Christian proselytizing to public school basketball players

[muwarrior69]

At the end of practice Thursday, coach made each girl shoot a FT. If she made it, no running. If she missed it, everybody had to do a full-court sprint, there and back. The 12 girls combined to make 7, so they had to do 5 sprints. He then surprised me by tossing me the ball and saying, "OK, Coach, make a free throw." I hadn't shot a basketball in a month, and promptly - and embarrassingly - shot an airball. Everybody ran, and I ran an extra sprint because I deserved the self-imposed punishment! The other assistant, a former college player, swished hers. But the coach bricked his off the backboard (and he's a really good shooter).

So the coaches (especially yours truly) really need to practice FTs!

This may be a hard question to answer, but I was wondering especially with all the headlines coming out at MSU did you and your coach have to take some kind of training as to what is appropriate contact with the girls or is no contact the rule? I could see after a close game win a player may hug you or the coach showing genuine affection, but perceived as inappropriate contact. Do you have a female assistant present? Just asking as we live in troubling times?

[tower912]

Before being allowed to coach (or volunteer in school, that matter), I was required to take Virtus training through the diocese.   

https://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/index.cfm?

[MU82]

This may be a hard question to answer, but I was wondering especially with all the headlines coming out at MSU did you and your coach have to take some kind of training as to what is appropriate contact with the girls or is no contact the rule? I could see after a close game win a player may hug you or the coach showing genuine affection, but perceived as inappropriate contact. Do you have a female assistant present? Just asking as we live in troubling times?

No, but it's a good question and there probably should be something required.

We never meet with a player behind closed doors.

[Benny B]

Before being allowed to coach (or volunteer in school, that matter), I was required to take Virtus training through the diocese.   

https://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/index.cfm?

We have to do that same training (or something similar) just to be a classroom lunch helper at my kids' school.  Talk about lawsuit phobia run amok...

Frankly, I think the "training" is counterproductive... the eight hour commitment for what basically amounts to a lesson in common-sense is enough of a detractor to me that I won't be able to volunteer for anything at school (except recess duty).  But I would greatly suspect that to a pedophile, eight hours is simply a cost of doing business.  In other words, these "training" programs aren't changing any behavior, and they're certainly not preventing any would-be scumbags from accessing children.

That being said, I don't have the statistics, but I don't recall ever hearing about a pedophile being the parent of an elementary school child or committing crimes at the child's school.

[warriorchick]

We have to do that same training (or something similar) just to be a classroom lunch helper at my kids' school.  Talk about lawsuit phobia run amok...

Frankly, I think the "training" is counterproductive... the eight hour commitment for what basically amounts to a lesson in common-sense is enough of a detractor to me that I won't be able to volunteer for anything at school (except recess duty).  But I would greatly suspect that to a pedophile, eight hours is simply a cost of doing business.  In other words, these "training" programs aren't changing any behavior, and they're certainly not preventing any would-be scumbags from accessing children.

That being said, I don't have the statistics, but I don't recall ever hearing about a pedophile being the parent of an elementary school child or committing crimes at the child's school.

I know someone whose husband sells liability insurance to churches and private schools, and she has heard everything.  And my guess is that training is required by their insurance carrier.

[Pakuni]

We have to do that same training (or something similar) just to be a classroom lunch helper at my kids' school.  Talk about lawsuit phobia run amok...

Frankly, I think the "training" is counterproductive... the eight hour commitment for what basically amounts to a lesson in common-sense is enough of a detractor to me that I won't be able to volunteer for anything at school (except recess duty).  But I would greatly suspect that to a pedophile, eight hours is simply a cost of doing business.  In other words, these "training" programs aren't changing any behavior, and they're certainly not preventing any would-be scumbags from accessing children.

That being said, I don't have the statistics, but I don't recall ever hearing about a pedophile being the parent of an elementary school child or committing crimes at the child's school.

The training sessions aren't about changing behavior and teaching people something they mostly don't know already. They're about providing the schools with a defense against a negligence lawsuit in the event some volunteer diddles little Johnny in the bathroom.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Those trainings are also about teaching people how to recognize inappropriate behavior in other adults. It's not about changing the pedophile, it's about giving the other adult the knowledge and confidence to report the pedophile when they see the warning signs.

It may seem like common sense,  but you'd be amazed the behaviors that bystanders allow others to get away with.

[warriorchick]

Those trainings are also about teaching people how to recognize inappropriate behavior in other adults. It's not about changing the pedophile, it's about giving the other adult the knowledge and confidence to report the pedophile when they see the warning signs.

It may seem like common sense,  but you'd be amazed the behaviors that bystanders allow others to get away with.

I would guess a lot of it has to do with training folks to avoid behavior that could be construed as inappropriate, even though it may be completely innocent.  If I am not mistaken, there are rules about the right and the wrong way to hug a kid, etc.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I would guess a lot of it has to do with training folks to avoid behavior that could be construed as inappropriate, even though it may be completely innocent.  If I am not mistaken, there are rules about the right and the wrong way to hug a kid, etc.

This is also true. Side hugs good! Front hugs bad! Hugs from behind really bad!

[muwarrior69]

This is also true. Side hugs good! Front hugs bad! Hugs from behind really bad!

Wow! I must be the pedophile Grandfather.

[rocket surgeon]

This is also true. Side hugs good! Front hugs bad! Hugs from behind really bad!

If this is becoming the standard, we are in really sad shape. Maybe if they would use manikins, they could clarify?  What’s next?  Doing CPR on someone will put you on the sex offender registry


Serious observation though- I have 2 young girl patients I have known for many years and have observed some really strange, somewhat upsetting behaviors but I have absolutely no proof of anything happening...yet.  The older girl, approximately 12-13 now, used to have the cutest personality.  Now it’s like she’s in a trance.  Her younger sister (10-11)never had the cute personality- just that trance-like behavior. I have known Mom and grandma for 10-15 years. They are really exceptional people.  Only met dad 2 or 3 times...I don’t have very good vibes from him.  I hope to hell im way off here...about the dad

[Benny B]

Those trainings are also about teaching people how to recognize inappropriate behavior in other adults. It's not about changing the pedophile, it's about giving the other adult the knowledge and confidence to report the pedophile when they see the warning signs.

It may seem like common sense,  but you'd be amazed the behaviors that bystanders allow others to get away with.

I would like to think that most people can recognize the signs of a pedophile... unfortunately, most people also don't want to be the whistle-blower for something that doesn't directly affect them or their family.  IOW, being a witness to a crime is a major pain in the ass... you have to go down to the police station for an interview, go through the mugshots/lineups, show up to court, have your character and background scrutinized by the defense, have your name/face thrown about on the news, etc.  Most people are going to turn a blind eye, and no amount of training is going to convince them to come forward. 

Hell, about two years ago I saw a guy run a red light and t-bone someone in an intersection... I was three cars back waiting to turn.  Three cars had a better look at the accident than I did - one having a front-row seat - but when the light turned green, everyone proceeded on their merry way as though nothing happened, and only I and one other person (who was even further away from the opposite direction) bothered to stop.

Pakuni is correct... all this training basically amounts to nothing more than a pre-emptive defense against potential lawsuits.  If you think it's going to change behavior - be it the perp's or the bystanders - well, you're way more optimistic about people than I am.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I would like to think that most people can recognize the signs of a pedophile... unfortunately, most people also don't want to be the whistle-blower for something that doesn't directly affect them or their family.  IOW, being a witness to a crime is a major pain in the ass... you have to go down to the police station for an interview, go through the mugshots/lineups, show up to court, have your character and background scrutinized by the defense, have your name/face thrown about on the news, etc.  Most people are going to turn a blind eye, and no amount of training is going to convince them to come forward. 

Hell, about two years ago I saw a guy run a red light and t-bone someone in an intersection... I was three cars back waiting to turn.  Three cars had a better look at the accident than I did - one having a front-row seat - but when the light turned green, everyone proceeded on their merry way as though nothing happened, and only I and one other person (who was even further away from the opposite direction) bothered to stop.

Pakuni is correct... all this training basically amounts to nothing more than a pre-emptive defense against potential lawsuits.  If you think it's going to change behavior - be it the perp's or the bystanders - well, you're way more optimistic about people than I am.

You might like to believe it, but in my experience you are wrong. In most cases, the signs are there. Adult who gets along better with children than with other adults. Long lingering contact with children. Making repeated by seemingly innocent excuses to make physical contact with children. Giving unsolicited and even inappropriate gifts to children. Other adults see these things and often just dismiss them as nothing...and a lot of times they are! No one is saying if you see an adult give a child a hug that is a second too long that you should go and tackle them. It just warrants paying attention and seeing if there is a pattern.

These trainings also cover warning signs of children who are being abused. Abuse often goes on for years without anyone recognizing it. All it takes is one person to notice the signs and check in. It could stop potentially continued years of abuse.

Now I will agree that the method in which these trainings are presented is non-effective. Humans, especially adults, do not learn well online. And often the adults who are required to take the courses just click through as fast as they can because they don't care enough to learn. In that sense yes, it is a way to preempt lawsuits. But the information is usually good (depending on what curriculum is being used).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Wow! I must be the pedophile Grandfather.

Context Brother 69. A grandfather hugging his grandchild is acceptable and expected. Random adults who barely know the 5 year old? Not as appropriate.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If this is becoming the standard, we are in really sad shape. Maybe if they would use manikins, they could clarify?  What’s next?  Doing CPR on someone will put you on the sex offender registry


Serious observation though- I have 2 young girl patients I have known for many years and have observed some really strange, somewhat upsetting behaviors but I have absolutely no proof of anything happening...yet.  The older girl, approximately 12-13 now, used to have the cutest personality.  Now it’s like she’s in a trance.  Her younger sister (10-11)never had the cute personality- just that trance-like behavior. I have known Mom and grandma for 10-15 years. They are really exceptional people.  Only met dad 2 or 3 times...I don’t have very good vibes from him.  I hope to hell im way off here...about the dad

I don't think it means we're in a bad place. We're just getting to a place in society where we finally realize that thousands of children are molested every year and little changes in behavior can help us save a few of them. If the cost of saving 1 child from being molested is that you have to give side hugs instead of front hugs to random children that you don't know that well, isn't it worth it?

About your patient. It could be what you are thinking. Or it could be a moody teenage girl going through puberty. If you have a relationship, I don't think there would be any harm in just asking if everything is okay at home. Probably will get a "fine" regardless of the situation, but maybe you reaching out could be the one time she decides to open up. You never know. As long as you don't come in with wild accusations or ask in a creepy way I think there is no harm in asking the question. Again, if it ends up saving one person....isn't asking the question worth it?

[#UnleashSean]

If this is becoming the standard, we are in really sad shape. Maybe if they would use manikins, they could clarify?  What’s next?  Doing CPR on someone will put you on the sex offender registry

You joke but men are hesitant to perform cpr on women because of this.

http://www.jems.com/articles/news/2017/11/study-suggests-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders.html

[GGGG]

You joke but men are hesitant to perform cpr on women because of this.

http://www.jems.com/articles/news/2017/11/study-suggests-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders.html

The article doesn't say anything about fear of getting in legal trouble for touching women's breasts.  In fact the article flat out says "Researchers had no information on rescuers or why they may have been less likely to help women."

Therefore they are speculating. 

[warriorchick]

You joke but men are hesitant to perform cpr on women because of this.

http://www.jems.com/articles/news/2017/11/study-suggests-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders.html

I think the bigger issue is men who want to perform "Chest compressions" on  breathing, conscious women.

[MU82]

I would like to think that most people can recognize the signs of a pedophile...

The Vatican recognized the signs of pedophiles and ignored them for decades.

[Lennys Tap]

I think the bigger issue is men who want to perform "Chest compressions" on  breathing, conscious women.

Almost spit out my Coke Zero.

[Benny B]

The article doesn't say anything about fear of getting in legal trouble for touching women's breasts.  In fact the article flat out says "Researchers had no information on rescuers or why they may have been less likely to help women."

Therefore they are speculating.

It also says in the very next breath that "no gender difference was seen in CPR rates for people who were stricken at home, where a rescuer is more likely to know the person needing help."

Generally speaking, the majority of bystanders who do nothing when someone suffers an immediate illness/injury fail to act because they simply don't know what to do.  IOW, an off-duty paramedic isn't going to walk by someone who just collapsed when there's an AED mounted to the wall 50 feet away... but your average who thinks an AED is some sort of birth control device probably will.

So robably not solely because of legal trouble, but since this is along gender lines it would suggest there indeed is a stigma attached to touching another woman's chest... whether or not this is sexual in nature is unknown (the article does mention the perceived fragility of the female body which, from a physiology standpoint has some merit but something a person trained in CPR should understand is a minimal risk and certainly a worthy one compared to result of doing nothing) - but this goes both ways... I would suspect women who suffer cardiac arrest typically don't do so entirely in the company of men.

Maybe not the last thing anyone wants these days, but I'm sure most people don't want a picture of them with their hands on a lady's chest making the rounds through the media or on the internet, even if they're applying CPR correctly.  Whether this has anything to do with the decision a person trained in CPR makes to react or not, who knows.

My question is whether the study controlled for environment.... i.e. if the locations that men are suffering cardiac arrest are occurring in places that correlate with higher levels of CPR training amongst the population, that would go a long way towards answering the question here.  Frankly, there's probably something of a cultural or generational effect here, i.e. where men over 55 years old spend their time outside the household is probably much different than where women over 55 spend time outside the household.

[GGGG]

It also says in the very next breath that "no gender difference was seen in CPR rates for people who were stricken at home, where a rescuer is more likely to know the person needing help."

Generally speaking, the majority of bystanders who do nothing when someone suffers an immediate illness/injury fail to act because they simply don't know what to do.  IOW, an off-duty paramedic isn't going to walk by someone who just collapsed when there's an AED mounted to the wall 50 feet away... but your average who thinks an AED is some sort of birth control device probably will.

So robably not solely because of legal trouble, but since this is along gender lines it would suggest there indeed is a stigma attached to touching another woman's chest... whether or not this is sexual in nature is unknown (the article does mention the perceived fragility of the female body which, from a physiology standpoint has some merit but something a person trained in CPR should understand is a minimal risk and certainly a worthy one compared to result of doing nothing) - but this goes both ways... I would suspect women who suffer cardiac arrest typically don't do so entirely in the company of men.

Maybe not the last thing anyone wants these days, but I'm sure most people don't want a picture of them with their hands on a lady's chest making the rounds through the media or on the internet, even if they're applying CPR correctly.  Whether this has anything to do with the decision a person trained in CPR makes to react or not, who knows.

My question is whether the study controlled for environment.... i.e. if the locations that men are suffering cardiac arrest are occurring in places that correlate with higher levels of CPR training amongst the population, that would go a long way towards answering the question here.  Frankly, there's probably something of a cultural or generational effect here, i.e. where men over 55 years old spend their time outside the household is probably much different than where women over 55 spend time outside the household.

As I said, "therefore they are speculating."

[Benny B]

As I said, "therefore they are speculating."

Indeed you did.  I'll even quote it again for posterity... or just in case Rocky goes on bender after the Butler trouncing and starts deleting random posts.

Therefore they are speculating.

[#UnleashSean]

On fswisconsin right before the st Johns game. Is this dude just telling us about the Bible for 10 minutes?