to think we should be really freaked out,by all the arrests for sexual abuse of children????(144 Posts)
Firstly, I am not a 'paedophile on every corner' type of person. But I am wondering if actually, I should be??
Its a bit old news now, but more and more high profile celebs are being arrested for paedophilia in the 60s and 70s.
SO many people got away with it...for so long...Isnt this a sign that it is very widespread? and that it is pretty institutionalised??
Are celebreties more likely to be paedophiles than the rest of the population????
There doesnt seem to be much freaking out or outrage going on...I feel like there should be more
Sorry, Isiolo, I didn't at all mean to imply that you would. I'm just pondering generally about society as a whole - I think things are changing slowly, but in the past we tended to hear a lot of "why didn't she fight him; why on earth did she let him; what was she doing there" type comments.
I suspect, sadly, that no matter how well you think you will react, in that type of situation you might well freeze and be unable to use anything you learned anyway, so it's probably a moot point.
Sometimes fighting = drawing attention. But sometimes fighting = making the attacker want to shut you up asap, which can mean killing you.
You can't ever know.
yes i have heard advice to fight back and cause a scene because teh attcker will want to avoid a scene and will more likely leave you alone.
as a child my mum 'coached' us on what to do if anyone tried to take us from her or whoever was looking afetr us or from teh garden or if we were lost , or someone tried to get us in a care etc. she drummed it into us to scream, kick, bite, scratch, scream again and dont stop fighting.
basically the message we got was that fighting and drawing attention was teh right thing to do.
maybe she was wrong, maybe it would have gotten us killed if we'd ever been abducted- who knows? but i guess it's worth a try if you're in that situation.
i'll be honest and say i tell my dcs the same. they also both go to martial arts (not really for self defense but for confidence and discipline). i'd rather they had some skills and a 'plan' to defend themselves than nothing tbh.
It is, certainly, not a 'myth' that you can make an attack worse by fighting back.
I don't know the statistics. I'm hoping one of the people on MN who's in a relevant area will come along and shed some light.
But you definitely can make an attack worse by fighting back. I grew up near Nottingham, which has a pretty horrible record for gun crime and knife crime. My mum worked in St Ann's, and although she was very lucky never to be harmed, she heard the most appalling stories in the papers which had happened right nearby. It is not that uncommon for people who carry weapons to use them. That is partly why they carry those weapons.
I don't want to suggest anyone else should be swayed by my opinion, it is just my opinion, but I cannot begin to see how focussing on training children to attack could help. A huge number of underage sex offences people are talking about, those people were groomed to think it was ok, or they were scared. There wasn't a moment where a stranger dashed up and tried to throw them on the floor.
(Btw (separate point) DH does Judo and is brown belt (the one before black, so not brilliant, but as high as most children are likely to get), and he would never, ever try to fight back against someone using that. Just mentioning because someone suggested it.)
Huge effort tracking back for 40 years, so it appears that there is far more going on than is the reality, one of my worries about all this is it will create hysteria like Rochdale again.
Also, other countries have lower ages of consent than UK, in reality puberty and sex are happening much earlier today, so this should be looked at again.
maryz not at all; I don't harp on, telling my dds that they must defense rhwmslves if attacked. Neither would I ask them if they tried to, should they be attacked. I just want them to have the skulls and confidence to do it
I agree, a few self defence classes won't cut it. Extensive martial arts training should
Just to clarify, PIE was supported by the NCCL whose General Secretary for nine years from 1974 was Patricia Hewitt, later Secretary for Health in the Blair government.
NCCLs Legal Officer at the same time was Harriet Harman.
Were these women insane?
'The PIE thing absolutely horrified me when i read about it. How can any group of people want the age of consent abolished or changed to 4 years old. Who would that have benefitted, it wasnt the children.... Harriet Harmen'
And Patricia Hewitt, I seem to remember, was associated with PIE as well. Dangerous women.
I just read this: 'In a survey conducted in 1978-9 PIE found that its members preferred girls aged 8-11 and boys aged 11-15. '
I am not saying this applies to HH, or PH, by the way, but they did mix with some deeply unpleasant people and I am surprised Labour party supporters don't call them on it.
With regard to the self defending point of view, children at our local dojo and taught that the MOST important self defence is not to be there in the first place, so if you are coming home late at night, get a taxi in a group rather than walk, don't use alley ways etc.. If there ever did come a time when they were grabbed/ attacked to cause as much fuss as possible, so shout "help" and kick, struggle etc because most abductors would rather not draw any attention. They are also taught not to not scream as screaming is a common sound of playing. My own DD is now 13 and she can fight off and beat her 20 yo brother and many other young adults. Yes, if she was attacked by an armed man it would be a different story and knowing that she has a solid grounding in self defence and martial arts is no substitution for care but I also have some comfort in knowing that it would take a VERY determined attacker to choose her over someone else. (Not that I want any child to be attacked IYSWIM)
I also believe that we need to be alert about the threat of abusers and paedophiles but not hysterical about it either. Yes, they are out there and care should be taken, but in all honesty, if one of my DCs was chosen to be on TV there is no way on hell that they would be staying in a hotel without me, going to a presenters bedroom alone. The UK is a very different place to the UK of the 70's. If you think back over the centuries (and even around the world today) our society takes a very different view of sexual maturity now (obviously a good thing).
And, by the way, paedophilia is having sexual interest in pre-pubescent children (age 10 and under) - see Wiki
The primary sexual interest in 1114 year old pubescents is called Hebephilia and interest in mid-to-late adolescents (1519) is called Ephebophilia.
So most of the celebrities we are talking about aren't paedophiles at all.
Just on the "fighting back" issue (although I accept it isn't really relevant to the thread).
I'm uncomfortable with telling kids that they should fight back. Because then if they don't/can't will they feel guilty, will they feel that they should have and if they did they wouldn't have been hurt/raped/whatever?
It smacks a bit of victim blaming, which was the age-old defence of some rapists "she wanted it, really; if she didn't she would have fought" - if you know what I mean.
So I agree with LRD from a practical point of view - a few self-defence classes aren't going to make a young girl able to "defend" herself from a possibly much larger, older and stronger attacker. But her inability to defend herself can make her feel guilty that she should have.
what is the distinction between paedophilia and sex with an underage person?
Technically paedophilia is not illegal, sex with children is.
I believe that sentencing guidelines do vary with the age of the child, and to a certain extent the 'adult' so a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old will be treated less harshly than a 50 year old and a 10 year old.
But the 70s were different, and the 80s, Mandy Smith anyone?
I don't think the puberty issue is irrelevant, though Begonia. Puberty brings physical changes regardless of the child's age. The point of paedophilia, for wont of a better word, is an attraction to prepubescent bodies.
I think the puberty issue is no longer as relevant due to the earlier ages of puberty. I always understood it that paedophiles like young children. i think that many men find teenage developed girls attractive, which isn't paedophilia but still illegal if they have sexual relations with underage girls. I don't think we can stop men finding teenagers attractive but we can make it beyond the pale to act on these kind of feelings.
I can't do links, on my phone; but most of the information, if you Google, says the advice is to defend yourself physically, if necessary. Including FBI (?)
Ir is apparently a myth, that you will make the attack worse.
I've also read however, that women have evolved to be submissive, because that is how we have survived DV historically
Interesting, I'm sure there is lots of research/opinions
I think its worth a seperate thread.
I thinks there's a bit of confusion between being a child sex offender and being a paedophile.
Being a paedophile is a psychological diagnosis. Being a child sex offender is a criminal offence.
Presumably not all paedophiles are criminals, because some will choose never to approach any child or look at illegal material etc. They never act on their attraction.
About one third of child sex offenders are paedophiles. The other two thirds have other motivations for sexually assaulting children.
There doesn't need to be a distinction made in law as to whether or not the person carrying out the offence was a diagnosed paedophile when it comes to sentencing them. There will be differences in sentencing based on information about the child, like their age, if they had learning difficulties etc. But it isn't necessary to exactly establish whether or not the individual child is prepubescent/pubescent in some highly scientific biological way. Whether the child is 5 or 15, the perpetrator is still a child sex offender.
I'm not convinced that a girl or woman how does Karate, tae Kwondo etc with much of it being kata would really have the presence and skills to defend themselves in such a situation an against a bigger and stronger and possibly armed aggressor. I don't belive many of the martial arts are really that effective. Maybe Judo or Jutsui but still a big ask.
Btw, I definitely don't want to have an argy bargy over it either, I just don't want to argue about it if that's ok.
I'm only saying what I've been told - I was trying to explain before that I am not in the police, I really am not any kind of expert. I'm not sure what else to say.
I don't agree it'd ever make sense for a child to be taught to fight back against an adult, but if you believe that, it's certainly not my business.
I can see the police might be being paternalistic, but to be fair to them, I haven't heard it put like that, the focus was definitely on the risk of someone maybe having a hidden weapon.
LRDtheFeministDragon - I don't want to appear to be having an argy-bargy with you. I'm just not sure that a stance of "never choose to fight back" is the best advice.
It may make sense to fight back if:
- you're trained (which, pace, lola, involves training to overcome the natural tendency to freeze. This happens in serious martial arts training)
- you believe you risk a worse outcome if you don't do anything
- your ability to flee is limited
These are fairly limited circumstances, but they do exist, and women do fight back successfully from time to time.
The motive I'm ascribing to the police, incidentally, is one of paternalistic superiority "let us deal with it dear, don't try to get involved, you'll only make things worse". I think that is sadly an all too common motivation and the police are all too willing to delude themselves as to what kind of practical help they are able to provide.
Someone mentioned Samantha Fox - her own father was her manager and pimped her out for photographs.
I know sexism was more rife and acceptable...but PAEDOPHILIA????
That has never been acceptable
You'd be surprised (although I am talking several hundred years ago).
It is Isiolo but I'd take an educated guess that there is a small but not insignficant 'dark figure' of female child abusers and a number more who either facilitate it or turn a blind eye to it.
I think there is also a difference in the manner in which female and male sex offenders are presented. When you hear about a female teacher in her 30s having sex with a 14/15 male pupil, it is treated as titilation by the press. If the gender roles are reversed the male teacher is an evil peado who needs to be strung up from the nearest lampost.
I'm not condoning either reaction, but both are child sex abuse comitted by a person in a position of trust, but are portrayed in the same manner.
In the vast majority of cases, it is men
don't know what is wrong with these men (and it is always men) but I know what I would like to do to them
I worked for social services and I can assure you that sexual abuse isn't exclusively a male preserve. I have worked with some people who were sexually abused by their own mothers, others who were pimped out by their mothers.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.