The OP overheard a grandmother being a little too graphic in describing her granddaughter’s body in the context of shopping for lingerie she had previously had no need for. You are not suggesting that Virtus training ever suggested that a stranger overhearing this comment should have intervened in any way, right, but only that the comment was indeed inappropriate and not something that would be tolerated from someone volunteering around children?

(Even then, a person saying something like that about their own granddaughter in that context would be corrected, not expelled after one offense from volunteering at a Catholic organization serving children.)

Yes this is true…but our obligation to childten is to protect thier innocence…no one knows what type of people hear comments like this when said in public.

We can never excuse bad behavior of adults negative infuence childten or others based on mental capacity. This does not make the behavior acceptable. The child comes fitst, the adult should know better.

If some adult spoke like this at my dds school, I would address it right away. It’s wrong, and sends the wrong message.

The person would get a warning.

 

[mommy_k]

I also realize there have been cases of “witch hunts” of innocent people falsely accused of sexual abuse, so I am not advising that “protect the children” can be used to justify any behavior.

Speaking Iof vitrtus…an adult should never be alone with a child that is not thierd. That eliminates witch hunts.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes this is true…but our obligation to childten is to protect thier innocence…no one knows what type of people hear comments like this when said in public.

We can never excuse bad behavior of adults negative infuence childten or others based on mental capacity. This does not make the behavior acceptable. The child comes fitst, the adult should know better.

If some adult spoke like this at my dds school, I would address it right away. It’s wrong, and sends the wrong message.

The person would get a warning.

Unfortunately, older ladies making comments like this are the least of my worries.

 

[mommy_k]

Unfortunately, older ladies making comments like this are the least of my worries.

I’m sorry about that i know you are a very nice person, and I am just sharing my opinion. It just makes sense to me…but at anyrate…have a wonderful evening, Easterjoy.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m sorry about that i know you are a very nice person, and I am just sharing my opinion. It just makes sense to me…but at anyrate…have a wonderful evening, Easterjoy.

I only meant that it is very difficult to keep a child innocent these days. We live in a society where coarseness is very much tolerated and purity too often ridiculed.

 

[mommy_k]

I only meant that it is very difficult to keep a child innocent these days. We live in a society where coarseness is very much tolerated and purity too often ridiculed.