to think we should be really freaked out,by all the arrests for sexual abuse of children????

(144 Posts)
Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 15:34:07

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

Lottapianos Thu 02-May-13 15:37:57

It's seriously sickening stuff OP. Hopefully some good will come of it - those women who have lived with this for decades will get their stories heard and will see justice done. Rape apologists will have to stick this Stuart Hall story in their pipes and have a good old smoke on it.

Remember that most abuse of women and children still takes place within the home. However it certainly seems that there were many many famous and powerful men who thought they could just help themselves to whatever they fancied without any consequences. Lots of people did 'turn a blind eye' but some people did try to speak up and were ignored/ridiculed for it. It's horrendous.

thebody Thu 02-May-13 15:40:43

The 70s was a very different era thank god. It was considered quite normal to punch a bottom and make sexist/racist comments in the work place and in general.

People are now being called to account for their vile behaviour and paedophilia

Can you imagine a nurse now saying to a child as the one at stoke mandoville said re jimmy saville' pretend you are asleep!' Disgusting..

I do t think celebs are more likely to be paedophiles but people in authority and power are more frightening and children are less able to speak out.

I think the police are doing a fantastic job in pursuing these men and long may it continue.

We all still need to listen to children don't we and act if we need to.

If roughly 1% of people are paedophiles, then it makes sense that 1 in 100 famous people will be paedophiles. Some paedophiles get into positions that give them access to young children, whether that be through becoming a personality, or by becoming a teacher or scout leader. It's not really that shocking.

It's just horrible, but I for one hope that this underscores the message that MN adopted for the campaign "We Believe You." I hope this gives more people, adults and children, the courage and strength to come forward when things like this happen knowing that they will be treated respectfully and believed. I think we still have a long way to go.

ArthurCucumber Thu 02-May-13 15:44:20

I was thinking that as well sad.

I understand that the 70s was a different era, and I understand that in those days there was more chance of getting away with a certain type of behaviour towards women.

But in many of the cases that are now coming to light, it isn't women that were being abused, it was children. I have been used to thinking of paedophilia as a rare thing, an aberration. But now I wonder just how much more there would be/was of it, if it was something men could get away with.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 15:45:06

yeah, im a 70s child. I know sexism was more rife and acceptable...but PAEDOPHILIA???? Its a different thing entirely IMO.

That has never been acceptable

Yes, I agree, they are doing a fantastic job. I hope they get them all

sydlexic Thu 02-May-13 15:45:56

It comes as no surprise. I do believe there are peodophiles on every corner. I don't understand why some people refuse to accept this threat exists.

EldritchCleavage Thu 02-May-13 15:46:28

I'm not freaked out by all the arrests. I used to freak out before, when I knew all this kind of thing happened but it was routinely denied/minimised/ignored.

What is happening now is more reassuring than scary, particularly for those of us who are survivors of rape and abuse.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 15:46:33

Although, that said...most of my friends growing up, had some experience with a 'dirty old man'

meddie Thu 02-May-13 15:47:56

I dont think the celebrities are paedophiles though as most cases dont involve pre pubescent children (except JS) the majority of these cases are teenage girls that predatory males have abused using their statuses at the time.
I doubt whether any of these women would have had much help from the police in the 70's, as the attitude would probably have been that they threw themselves at these stars, rather than the stars took advantage of impressionable and vulnerable young women. its only been with a shift in the way society views this behaviour that we are now seeing these cases taken seriously.

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 15:49:44

Exactly, meddie, it isn't paedophilia. The girls are too old. It's rape and sexual abuse, for sure, but not paedophilia.

If you think about it though these are a spate of arrests now for abuse over a 40 odd year period of time. If they had been arrested at the times they actually did it then it wouldn't seem like so many.

Also we hear about every celebrity who gets arrested whereas for 'normal' people we only really hear about the ones local to ourseves.

scaevola Thu 02-May-13 15:51:31

Back then, there was a perfectly legal organisation called PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) and Liberty (including then staffers such as Harriet Harman) supported the abolition of the age of consent.

It was a different world, and one we can now see all too clearly as harmful.

scaevola Thu 02-May-13 15:53:01

"Exactly, meddie, it isn't paedophilia. The girls are too old. It's rape and sexual abuse, for sure, but not paedophilia."

It's a mixture. One of the charges Stuart Hall pleaded guilty to today involved a 9 year old.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 15:53:08

world i didnt know it was 1%, wow

meddie Thu 02-May-13 15:53:43

Child of the 70's too Isiolo I remember the local 'dirty old men' and we all knew who they were, we were told by our parents to avoid going near their properties or to talk to them (we didn't know why though, because they didn't talk about stuff like that, )

CogitoErgoSometimes Thu 02-May-13 15:54:04

The celebrities are highly visible and therefore make an impact both on the public consciousness and that of their victims. Someone else from 20,30 or 40 years ago struggling with having been abused might have moved on from the event, literally as well as metaphorically, and been able to consign their attacker to history. Someone abused by a public figure that appears regularly on TV or whatever will not have been able to do that... it'll be an open sore

My Mum (76) tells me that the paedophiles living where she grew up were well known as 'funny fellas' and mothers made sure kids gave their houses a wide berth. No prosecutions in those days...

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 15:54:51

i dont know if this is just where i live or the families my family knew or maybe just that my parents talked about it more but trhoughout my childhood i was aware of different stories of such and such was arrested for 'interefering with' his daughters or similar. none of these were people i had contact with but i do remember my parents discussing it and i knew of these families. also, now as an adult i know quite a few men and women in my local town who are 'known' for trying to abuse chidren or abusing children or have been convicted of abusing children. obviously there will be many i've never heard about and many that no-one has spoken up about so yes i do sort of agree with the idea that peadophiles are everywhere. i know it's not a popular opinion but it's one that my own experiences support.

ParadiseChick Thu 02-May-13 15:54:53

Exactly what meddie said. We need to be careful in our use of terms, there is a difference and it is important (although equally vile and it is uncomfortable discussing the differences) to differentiate.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 15:54:59

scaevola WHAT???? shock

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 15:55:28

2 people on corrie alone is more than 1% though

nemno Thu 02-May-13 15:55:29

I certainly came across plenty of dirty old men in the seventies. If I knew the name of one in particular and I knew others had come forward then I would now too. So if he were a celebrity I would a) remember his name and b) be more aware that others had accused him.

I thought this was all normal for a pre teen and teenager to experience. It is a relief that all this is coming to light as being unacceptable.

scaevola Thu 02-May-13 15:56:02
megandraper Thu 02-May-13 15:56:24

I think there are a lot of paedophiles about, actually. And most of the time they look/seem perfectly normal to other adults. It is something that worries me. I think it's harder to protect our children than we think.

x2boys Thu 02-May-13 15:56:36

this whole corrie thing is a bit sick am i right in remembering that the actor who played len fairclough was accused and subsequently let go from corrie for allegations of child abuse i remember this because it was supposed to have happened in the swimming baths in bury where i was brought up he would have known william roache surely?

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 02-May-13 15:56:43

I'm also a child of the 70s. It is hard to remember how much society has changed.

I great festering boil has burst open.

And yet it still goes on in the home, mainly.

fromparistoberlin Thu 02-May-13 15:57:04

technically, are they paedophiles? anyway seen someone else has used this

I am NOT minimising what they did, but I do think we need to distinguish

the 70s were fucked up man

I am not worried, as know these days are kids are far safer

But my heart weeps for the victims

meddie Thu 02-May-13 15:57:32

I havent been following the Stuart Hall case, but he was always a bit slimy. Its weird isnt it, both he and JS gave me the creeps as a child and I could never understand why or their apparent media popularity (Rod hull and Emu too)

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 15:58:57

My daughter is 13, she hasn't started her periods. Imo she is a child hmm

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:00:28

Who said she wasn't, Reculver?

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 16:02:46

sorry that was in response to technically are they paedophiles

madhouse here smile

I just don't think anything should be minimised because these girls were teenagers, all teenage girls below consent age are children imo (some more than others)

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 16:05:49

what is the distinction between paedophilia and sex with an underage person? is their a specific age legally?

thebody Thu 02-May-13 16:06:27

Yes I agree. For a much older man to have sex with a 15 year old girl ( even consensual) I would consider him a paedophile.

My lads are 23 and 22 and would be disgusted even thinking of dating a girl under 16..

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:06:30

no, not some more than others towers they are all children

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:07:47

Paedophilia is pre-pubescent so it's not a specific age as people go through puberty at different ages.

But 15 is almost certainly not pre-pubescent, for example, although not 100% guaranteed, would be very unusual.

CashmereHoodlum Thu 02-May-13 16:08:15

It's not minimising, it is using the correct terms. Paedophilia is not the correct term for the abuse of a post-pubescent child.

TigerSwallowTail Thu 02-May-13 16:08:43

Are celebreties more likely to be paedophiles than the rest of the population?

I don't think they are, I think they're more likely to get more media attention though and maybe that's why it seems like they're more likely to be paedophiles.

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:09:26

Oh and I'm not minimizing anything. It's disgusting along with the 'well, it was the 70s' attitude that's still being bandied about.

My own husband said that the other night and I laid into him.

It was dirty old men (and yes, if you're 30 and fucking a 15 year old, you're a dirty old man) doing whatever the hell they wanted and damn the consequences or the girls feelings or anything else.

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 16:09:36

Yes I do agree Isolo, I was just thinking of those with LDs who are more at risk of abuse. But you are quite right

scaevola Thu 02-May-13 16:09:48

Well, I assume that a 9 year old is prepubescent, which makes paedophile the accurate term for Hall.

meddie Thu 02-May-13 16:09:52

Its a technical point mainly reculver Paedophilia is attraction to pre pubescent children.
Attraction to a child and attraction to a sexually mature but underage girl are slightly different, the former is a recognised psychological disorder. While the latter is slimy and abusive and pretty disgusting, but the motivation for it is different.

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:10:14

No, not more likely to be paedophiles, but more likely to have young girls around and teenagers 'worshipping' them.

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 16:11:05

wrt to paedophilia, if a girl is 15 and has LDs and has the mental age of a 9 yr old, what is it classed as then?

x2boys Thu 02-May-13 16:12:37

i dont think its specific booyhoo but if a 15 yr old girl is dating a 17 yr old boy[ which happened with my neice ] and they had sex i think its very different to a 15 yr old having sex with a man in his twenties or older i,m not saying i condone underage sex but it can happen with teenagers and i dont think it would/should make the teenage boy a paedophile if you see what i mean.

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:13:44

Sex with an under-age person, Reculver. It has nothing to do with mental age and everything to do with biological age.

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 16:14:06

my mum would have been a teen from 1968-1973. her periods started just before she turned 16 and she told me that was the same for most of her friends. i know i have heard stuff about girls starting puberty earlier with each generation. i was 12 and i have young cousins who started at 8/9 years old. i wonder if legally there neds to be a change in when it stops being paedophilia. at 8/9 they are still definitely children but if periods have started does that mean it's not paedohilia?

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:16:12

my 7 year old is showing signs of starting puberty
My friends dd has had pubic hair from the age of 8

I dont know the technicalities of the terms. But it seems irrelevant when you are talking about children confused

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 16:16:42

is it to do with biological age or puberty? confused as I said my dd is 13 and hasn't gone through puberty, is she still more of a child (she is btw she has the mental age if a 4 yr old which is why I asked what the law states) I find it frightening how vulnerable she is anyway

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:18:28

i was having sex at age 15. I was a late starter compared with my peers. Non of us were having consensual sex with older men

I think you can get all tied up in technicalities; when the reality of what it is is actually blindingly obvious?

phantomnamechanger Thu 02-May-13 16:19:17

Gross and repulsive as all these stories are, I also think celebs are more at risk than joe public of having false allegations made against them, by shunned fans and deluded obsessed people who fantasise. One of the hazards of the job if you like, same as for a teacher or scout leader.

I also think people are silly in thinking they "know" these celebs who have been beamed into our living roms for years on end - they are ALL putting on a persona. and the thing is, you just don't know who else, in the real world, is also putting on an act. They want you to like them, trust them, rely on them, put your guard down. They are very good at laughing off any accusation or questions, or playing the wounded falsely accused.

There is not a random stranger on every corner waiting to abduct your child, however, there are unsavoury characters all over the place in every walk of life who will do whatever they thinik they can get away with. We all know people like this whether we realise it or not, the ones who give us the creeps are easier to keep our kids away from, but the ones who seem genuinely lovely people are even more dangerous.

CashmereHoodlum Thu 02-May-13 16:19:31

I think ignorance about sexual abuse and where and how it usually takes place is still a big problem. It is noteworthy that Hall abused the daughters of his friends and acquaintances, so his access to these children and young people was not gained as a result of his celebrity status.

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 16:19:44

well that's sort of my point Isiolo. people are saying 'it's not paedohilia- there's a difference' well i'm asking how that difference is measured because if it's the onset of puberty then someone who might sexually abuse my young cousin at 8 who has started periods may get an entirely different trial and sentence from someone who might have abused my mum aged 15 and had not started periods. i just dont understand the "it's not peadohilia' argument if it's to do with puberty.

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:20:09

Here's an exact definition of paedophilia:

"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13). An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia."

- Wiki

meddie Thu 02-May-13 16:22:03

Going back to the OP point. I agree with you that there does seem to be a lot, but its because you are suddenly hearing about them all at once.
I am sure there are plenty of slebs who are crapping their pants at the moment for their past behaviours.

x2boys Thu 02-May-13 16:22:09

it would probably come under the mental capacity act reculver and as she does not have the capacity to consent then it should be rape any man pursuing a relationship with her is at best a predator.

Tee2072 Thu 02-May-13 16:23:59

Very true meddie.

And whatever you call it? It was disgusting, inappropriate and illegal behaviour.

EldritchCleavage Thu 02-May-13 16:26:25

The law has separate offences and more severe penalties where the child victim is under 13.

I think attraction to e.g. young teenagers is more accurately called ephebophilia.

Dahlen Thu 02-May-13 16:28:10

I think most people would shocked if they had any idea about the number of registered sex offenders in this country. It is shockingly high. There are a lot of not very nice people out there.

It's not that it is on the increase, it's just that it's become increasingly unacceptable in society. Fewer people are prepared to turn a blind eye for fear of rocking the boat. This is definitely a good thing, although it does have the unfortunate effect of making it appear it's on the increase - especially when historical crimes are factored in.

It's worth remembering that most abuse is perpetrated by people known to the victim - whether that victim is a five-year-old child or a 20-year-old woman. It's also worth remembering that most abuse is about power rather than sexual gratification (sex being the medium rather than the goal). Therefore, the best thing we can do to protect our children is arm them with a healthy self-esteem, knowledge about healthy relationships in general, the difference between authority and control, harmless and dangerous secrets, and provide a safe environment in which they can talk about anything that's bothering them.

slug Thu 02-May-13 16:28:17

A quick peruse of The Every Day Sexism Project seems to indicate girls as young as 11 are considered fair game to a large percentage of men.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 02-May-13 16:33:02

Great post Dahlen

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:34:12

I think all girls should learn a martial art. I dont mean lame self-defence classes. I mean learn how to break bones

treas Thu 02-May-13 16:34:22

Are celebreties more likely to be paedophiles than the rest of the population????

No - however, they are surrounded by yes men / women and are allowed or expect to be allowed to do whatever they want. How often have people heard the cry of 'don't you know who I am' from a so called Celebrity

Tailtwister Thu 02-May-13 16:35:47

I agree, it's very frightening OP. It seems that the exposure of JS has opened up an avalanche of other celebrities who were involved in such behaviour.

I think people's attitudes were very different in the 70's. I remember most adults I knew saying they were very suspicious of JS and I wasn't allowed to apply to his show because of that. Yet nobody did anything! There was a culture of celebrities attacking these girls in the TV studios and everyone turned a blind eye to it.

The sheer scale of the problem which is becoming apparent does shock me though.

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 16:39:44

isiolo i think that's quite ridiculous if you mean as a way of preventing sexual abuse of children.

if you mean in order to build confdence and self esteem then i agree, but i think ALL children would benefit from learning 'lame' self defence.

but if a 30/40/50 year old man has created a trust and dripped his poison in her ear about how what he's doing is special and 'love' etc then she wont even think of breaking his arm. and even if she tried, he's at least 3 times bigger than her weight wise.

AmandaPayneAteTooMuchChocolate Thu 02-May-13 16:41:31

Yes, it is scary. I think one thing to bear in mind is that, in the 70s, there wasn't much of a taboo at having sex with teenage girls if you were a powerful man. All those rock stars having sex with groupies, etc. Think of Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith. I think the age of consent was also seen as a bit of a 'technicality' and, if it was ok to have sex with a 16 year old, was it really that different to do so with a 15 year old, etc.

That is child abuse, but it's a sort of abuse that was really quite public. Without mentioning any band names, well into the 90s plenty of bands had young teenage girls hanging around at their gigs. Am an old gimmer these days, so don't know how much goes on now.

That has been mixed in with the kind of abuse committed by JS et al and they are all becoming public at once. I think society has changed in respect of paedophilia in terms of safeguarding formalities in settings like hospitals. Sadly the biggest risk to our children is still family members. But it has also reminded me just how young I will have to teach my girls about men who try to create pretend 'relationships' with them.

I don't know if it is 1% - I just plucked a figure out of thin air, so don't quote me as an authority!

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:45:01

both booy...to physically protect themselves, and to improve esteem. Ive been raped once and sexually assualted twice. Ive done plenty of lame self-defence classes, which were of no use to me what so ever.

My dds do compulsory karate. As part of that, they learn the confidence to physically defend themselves. Which is what I lacked. I knew the techniques, I just couldnt hit someone.

It is true, that an attacker will be bigger and stronger, but that doesnt mean they cant be fought off. The female karate teacher that is in the class, has fought off would be attackers. She says the element of suprise, is a massive part in how successful it will be

finickypinickity Thu 02-May-13 16:46:21

Its 3 of them on charges from Corrie at the moment if you include the bloke who played Frank and was bumped off. That does seem an incredibly high cluster of men to be accused and i for one am really shocked. Maybe its because it over such a huge time span if you include Bill Roach.

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 Harmenangry

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:46:34

I suppose I am thinking of when they are teenagers/women though...rather than children still; that said, my 7 year old has a very effective kick

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:48:04

Tis true it was over a time span; and we are hearing about them now, so may appear more. But we are in a 'time span' now, so I imagine, whilst these cases are historical; the same number are occuring in this time span??

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 16:50:32

karate is a form of self defence though? (i thought when you said self defence you meant stuff like karate/ judo etc)

apologies if you mean something other than that. i've only ever done ju-jitsu and it was for self defence.

i do still think if we are talking about the 'norm' of child sexual abuse then we're talking someone know to the child who they feel safe with and will have been 'groomed' to accept what is happening as a 'good' thing. i know in my case it was presented as a 'game'.

Cravey Thu 02-May-13 16:51:02

I think part of the issue here is the fact that it was a different era and also the fact that a lot of these cases ( not all ) were teenage girls. In fact I suspect that the celebs concerned most likely thought that said girls were overage and legal. I think it's a good thing that its coming out now and also that we as a society are more aware now of what is acceptable and what isn't. I also think re the peadophile thing that it has always been there its just that we are more aware foot now due to media etc.

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 16:52:39

ah crossposting! yes i do see what you mean about having those skills for throughout their life. in a teen or adult i think knowing you can break a leg or arm to get away would make a big difference as teens/older women are less likely to be 'groomed' in teh same way children are.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:57:43

the classes i did was 'self defence'...that was what it was called. It was useless. But a martial art, is the art of fighting isnt it? Attack is the best form of defence. It was a long time ago i did the classes...they probably dont even exist any more

But, yes, unfortunately its not much use in protecting against grooming sad

I just want to give my dds as much armour as possible. It sometimes feels really unlikely that they will get through life without being assualted/abused at some point

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 16:59:09

x-posting booy smile

I don't see what self defence has to do with it. The idea it's relevant frightens me. If someone attacks you physically (as opposed to grooming you), you shouldn't try to fight back. You have no idea how strong they are or whether they have a knife. Teenage girls trying karate on attackers is really, really not a good idea.

Anyway.

I wanted to say about paedophilia ... I don't know how people work out statistics for 'how many' people are sexually attracted to prepubescent boys or girls. But I think it is simplistic to assume that sexual attraction is the only factor here, any more than it is in cases of rape of adults. I think it is often also about power. It is really, really sick.

I'm saying that because I think it is easy to say 'ah, but only 1 in 100 people are paedophiles' and to make yourself believe this is a small group of people who are somehow sexually utterly different from the seemingly normal folk we all meet in the street and who seem to hold down normal adult relationships.

Of course there are stereotypical 'dirty old men' your mum warned you about, but there are also people who seem totally normal. sad

ModernToss Thu 02-May-13 17:05:39

I'm not so sure about the police doing a brilliant job, tbh. There were implications that various police forces had turned a blind eye to Jimmy Savile (or worse, colluded), and without wishing to sound all conspiracy theorist, it seems highly likely that people in positions of real power (as opposed to celebrities) were involved in some of the dreadful things that happened at children's homes in Wales and Jersey.

Slothlorien Thu 02-May-13 17:15:18

The only good thing to come out of this horror is that awareness of the reality of sexual abuse is growing. Abuse thrives in a culture of denial and secrecy. So many survivors of abuse carrying around a shame that is not theirs for so long. It all needs to come out. Things need to change. These men should not be protected from the consequences of what they do.
Made me feel sick reading that BBC info today about Stuart Hall. Only wish JS was still alive to face the consequences of his lies and abuse.

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 17:21:22

"It sometimes feels really unlikely that they will get through life without being assualted/abused at some point"

sadly i think this too about my own dcs. they are boys and although they seem less likely to be a victim, it's still a big worry. both myself and their father were abused as children. i wonder what makes us different from our dcs or even if we are.

i agree about giving as much armour as possible.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 17:24:05

yes, hopefully sloth, there will be some good to arise from this

LRD my arming my dcs with karate, has come from gut-instinct. But, it does seem that advice is to defend yourself, if attacked. Obviously avoidance or escape are preferable.

MrsDeVere Thu 02-May-13 17:25:40

Celebrity brings power.
If someone has a particular leaning, their power and money will make it easier for them to satisfy it.

In the 70s we had fewer celebrities. Men like JS were superstars. They may not have looked like it to those used to the glamour of even the z listers we have today.

But they were. And they were untouchable, much like the movie stars of the 1940s

So ugly, nasty, slimy middle aged men could get what they wanted in the 70s.

The way handsome, groomed footballers can do today.

harryhausen Thu 02-May-13 17:30:47

I'm also a 70's child. I agree with the posters who described the 'dirty old man' in the village. We had one. We all knew who he was and gave him a wide berth.

The attitude to all this in the 70's was just completely different in that it was swept under the carpet. I remember the 'buzz' in the media when Esther Ranzson did the ground breaking pieces on child abuse on 'That's Life'. It really felt like it was the first time it had really been discussed.

It's odd how the attitude amoungst my peers was strange too (or maybe I just went to an odd school?)...I knew a handful of my classmates who had false ID, would sneak out of houses at weekends, make themselves up to look at least 18. They purposely wanted to 'get off' with older men. I remember eating up their gossipy exploits on a Monday morning. I thought at the time it was a bit 'wild' but the idea of abuse never entered my head. Was it abuse if it was consensual even though they were well under age? I feel uneasy about what I think about that.

Obviously the abuse and rage allegations in the media today are not quite the same as this story though.

What I keep wondering about. Why has no-one accused any aged rock stars yet? We used to call them groupies. The Rolling Stones in particular were notorious for it. Why has no-one brought any abuse claims against them? Was it all consensual?

I have no answers. Just mulling it over.

But no, I don't think that there are suddenly peodophiles on every street corner. I'm just glad that the tide really has finally turned towards getting proper justice for some of the victims of this awful abuse they've lived with all these years.

Maryz Thu 02-May-13 17:31:09

I was a child of the 70s. And I was a swimmer.

We all knew to wear our togs in the shower, not to go alone into the weights room with the coach etc etc. The older men used to walk through the girls' dressing rooms when we were changing.

Having said that, there was a culture that young girls (aged 13, 14, 15) were positively encouraged, sometimes by their mothers, to get to know celebrities. Look at Mandy Smith and Bill Wyman and there were many others.

It seemed at the time that celebrities could do what they wanted, sexually, and get away with it. Many of them will say "everyone was doing it" - and it seems that in some circles everyone was doing it sad.

MrsDeVere Thu 02-May-13 17:35:02

God don't get me started on Bill Wyman. I am likely to get an injunction slapped on me, such is my hatred for that fucking pervert.

He went to the police to 'clear it all up' and said they were not interested. He shows no remorse, he talks about their special relationship, he has got away with it and he should be prosecuted.

meddie Thu 02-May-13 17:40:22

I remember when the Bill Wyman/Mandy smith affair was in the papers, dont remember any of the papers questioning the fact she was just 13. if anything she was described as a precocious wild child,
I also remember The Sun when they had pics of a topless 16 year old Sam fox and where positively delighting in the fact that 'she was now legal' It was sickening then and seems even more so now.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 02-May-13 17:41:12

Yep, the blame was all on the woman then, no question, be she 13 or 33

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Thu 02-May-13 17:44:32

The whole thing is fucking mental. What is wrong with people? My children are young but I am already dreading having to let them go out on their own. It seems that there are sick fucks everywhere sad

isiolo - who told you the advice is to attack? I've always been told by the police when they've come to speak about safety, you shouldn't attack.

Though I did hear the very grim idea that if you scratch someone, you'll get their DNA under your fingers. sad

I can't see how karate could be a good idea though - seriously, what would anyone gain by trying to kick out at someone who might have a knife or a gun?

lolaflores Thu 02-May-13 17:51:42

I am the mother of a <ahem> very striking daughter aged 19. Not just a case of mummy's baby is beautiful, she really is. Anyway, I have see her be oggled by older men; from cars, walking down the street a pace or so behind her. Shouted at and so on. I threw a friend of husbands out of the house for giving her an up and down that had nothing to do with her IQ level. She was 16.
It makes me rage and I do the jumping up and down shouting but just look mad. It also makes me feel helpless for my younger daughter that this is the level of respect availalbe for women at any given time in public whilst going about their business.

aldiwhore Thu 02-May-13 17:52:11

I think the whole crux of this is that back then it just wasn't something you reported to the police.

My mum had a headteacher who used to get girls to sit upon his knee and he'd rub his hand up and down the girls' thighs... creep yes, abhorrent, yes. It never ever occurred to my mum to involve the police, or even tell an adult, it was simply accepted as something wrong that you simply didn't talk about.

Times HAVE changed. All those people who believe they were abused now have the strength of being taken seriously on their side. They are going to speak out. They're probably all going to do it at once because suddenly IT IS OK to speak about something that happened a long time ago, it doesn't make it less wrong. For the first time they are feeling braver AND being listened to.

There will undoubtedly be some people who are lying. There will undoubtedly be some malicious accusations. There will also be a lot of revelations which are true.

I suspect that in 20 years time there won't be such an outpouring, because hopefully in 20 years time victims will feel that they will be taken seriously, and the process will be anonymous for all parties until guilt has been found.

This is a massive step in the right direction, but it IS hysterical and seems it due to such a huge backlog of cases/crimes/time.

The celebrities are not all guilty. And some of those who ARE guilty of what they're accused of could be excused. When I worked in theatres, there were no end of grubby girls queuing up for grubby sex with a grubby celebrity, perhaps some of those accused are guilty of not ID'ing everyone (still a crime, sex with a minor of course, but there are times you really do not think to check, especially if a women looks well over the age of consent and is consenting or trying to, every night for a week). I have seen both sides of this row.

These current events will create victims. It will also give some victims closure. It is nothing to be celebrated. Nothing to be shocked at either, it's 20/30 years of silence and culture exploding. It needs to be dealt with anonymously, seriously and each case needs to be seen individually. It won't be though. Hopefull at the very least it will signal the end of casual cover ups, and give victims confidence to tackle the crimes at the time.

lolaflores Thu 02-May-13 17:53:41

But then a quick look at the headlines on the Sun today and its coverage of Baliotellis latest love split,,,cos he offered his girlfriend to have sex with the rest of his team.....and this is funny, newsworthy?!!!
Overall there is a fundamental disrespect of women, the intrinsic worth and value of us that hasn't changed for centuries never mind decades

TheSecondComing Thu 02-May-13 17:54:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Booyhoo Thu 02-May-13 17:55:34

"Though I did hear the very grim idea that if you scratch someone, you'll get their DNA under your fingers. "

i dont think i've ever heard that as advice but from watching tv shows i realised that scratching someone will mean their DNA is under your nails so for a long time (since childhood) i've always kept that in the back of my mind as the first thing to do if i'm attacked. and yes, it's grim to have to think like that.

MrsDeVere Thu 02-May-13 17:55:46

I was an awkward, skinny, tiny kid. From the age of about 12 onwards I was subjected to vile abuse being shouted at me out of cars, from building sites etc.

It was relentless.

I have no time for those who think 'its all a bit of fun innit'.

Its all part of the same thing.

slhilly Thu 02-May-13 17:56:19

LRD, I think people need to decide for themselves what the appropriate response is. The police do advise people not to defend themselves. That said, the police have not been great friends of women in relation to rape and sexual assault, and their advice should be read in the context of an institution that has a preference for a monopoly over violence.

An attacker may be armed with a knife, yes, but a gun is really quite unlikely in this country. If an attacker is armed, they are likely to pre-emptively threaten, however, which is likely to mean you wouldn't try karate on them anyway (unless you're really proficient and confident). But if they are unarmed and attacking you, and you have the skills, and running away doesn't look like a sensible possibility, then using karate or similar to defend yourself could save you from being raped. It may not, but it may.

I sincerely hope that none of us is ever in a situation where this becomes relevant, and I am sad to think that this is unlikely.

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 17:57:01

my mum is in her 50s and one teacher got a pupil pregnant when she was at secondary and several had affairs with pupils (from what she tells me) It's just sickening sad and look at all the care home stuff coming out too. It's good it is being exposed but I wonder where it will end.

I am sorry for going off at tangent before, I just find it disturbing (as do all of you I know)

ReculverTowers Thu 02-May-13 17:58:25

ikwym MrsDV. When I met dh we used to get pips and shouts from white van drivers from behind because they thought he was female too (long hair hmm) I hopethis doesn't happen anymore...

lolaflores Thu 02-May-13 18:00:50

slhilly that is the thing though. In a situation of being attack, most people freeze anyway and to be honest a random attack like that has the advantadge of surprise so I don't think there is a decision process gone through. Hoping one survives is usually uppermost in the mind.
My own experiencce of it was that I fought initially then realised that I was going to get a good kicking included with the rape, so "gave up" and prayed for it to finish as quickly as possible. Remaining "calmer" saved me from being beaten unconcious not being raped if that makes any sense

slhilly - I'm not trying to decide for anyone else. I'm just passing on what I understand to be the best advice going.

A gun isn't particularly unlikely, if someone is attacked. Nor is a knife, or just superior strength - if someone is attacked like that.

What is unlikely to be attacked by someone you don't know. It's much more likely for a child or teenager to be groomed so that he or she doesn't perceive what happens as an attack.

I don't believe for one minute the police give out misleading information out of dishonesty or some kind of wish not to prosecute rape.

infamouspoo Thu 02-May-13 18:09:21

so how come Wyman isnt arrested?

lolaflores Thu 02-May-13 18:11:42

infamouspoo that is an interesting question. Would a charge have to brought by the person involved before anything would go to the police? Also, was he having sex with her at 13 or is that me being really naive?
Mind you, she hasn't been well over the years mentally and physically. Though, it sounded to me that her mum was almost pimping her out.

GladbagsGold Thu 02-May-13 18:15:27

It is scary stuff. I suppose there will always be the same percentage of abusers but I'd like to think it is tackled better these days.

When I was a child we had a 'pervy' teacher, who did get investigated at one point, but we all covered up for him because we thought we would get in trouble for disrespecting a teacher.

It is different now - my primary aged children have lessons about staying safe and they are explicitly told clear messages eg

Its not ok to keep secrets
If I don't feel safe I will tell a trusted person
I will keep telling until I feel safe
My body belongs to me

Plus they learn terms like penis, vagina, anus etc. So should anyone ever try anything inappropriate they have the tools to say 'mr/s x touched my penis' rather than umming and ahhing about 'the special secret game mr/s x played with their tinkle'.

Maryz Thu 02-May-13 18:24:42

Bill Wyman seems to have got away with it completely [baffled]

I also remember when BW/MS were in the news. My mum was absolutely apoplectic with rage at the whole thing. But I know a lot of so-called '60s wild child celebrities were the mums of those young girls who were pushed into contact with the likes of BW - almost as though they were reliving their youth in the free and easy '60s through their very young daughters in the late '70s early '80s.

Maryz Thu 02-May-13 18:26:44

This is all sadly very reminiscent of when priests first started getting arrested for abuse. It started with a trickle and became a flood as victims got the courage to come forward.

And of course it is similar in another way too - these were celebrities, who like priests were revered and admired and hero-worshipped sad

aldiwhore Thu 02-May-13 18:46:32

Why is Steve Tyler still so adored? Why aren't her parents prosecuted? He openly admits it happened. But he's not as ugly as Gary Glitter I guess. hmm

I hope this introduces an new era of zero tolerance, anonymity (sp) respect for everyone.

But I do think there will be victims created as there will be (hopefully) victims acknowledged.

lotsofdogshere Thu 02-May-13 19:26:00

I'm relieved that the subject of sexual abuse of children is being discussed more openly. Attitudes are changing, I agree, but alongside that we have sexualisation of little girls and a large section of the press that implies there are more false allegations than in reality. When our children were at primary school, historical allegations were made by teenagers, about abuse by a member of staff when they were 7 or 8. The response of the majority of parents was to tell their children the member of staff was off school because some very naughty girls had made up stories about him. Sadly, he wasn't prosecuted because of the likelihood of a middle class man being believed over teens who had their difficulties. This is such a common scenario, and no wonder children find it very hard to tell. At least the press coverage of so many tv personalities will mean many families find themselves talking about this compacted stuff. I do hope children will be growing up with a stronger belief that adults will believe and support them, as this is so hard for children who have been victimised to believe.

MrsMelons Thu 02-May-13 20:09:26

I don't think there is any reason to freak out any more than we were before all this.

JS was most definitely a paedophile and completely abused his position, as is Stuart Hall.

The other cases are all very different, Rolf Harris for example was apparently fairly young himself and was in a relationship with a 15 year old girl, yes still illegal and he should have known better but not in any way similar to JS.

William Roache has been charged with rape of a 15 year old girl, again a different case.

I was having consensual sex at 15, my boyfriend was 21 but I never considered it was wrong at the time (I would be mortified if either of my DSs were in a relationship with a 15 at 21 BTW) I certainly do not think he was a paedophile - just very immature (we split up as I found him too childish).

My brothers wife was a month off her 16th birthday when they met, he was 19 but was definitely a very young 19 and not an 'older man' as such, he was a boy (not all 19 YOs are reall), still at college. They are still together 12 years later.

MrsDeVere Thu 02-May-13 20:19:23

WR was in his 30s when he was having sex with a 15 year old girl.
So, can't see why that is so very different from what JS was doing.

MrsDeVere Thu 02-May-13 20:20:20

He is 81
he raped her in 67

fyi

MrsMelons Thu 02-May-13 20:25:01

According to the reports WR's case was rape so no different other than the age. I was just stating that they were all different charges - not that any were better/worse than others. JS case is at the extremes of awfulness though, we are talking about 9 or 10 YOs who were vulnerable, terminally ill, in hospital etc. I know someone working on the case (very high up) they of course wouldn't discuss specifics but said it was much much worse than what has actually been reported.

My friend was 19 when he was charged for having sex with a 15 year old girl, he met her in a pub where she was drinking, she said she was 18 and they had a one night stand. It is on his record but I don't consider it similar to JS.

MrsMelons Thu 02-May-13 20:26:03

Yes MrsDeVere - I realise that but I wasn't saying it was ok in anyway, rape is never ok.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crypes Thu 02-May-13 20:55:39

Yea I completely agree with people who can remember the Dirty old men hanging around the community in the 70's, so obviously there was lots of Dirty Old Men hanging around the BBC and show business. Children didn't report it in those days and now as adults they can which is a good thing. I was wondering today about the Street cleaner and the stalker in the park of my childhood and if anything happened to those Dirty Old Men, did they ever get reported.

Maryz Thu 02-May-13 20:57:12

I think in the case of the "celebrities" that will be the defence that is used. "Girls were throwing themselves at me" - might be true hmm. "I didn't know how old she was" - might be true. "I don't even remember meeting her" - might be true.

It wouldn't be right now. It wasn't right then. But for many of them they lived in such a bubble that they probably never even thought about whether it was right, they just took what they were offered. And in some cases it probably wasn't offered, they just presumed it was and took it anyway angry.

I would have thought it would be hard to prove after so much time, though (or disprove for that matter). Unless of course the girl involved had reported it at the time and been ignored (which seems to have happened a lot), in which case it might be taken more seriously now. Otherwise I don't see how they could convict just on word of mouth.

ComposHat Thu 02-May-13 20:59:01

With the exception of Stuart Hall who entered a guilty plea, we don't know anything more about the other cases, so it would be hasty to judge people until some evidence presented. I think some comments on this thread are pressuming guilt before a trial date has even been set.

So far one person has been convicted.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LaGuardia Thu 02-May-13 21:37:04

At the very least, these cases are out in the open. I 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.

Maryz Thu 02-May-13 22:03:20

Yes compos.

And if they are innocent it will be very hard for them to prove it after all this time so the general public will never believe them even if they are acquitted.

ComposHat Thu 02-May-13 22:08:19

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.

Isiolo Thu 02-May-13 22:19:22

In the vast majority of cases, it is men

ComposHat Thu 02-May-13 22:27:58

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.

WMittens Thu 02-May-13 22:36:56

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).

ImperialBlether Thu 02-May-13 22:37:32

Someone mentioned Samantha Fox - her own father was her manager and pimped her out for photographs.

slhilly Thu 02-May-13 22:58:30

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.

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.

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.

BegoniaBampot Thu 02-May-13 23:07:00

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.

BegoniaBampot Thu 02-May-13 23:07:41

jujitsu

FreyaSnow Thu 02-May-13 23:45:00

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.

Isiolo Fri 03-May-13 00:13:45

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.

BegoniaBampot Fri 03-May-13 00:15:26

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.

LoremIpsum Fri 03-May-13 00:25:28

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.

sashh Fri 03-May-13 02:53:55

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?

Maryz Fri 03-May-13 08:25:38

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.

Maryz Fri 03-May-13 08:28:11

And, by the way, paedophilia is having sexual interest in pre-pubescent children (age 10 and under) - see Wiki

The primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents is called Hebephilia and interest in mid-to-late adolescents (15–19) is called Ephebophilia.

So most of the celebrities we are talking about aren't paedophiles at all.

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).

Abra1d Fri 03-May-13 08:51:52

'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.

Abra1d Fri 03-May-13 08:53:02

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.

NCCL’s Legal Officer at the same time was Harriet Harman.

Were these women insane?

Isiolo Fri 03-May-13 08:54:00

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

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 09:43:21

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.

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.)

Booyhoo Fri 03-May-13 10:05:38

justforlaughs

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.

Maryz Fri 03-May-13 10:15:41

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.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now