As the stay-at-home parent of a kindergartner, I'm around kids this age all the time, and they do all sorts of things--some playful and harmless, some inappropriate--all the time. It's the learning age. Little girls kiss and hug, boys wrestle and roll around on the ground, the girls hold each others hands, and they all push and shove--etc. To accuse one of them of "sexual harrassment" is borderline insane. There may be damaged kids out there who are capable of that, but there's no evidence that this kid is like that.

With all due respect, equating inappropriate behavior from a first-grader with middle school groping approaches a dangerous, confused totalitarianism. In the first place, it's grossy unfair to punish or attempt to modify behavior based on an adult presumption of sexuality that all but the most damaged six-year-olds don't even begin to possess, and in the second, if you were to try to do so you'd end up suspending them all in about six weeks.

My five-year-old boy comes home every day and says that a girl in his class keeps kissing him. Her grandmother tells me she "likes him." Should I march down and have her thrown out of kindergarten for sexual harassment?

This is the LEARNING age, people. You have to constantly remind them of what is and isn't appropriate, particulalrly when it comes to touching, because at that age they get a lot of physical affection at home and have to learn that it isn't appropriate with strangers. Unless there's some dark history with this kid they haven't revealed, it seems more like exactly the kind of nutty over-zealousness that gives progressives a bad name and sets us back further than it gets us ahead.

One more thing: don't kid yourself that if this kid's parents were rich he'd have been suspended. If his dad was a lawyer instead of a bus driver he'd be back in school the next day with an apology. Think about that before you start applauding his humiliation and suspension.

But my guess is that the average 6-year-old in this country gets a significant amount of exposure to provocative language and imagery...

I have to ask: is it a guess because you haven't got a six-year-old of your own, and have no real experience?

I can certainly imagine scenarios, however, in which I would judge the boy's behavior to have been sexual in nature...

What has your imagination to do with this?

my suspicions are that this student had a history of poor behavior, and was subjected to a number of previous disciplinary measures

There has been absolutely no mention of this in any reports. It's not surprising to see someone introduce it to the issue, though, because without it they haven't got a leg to stand on. We'll surely see the school administrators do the same soon--after the lawsuit is filed, if not before.

He may not know what sexual harrassment is, but he does know that touching in private parts is wrong

Now he "touched private parts"? Soon they'll have him pinning her down and groping her in the back room of the shop--oh wait, someone here ALREADY had him doing that.

But some of you need to reread your own words - "her grandmother says she likes him" - and ask who's doing the sexualizing here.

You are. A little girl told her parents and grandmother she "likes" my son. She kisses him all the time. I doubt very much it's "sexual", though, in the sense that adults understand, in that SHE'S FIVE.

If it is I guess I'll have to go down and have her arrested for unwanted sexual advances. Then I'll have to get the little girl next door busted for always wanting to play "mommy & daddy" with him, when he just wants to play "Star Wars" (which he's never seen).

I suppose with the one next door I can add some kind of charge relating to her jealousy when she saw another girl playing with him; she came running into our yard and tried to chase the other girl off. Maybe we can throw in "stalking" and "assault".

And what in the world shall we do with the playground full of six-year-old boys beating the crap out of each other all day every day? Round them up in a paddy wagon and file "mayhem" charges? Rioting? Unlawful assembly?

you're ready to cry "Pervert!" at anyone who suggests unwanted touching is inappropriate.

No, we're crying, "Idiot" at people who don't understand the very simple concept that, except in very rare and obvious cases, six-year-olds a) frequently touch inappropriately (and you did it, too) and b) they have no concept of "sexual harassment". Unless that boy has some sort of ongoing and distinctly "sexual" problem--which NO ONE has yet alleged--the ones who "sexualized" it are the school administrators.

Learning not to inappropriately touch--hitting, pushing, touching, grabbing, hugging, kissing, etc.--is a big part of the process at this age. In general the ones who went to pre-K learned it already, while a lot of the ones who didn't learn it over the next couple of years.

Parents spend 90% of their time refereeing this stuff. All the "you can hug someone if they want to be hugged" stuff. Not to mention all the "why can't I hit him back when he hits me?" questions, and the unpleasant interactions with parents who allow their kids to hit or secretly tell them to "hit first", etc. This is what we do all freaking day long. Some parents--the clueless, tired ones--spend their days alternating between apologizing and being indignant, depending on whether their kid is currently the victim or the perpetrator. The smart (or more experienced) ones just shrug at each other and get more coffee.

Tell your kids to keep their hands to themselves, and there won't be any problems.

Now there's a brilliant suggestion. What ever did parents do for the 10,000 years before you were here? You should have DOZENS of children and be an example to us all.

Can you grant that there might be situations in which a 6-year-old boy could be behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner toward a female classmate?

Sure. If you grant that the mingling of hypotheticals with the specifics of this case (as far as we know them) leads to bad things. Like comparing a first-grader to high school kids molesting girls behind the shop teacher's back. Or, for that matter, accusing a six-year-old of sexual harassment.

Wasn't implying you had a dirty mind; was pointing out that we can all imagine lots of things. But in this case--again, as far as we know--imaginations may have already run a bit wild.

You spend 90% of your time teaching your kid not to touch others? Good for you. Obviously the parents of the first grader in question didn't do that, and the parents who think it's cute when little kids kiss each other aren't doing that.

We don't know this kid's parents aren't trying to teach him. We only know that, for whatever reason, he hasn't learned it yet, or had a momentary lapse, or whatever. But they all do.

And it's not as easy as saying don't touch--unless you want a world in which little kids can't hold hands or hug. That's what makes it hard. The differences are tricky at that age, and it takes some kids longer to figure it out.

Why don't YOU have a dozen kids, pookastew, since you're so good at it, and I'll just stop at the number I already have.

You know what they say: practice, practice, practice.

My strong feelings about this stem from the fear that reactionaries can make so much out of it. I keep expecting to hear that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are in Brockton to mock the "feminazis" who are picking on boys in school. Why did they have to call it "sexual harassment"? Couldn't they have just said, "failure to keep his hands to himself"? They make progressives everywhere look like fools.

...I hope these new laws aren't retroactive. Otherwise I'm in big trouble, high school-wise.

My poor kid; what a world he's growing up in. They're trying to criminalize getting to second base in 10th grade.

Texas wildlife officials say that Vice President Dick Cheney was violating state law when he shot a 78-year-old attorney while hunting Saturday

Why? Is that illegal in Texas?

Was this satire or irony? I have to look it up.

Got it--it's satire. Pretty good, too.

You're missing the point. Having a system that allows a "Texas Aristocracy" to develop isn't bad at all.

We need to refrain from doing anything that would curtail the ability of people to amass that sort of wealth and unfettered power, so that we can ALL become Texas aristocracy.

Once that happens, everything will be fine.