So what's your cutoff? How likely must an arbitrary airline-going man be to molest an unaccompanied child in the adjacent seat for you to say this is a good or bad idea?
Airlines forbid men from sitting next to unaccompanied minors
- Thread starter missesdash
- Start date
- Status
So what's your cutoff? How likely must an arbitrary airline-going man be to molest an unaccompanied child in the adjacent seat for you to say this is a good or bad idea?
If it were 1 in 10,000,000 I wouldn't take the risk with my child.
Just saying.
Then again, I won't let my child fly alone, period. (Yet.) But I'm in a position to be able to escort him. I think many parents aren't. Like someone said upthread, it could be a choice between letting them fly unaccompanied or not seeing their other parent at all.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- 1,139
- Age
- 56
Right. That's the nub of it for me. "Excuse me sir, would you mind moving seats? We think you might molest this young child."
Right - is this a frequent problem? And by "this" I mean specifically: children flying alone getting molested by the person they were originally seated next to. I suspect not.
Agreed.
I am actually fine with the airlines doing it all behind the scenes, organizing their seating so kids aren't placed beside male passengers. It's the individual humiliation, the shadow of suspicion almost, that comes with being asked to move in front of other people, when you've done nothing wrong.
I think the "assumption" is that parents aren't willing to risk it regardless of how rare it is. And, as I've pointed out a few times, there are no documented incidents where a woman was the abuser (on a plane).
So this is an option between a nearly 100 guarantee that it won't happen and a man possibly being embarrassed/unhappy when he's asked to move.
I mean we turn our phones off on planes despite how tiny the chance of any interference is.
Wait. Can't women be pedophiles? And isn't it extremely common for minors to molest/sexually assault other minors?
Why on earth should men be singled out for this? Can't the TSA, with their all-intrusive knowledge base and tracking of our every move, screen for pedophiles and put them, I don't know, seated next to other pedophiles on the plane?
And I really disagree that a "practical" solution based on profiling, statistics and stereotyping is what's called for.
While you're digging up statistics, I'd love to know the incidence of sexual assault of children on airplanes by strange passengers of any gender. I suspect it's a non-problem, but I suppose I could be wrong.
And no, I won't buy that mass discrimination against half the population of the world is justified "if it prevents even one assault."
Again, if the airlines are really that concerned they can buy peace of mind by giving up a little profit and putting those precious, vulnerable darlings in rows by all themselves.
Your child better get used to living in a plastic bubble if you won't risk any activity with worse than 1:9,999,999 odds of something tragic happening. There are plenty of dangers in any day-to-day activity with worse odds. Getting struck by lightning, for one.
Just saying.
So what's your cutoff? How likely must an arbitrary airline-going man be to molest an unaccompanied child in the adjacent seat for you to say this is a good or bad idea?
I'm actually adding general pedo lechery into that, so it'll be very tough to get statistics for (oops). But it's a good question, of course.
It depends on the risks. The risks I see are discriminating against men. If men were OK with that to a certain percentage, it reduces the number of cases needed to make that decision.
I'd have to survey flying men to begin to do a real analysis.
Plastic bubble, my ass. It's called being with me, or people I trust, until he's old enough. (He's 6, btw.)
There are few worse things I can conjure up in my mother's brain than my child being molested. Sorry, maybe that's just me. Telling me it's "really unlikely" makes me feel better, sure, but it doesn't make me less vigilant.
Figures.
Aren't you the rebel. But would you insist on getting off the plane if they asked you directly to turn it off? Of course not. You'd do it despite the almost non-risk it poses because it's not a huge deal.
You don't need to know the statistics to answer my question.
In fact, it's better if you don't.
No, seriously, if 1 in 10,000,000 is your cutoff, you'd best lock him up.
I don't mean to make you fearful or paranoid, but if these are the numbers people are thinking about, we need to be much more realistic.
Theoretically. But I'm talking about looking at a real problem, not making a completely theoretical scientific analysis. I'd like to see the general trends in the data before choosing exactly how to approach it. It doesn't have to fit all cases of similar data sets, remember. It's more of a business or social science approach.
So you're saying there's a 100% chance that a woman won't molest a child? You backing this guarantee?
So it's okay to discriminate against people as long as they're okay with it?
If any risk whatsoever to a child is absolutely intolerable, just make the legal age of flying unaccompanied 18. Anyone younger than this must fly with a legal guardian or make alternate travel arrangements. If finances are a concern then the hand-wringers should get together and start a non-profit organization to help.
In other words, if this is a problem (and I doubt it even is) let's solve it sensibly in a way that doesn't involve mass sexist discrimination and presumptions of guilt.
In science, to do a proper statistical analysis, you're supposed to choose the cutoff for your decision prior to looking at the data. Otherwise the data can influence and bias you when you go to make your decision. (At least that's what we statisticians keep telling experimentalists, but do they ever listen? Noooo.) This is the way we apply statistics to all sciences, including the business and social sciences. When you go to look at the data, no matter what it is, you can end up saying "see, this is too much!" I want to get an idea of what you think is an appropriate cutoff before you look at the data.
I wouldn't just look at molestation, though. I'd look at molestations aboard commercial aircraft. It's a very special set of circumstances. Aircraft are usually crowded and offer none of the privacy that pedophiles need to perform their dastardly deeds.
While digging for stats please find some that prove this is even a problem.
Unfortunately, kids are most likely to be molested by people their parents trust. Random strangers are less likely to molest a kid than their own parents/step parents.
Paranoia really doesn't make us any safer.
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."
I think there is a middle road here, depending on how men flying feel about it, yes.
Granted, I was using hyperbole, but as the 1 in 100,000 (from Max) was considered an "unlikely" occurence, and being that there are a few billion people in the world, it's not really the relief he might have meant for it to be.
To use your lightning analogy: It's like letting your kids keep swimming in the pool during a thunderstorm because the odds are overwhelmingly small that there will be a strike. Why take the risk?
My way of handling it is to escort my child. The problem is, I don't know that all parents have that option.
Are you actually calling me paranoid?
I actually linked to an article about this in the OP. If anyone needs a starting point.
It also doesn't involve targeting an entire demographic of people based on statistics.
- Status