to wonder why everyone is a sex offender....

(124 Posts)
gabbymum Sat 04-May-13 19:24:56

Every day in the papers there seems to be a new one. Most of them seem to relate to events that happened years ago. What is going on?

phantomnamechanger Sat 04-May-13 19:28:42

what is going on is that these things are finally being listened to and taken seriously

WhatKindofFool Sat 04-May-13 20:17:05

It is sickening how many of them there are. The world seems to be full of them. Sadly, I met a few when I was a child.

gabbymum Sat 04-May-13 20:22:19

It's just been on the news about a Tory MP arrested for rape and sex assault. I'm very shocked at the sheer volume of these occurances at the moment.

AuntieStella Sat 04-May-13 20:26:33

The arrest of Nigel Evans MP is not based on investigation of historic allegations. The offences were in the last 4 years and concern men in their 20s.

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Sat 04-May-13 20:56:05

There has been a sea-change in the way rape and sexual assault is viewed. Traditionally, women were automatically disbelieved and had to go to lengths to prove themselves, and almost inevitably failed to do this. Women were also seen as 'asking for it' by dress and action and so were to blame for their own assault.

Now, there is a far better understading that one's body is one's own and other people are not allowed to use it without its owner's consent. That women can do and wear what they like and this still doesn't give other people any particular rights or entitlements over their bodies. That consent can be withdrawn at any point and that once it is withdrawn, that is rape.

So, women who were raped and/or sexually assaulted in the past and who didn't do anything about it due to the prevailing views at the time are finally able to try to seek some justice. These will be women who have lived with what happened to them for many years in some cases, unable to deal with it and properly put it in the past, and who may have blamed themselves for what happened.

SoleSource Sat 04-May-13 21:19:14

Stuart Hall! sad;(sad

Poor kids

HollyBerryBush Sat 04-May-13 21:48:17

Times change, laws change, acceptance of behaviour changes.

HollyBerryBush Sat 04-May-13 21:49:50

to wonder why everyone is a sex offender?

Although your title does make me ask - who have you sexually offended lately?

Because I haven't been convicted of a sex crime.

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 21:53:14

what is going on is that these things are finally being listened to and taken seriously

Exactly.

The effect of that seems to have blown reality right apart for a lot of people who were lucky enough not to have been sexually assaulted when they were very young.

Scruffey Sat 04-May-13 22:03:48

People didn't report as they did not think they would be believed in many cases. This is changing now.

Types of assault like groping were so common that people just thought of the perpetrators as dirty old men rather than abusers so again didn't report.

I hope that all these abusers are quaking in their boots now waiting for their victims to report them.

b4bunnies Sat 04-May-13 22:07:08

Times change, laws change, acceptance of behaviour changes.
this is true but young women today don't want to believe it.

in case of 'real' abusers, those who went out of their way to find children and vulnerable people - by all means prosecute, no longer how long ago the offence.

i've been thinking a lot about a childhood friend, over the last few days. we went our separate ways after primary school. in our secondary school years, her mum used to take her to events where minor celebrities such as stuart hall would be present. i know that some made a lot of fuss of her. maybe the abuse she suffered wasn't restricted to her adult experiences. but the girl and her mother were both 'asking' for it. begging for the attention, in fact. the mother took her back again and again.

Kleptronic Sat 04-May-13 22:13:35

b4bunnies what are you trying to say exactly?

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 22:14:02

the girl and her mother were both 'asking' for it.

No, b4bunnies, they were not 'asking for it'. Being needy, wanting attention, having a naïve belief in people's trustworthiness, being star struck... None of these things are 'asking for it'.

HollyBerryBush Sat 04-May-13 22:17:23

acceptance of behaviour changes

I certainly wouldn't put up with some behaviour today, I experienced as a teenage girl. In saying that, I am able to put that experience firmly back in the 1980's and not dwell upon it.

nooka Sat 04-May-13 22:19:36

And that's just the sort of attitude that meant sexual offenses were brushed under the carpet in the past. Just like the 'she made me do it' line that used to be a common defense for domestic abuse.

b4bunnies Sat 04-May-13 22:19:48

No, b4bunnies, they were not 'asking for it'. Being needy, wanting attention, having a naïve belief in people's trustworthiness, being star struck... None of these things are 'asking for it'.
yes, they were. maybe not abuse, but sexual contact was part of their plan.

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 22:21:59

The 'times change' assumption worries me a bit, actually.
It seems to be a way of assuming that 'these things just don't happen anymore'. Similar to the way that people used to assume that 'these things don't happen to people we know'.
It seems like a way for people to persuade themselves that everything's fine now, no need to worry, yada, yada...
Very similar to how people thought in the 70s and 80s, in fact. Especially around the naice, 'respectable' men who were assaulting these young people.

nooka Sat 04-May-13 22:22:36

If we are talking about a school child, then so what? A child/teen can 'ask' all they like, but that doesn't mean it is in any way shape or mean acceptable for an adult to take advantage of them.

Even if someone throws themselves at you you are not obliged to have sex/sexual contact with them regardless of your minor celebrity status.

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 22:24:00

sexual contact was part of their plan.

Part of a child's 'plan'?

I think you might have got that wrong, b4bunnies.
In fact, I know you've got that very badly wrong.

JennyMackerz Sat 04-May-13 22:25:42

NYANBU

I was thinking this recently. I want, need to believe that these things are rare, that men who feel entitled to sexually assault and or rape your girls are rare and nwo I don't know confused sad

SpanishFly Sat 04-May-13 22:28:59

b4bunnies how the actual fuck would you know what was their plan?

What a ridiculous and insulting and vile thing to say - they were needy and wanted attention therefore the child asked to be sexually abused??

Kleptronic Sat 04-May-13 22:29:18

b4bunnies ah I see, that's what you meant. Well I disagree with what you said. Children cannot consent to sex. You have put forward one of the 'arguments' paedophiles use to justify their crimes. Well done you.

MonkeyingAroundTown Sat 04-May-13 22:29:57

I am with you gabby. I am astounded by all these celebs who are coming out of the woodwork.

Is it something that was "no big deal" back then. Is that why so many were doing it?

I don't know about anyone else but I find myself wondering who else, who used to do childrens shows, (ones which I used to watch growing up) is going to be next to be accused of sexual harassment.

Why is it all men too?

b4bunnies Sat 04-May-13 22:58:32

it was about attitude to women. men's attitudes, and women's attitudes. women planning to 'catch' men by using sex. men thinking that if it was offered they could take it.

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 23:06:51

it was about attitude to women. men's attitudes, and women's attitudes. women planning to 'catch' men by using sex. men thinking that if it was offered they could take it.

Right, b4bunnies.
None of that need involve sexually assaulting children, though, you see.
And if it was offered is kind of operative, isn't it?
The thing is, you see, b4bunnies, children cannot 'offer' sexual activity to an adult.
Can you understand that? You seem rather confused.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

b4bunnies Sat 04-May-13 23:24:41

get a grip? am i the one who is over-excited by this? i don't think so.

people had different expectations.

yes, lunatic, you are probably right - although it didn't seem like it at the time, the girl probably was being abused, certainly exploited, by her mother. that's a shocking thought and why it has been on my mind with the recent publicity.

what it seemed like at the time was the girl having fun, getting involved with people from the television etc. but the overall aim was to get a husband out of it, which did involve an expectation of a 'relationship'.

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 23:29:32

b4bunnies: You seem to be talking about a girl who was at primary school at the same time that you were, right? And you say you lost contact with this girl? And yet you also speak as if you think you knew what went on when she and her mother went to these events (or whatever they were), and you try to say that you know what the score was at that time regarding manipulative women, etc. (so presumably were an adult male at that time).
How did you manage to be a primary school child and have such 'insight' into adult mores, all at the same time? hmm

FreyaSnow Sat 04-May-13 23:33:21

I have books from the 80s on child psychology and know people who worked with vulnerable young people in the seventies and eighties. It was the case then as it is now that children who have been victims of sexual abuse often have problems with boundaries and knowing how to relate to adults, which puts them at risk of further abuse from predatory and criminally minded adults. The child b4b mentions may well have had issues with boundaries around adults, but any decent person would see that child as very vulnerable, not as somebody to exploit by starting a 'relationship' with them.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BollyGood Sat 04-May-13 23:41:13

b4bunnies I have just read this thread and am completely shocked at your comments regarding your friend. Children do not ask to be abused. Neither do women.End of.

everlong Sat 04-May-13 23:44:30

Women are now thinking that they might be listened to and believed.

That's what's going on.

Imagine living with something like that???

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kleptronic Sat 04-May-13 23:46:22

b4bunnies I wouldn't call challenging what seemed to be victim blaming 'over-excited'. In your post you said the woman and the child were 'asking for it'. This language is inflammatory. This phrase has been used time out of mind by abusers as a justification for abuse.

No child is ever 'asking for it' and if her mother was presenting her for sex to anyone then she was groomed by her mother for abuse. Did you mean your words to come across as a defence of paedophilia?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BasilBabyEater Sat 04-May-13 23:54:42

Do you mean the girl's mother knew that the celebrity concerned would sexually assault her child b4bunnies, and that she was OK with that?

Really?

How do you know that?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 04-May-13 23:54:59

But you actually said they asked for it, a child asked for abusive sexual contact and you confirmed that was the case.

Bugger all to do with anyone's attitude apart from yours

LastMangoInParis Sun 05-May-13 00:01:24

b4bunnies you still haven't told us how it is that you think you understand this bygone era from both a child's and an adult's point of view.

KoreRenati Sun 05-May-13 00:10:12

b4bunnies If something is wrong then it is wrong no matter when it happened, even if people didn't think it was wrong at the time. Attitudes changing is a bullshit excuse.

BollyGood Sun 05-May-13 00:13:29

in case of 'real' abusers, those who went out of their way to find children and vulnerable people - by all means prosecute, no longer how long ago the offence.

You also wrote this b4bunnies what exactly do you mean by 'real' abusers? Are you saying other types of abuse is ok if the abuser didn't actively go out looking for children, but if they happened upon them then it's ok? Seriously think about what you are writing. Or log out and don't bother coming back on here.

BollyGood Sun 05-May-13 00:14:13

I am actually disgusted by your attitude

Dawndonna Sun 05-May-13 00:57:14

Fuck me, I've just cleared my faceache page of rape apologists. Shame I can't do it here.
angry

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Sun 05-May-13 02:18:41

Utterly unbelievable the sheer number of people who still, in this day and age, assume women and children are asking for it, are automatically not to be believed, and are somehow at fault for their own abuse and rape. That it's automatically the 'victim' who is to be doubted; never the rapist.

What is wrong with people?

MiniMonty Sun 05-May-13 02:39:52

There is no asking for it.
There is only having it done to you.
Whether you understand what's being done to you or not - and children don't and can't understand what's being done to them if they are being abused.
"asking for it" is an horrifically stupid notion.

Are you asking to be raped if you wear a mini skirt?
Are you asking to be beaten to death if you wear the wrong football shirt in the wrong pub?

Deeply strange people walk among us and we are wise to watch out for them (and then lock 'em up for ever).

Springdiva Sun 05-May-13 05:11:27

I think back in the 60s/70s women or girls could be considered to be seen to be asking for it. There were nice girls and tarts, nice girls didn't and tarts got what they deserved. So if a girl was 'asking for it', or could be described that way, then there was little sympathy. I remember starting secondary school and gossiping with pals about an older girl who was 'having it off' (according to the school gossip) with one of the teachers. There was total disdain for her but none for the teacher. I would only have been 12 at the time but that is just to demonstrate how it was (1966).

It's why the Magdalene laundries were allowed to flourish, locking up girls because they had been interfered with, or whatever, unbelievable by today's standards but it was the attitude that girls were 'bad' so deserved what they got.

I'm not justifying anything, it's great that these old gits are getting prosecuted, it will create a lot of publicity so there will surely be more fear of getting caught in the future so hopefully less abuse.

CheerfulYank Sun 05-May-13 05:45:39

My brother (a total asshole by any standards) was saying of a teenage girl in the town we live in, "X (another teenage girl) says she's a total slut, she was caught giving blowjobs when she was nine."

I went completely nuclear on him...that's not a "slut" (though frankly he'd be one to talk), that's an abused child. angry

Ugghhh. So glad he is not a part of my children's lives.

Buzzardbird Sun 05-May-13 06:36:34

I had an argument with 2 women last week who were saying that these abused children were just reporting it now for the money. I happen to know that the one woman's own dd was abused around the age of 4 for years. No surprise that the woman does not know anything about this and the child in her mid 40's has suffered all her life.
These attitudes to the victims of grown men who knew damn well what they were doing sickens me physically.
How can people be such idiots?

JennyMackerz Sun 05-May-13 11:08:09

Cheerful yank, good for you. I think men who confuse an abused child with a girl who's asking for it - if their forcefield of entitlement and delusion is EVER pierced, even slightly, it will be by a female member of their family. I think they understand that their sisters are people , but a nine year old giving a blow job is a bad girl?? that is so sad.

I agree that any child whose mother brought her as a sacrifice to these slebs was abused twice.

No child can consent to having sex. This point clearly needs to be hammered home. There are still people (and people on mumsnet who dn't get it - and this would be a more evolved vox pop than average)

b4bunnies Sun 05-May-13 14:08:49

mn isn't 'evolved'. there is a mn outlook and you deviate from it at your own risk.

Springdiva Sun 05-May-13 14:14:53

Hopefully those the poor girl 'gave' blowjobs to will be sleeping slightly less soundly in their beds with the publicity there is now.

specialsubject Sun 05-May-13 14:17:47

not 'everyone' of the recent cases.

Stuart Hall. Jimmy Savile.

none of the other recent celebrity cases have been proven guilty, or admitted guilt. Until then, they are innocent.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kay1975 Sun 05-May-13 17:55:12

Can I just ask, when you are all referring to children what age bracket do you mean? I read one of the story Hall stories and she was 15 and he touched her knee, is this one of the children you mean?

KoreRenati Sun 05-May-13 17:58:23

"Just because you're a minority voice, it doesn't mean you're a crusader for advanced thinking; you could just be wrong."

This.

Actually b4bunnies, it's not about disagreeing with the majority on MN, it's about you spouting highly offensive and inflammatory comments. As many have said, a child cannot give sexual consent. For you to state she was "asking for it" is wrong. It's a disgusting thing to think, let alone say. Regardless of public opinion, the crap you were spouting was vile, that's why so many have called you on it.

LondonMan Sun 05-May-13 18:09:56

Haven't read the thread. I think the answer is simply crowd behaviour; initially a few people made a complaint about one person and got a "good" result, this inspired others to speak up, and so and more and more people feel encouraged to speak all of a sudden about any unaddressed issue that may have happened in the past 40 years.

CoalDustWoman Sun 05-May-13 18:14:14

I don't know if some posters (and others in the wider world) think that the concepts of consent, rape and sexual assault were invented in 2003 with the sexual offences act of that year.

They weren't.

b4bunnies Sun 05-May-13 19:32:23

mrsmango - don't be silly. just because something doesn't suit you its 'offensive'. group outlook. that's all.

were you there? i was? did you hear the week-by-week accounts? i did. did you think nothing of it because no-one else did either? no? then you don't know.

It's offensive because it's offensive, not down to my personal taste. Nothing silly about that. Do you really believe that excusing sexual abuse, and blaming the victim is anything but?

Acandlelitshadow Sun 05-May-13 21:30:56

b4bunnies has it occurred to you that if everyone thinks you're talking offensive shite it might actually not be hive mind and therefore you just might be?

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 05-May-13 21:36:06

Hmmm if you think a child can 'ask for it' and take any blame in the actions of a adult putting that child forwards for sexual contact or an adult engaging in any sexual contact.

Then you are a poor excuse for a decent human being who needs educating because that is child abuse.

BollyGood Sun 05-May-13 22:30:17

b4bunnies how old was your friend?

BollyGood Sun 05-May-13 22:30:39

Not that it matters but I am just wondering.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

CheerfulYank Mon 06-May-13 04:43:12

It's like that kid Roman Polanski raped...I've heard such awful shit . I don't care if she went there stark naked and begged him (which she most definitely did NOT) it would still be rape because she's a child.

The other thing that makes me incredible angry is the stupid 'logic' people use to excuse this. A woman is a 'slut' (not my term, you understand) at 18, say. 'Well, she was just like that at 13, giving hand jobs at the park...' Abused children are groomed, trained, taught how to think about sexual contact by abusers. They can't always just shake that off and think in a healthy way about sex and relationships the moment the abuse ends.

Possibly bunnies friend's mother had been/was being abused. Possibly she was unable to think normally about her and her child's sexuality (or lack thereof). Possibly she has been trained to think that all women and girls have to offer is sex. I don't know. I know that an adult man should know that a child can't consent.

HollyBerryBush Mon 06-May-13 06:55:48

I remember, oh I suppose I was maybe 15? So back in 1980 or thereabouts. There used to be a girl on the school bus, she was 12 pushing 13, for better developed than me or my peers, lookedolder, acted older and she used to get out and about to night clubs. She made no secret of the the fact she was willingly sexually active. Of course we inwardly judged her.

It's only with the benefit of age that you can see what was really happening. I could armchair analyse her now and probably be quite correct in my assumptions of what was happening at home.

People have always been suckered into celebrity. It's like a little snap shot of a glittering world. Some are seduced by it, the hope they will get a little bit of that glitter in their lives, some are somehow frightened by the power celebrities seem to have and are powerless to stop events happening. Yes, some mothers groom their children in that celebrity world (I'm specifically thinking of Mandy Smith here) and vicariously live their lives through their children.

As far as I'm aware, child abuse/paedophilia has always been illegal. But I do think there is a big distinction to be made between abuse and "the way things were". A slap on the arse in 1970, one of those things, get over it, a slap on the arse today - many avenues open to you should you wish to pursue it and you don't have to put up with that behaviour/assault.

It can only be a good thing that we are more open and talk about it and raise the bar on standards of behaviour. That the veil of power that abusers have, has now been lifted and they can't hide behind that celebrity status any longer.

Jumping backwards again to "the way things were", I quite often read auto/biographies and of that 50/60/very early 70's era there is quite often the line "I left home at 15 and moved to London" - presumably because the school leaving age was still 14/15. A lot of those dance troups on TOTP were only 15 and living away from home.

You certainly wouldnt let your daughter do it today, not unchaperoned anyway. But back in the swinging 60's it almost seemed normal to leave home at 15 and seek your fortune in London or Paris.

ChelseaKnows1 Mon 06-May-13 07:08:17

I defo think these type of things are reported more and taken seriously now. When my dad was younger he said people never heard of things like this. Maybe it was kept hush? Maybe family values have changed and with less close knit communities and families maybe it is easier for people to get away with horrific sexual offences?

HollyBerryBush Mon 06-May-13 07:33:48

We are more open sexually, we discuss things that 99% of the time I think should only be discussed in a bedroom between concenting adults!!

But I also think back then before you had the shift in demographics and the population movement that we have today, we all knew who the "weird bloke" down the road was. You may not have known why he was "weird" but you knew to keep away, if you were told to keep away, you didn't challenge your parents and demand explantions.

To put that in perspective, we had a "weird bloke" next door but one. Doing child like things such as delivering all the Christmas cards, drummed into me to never go into number 55, anyone elses house, fine, but not number 55. I accepted that rule. It wasn't until I was about 23, and next door came charging in in tears because no 55 was standing in her garden with his pants round his ankles masterbating, that I understood why No 55 was out of bounds. Then I found out he had a rather long history of flashing at primary aged girls and masterbating in childrens play areas. My friend moved away very suddenly when I was 6, after the whole garden incident, I then understood why she hadn't said goodbye.

Now if I was having that same conversation with my own children, I would be challenged as to why No 55 is out of bounds, get into some explanation about flashers and so forth. A simple "don't go there" just would not suffice.

So the whole open-ness of sexual activity is right out there on the table. I'm not so sure primary aged children need to know about seedy sex, but I'm sure someone will come along and correct me on that score grin.

But in opening up sexual talk you have also opened up recourse to help lines, groups, therapy that people wouldn't have known about, had they existed 30/40/50 years ago. Sex was still quite taboo as a topic of conversation when I was growing up - I'd not ever have had a sexual conversation with my mother but I seem to frequently have them with my children.

waikikamookau Mon 06-May-13 07:49:43
b4bunnies Mon 06-May-13 11:17:41

how old? she'd be fourteen plus.
her mum's background? definitely she'd had some unfortunate experiences.
child abuse apologist? definitely not. not at all. certainly those named individuals with a history of child sex abuse deserve prosecution, no matter how long ago the cases occurred.

but no matter how angry mn is about this or that, it genuinely was different for girls in the 1970s. girls who thought they were 'winning' in the system, the ones who got the attention, took advantage of that. you can make whatever comments you like, that's how it was and shouting about it now won't change it.

BasilBabyEater Mon 06-May-13 11:52:29

"girls who thought they were 'winning' in the system, the ones who got the attention, took advantage of that."

But they weren't winning, were they? The men who were abusing them were. Let's stop focusing on the behaviour of groomed girls and accepting their view of the world then, and focus on the behaviour of the grown, adult men who thought it was OK to fuck children and very young, inexperienced adults.

I wouldn't dream of going to bed with a man under 25 years old, because I'm in my mid 40's. It's legal, there's nothing formally wrong with it and I've had offers, incredibly. grin But I wouldn't do it, because I'm not a bloody pervert who gets off on having control over a vulnerable younger person and who thinks I have the right to go in and influence their sexuality and attitudes to relationships and sex when they are still finding themselves and should be able to do that without the influence of someone much older and more experienced than them. What is wrong with the men in this scenario?

BasilBabyEater Mon 06-May-13 11:54:38

And this:

"none of the other recent celebrity cases have been proven guilty, or admitted guilt. Until then, they are innocent."

Not necessarily. They're innocent before the law. That doesn't mean they are innocent per se. We don't know if they are innocent or guilty, but the statistical probability is that they are guilty, because the rate of false allegation of sexual crimes is so low - less than 3 or 4%. They have a 90%+ probability of being guilty. Which doesn't mean that they're not innocent (someone has to be in that 6%-ish), but it's statistically unlikely.

ItsallisnowaFeegle Mon 06-May-13 12:09:41

Not only am I disgusted by your views on what happened to your 'friend' b4, I am shock that you cooly continue to defend your standpoint as an apologist to rape. For shame hmm

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 06-May-13 12:30:15

Wow.you have basically just said that children in the 70's were fair game for sexual predators.

No matter what a child does or says or how they dress no matter what,if a adult has sexual contact with them that adult is in the wrong

LastMangoInParis Mon 06-May-13 12:52:13

girls who thought they were 'winning' in the system, the ones who got the attention, took advantage of that. you can make whatever comments you like, that's how it was and shouting about it now won't change it.

b4bunnies, you sound as if you resent and envy these girls/women, apparently because, as you saw it, they were the centre of attention then. And now, as you seem to see it, they're the centre of attention again, and therefore you're annoyed.
Is that what it is?
Is it that you think these women have been granted attention that you would have liked back then (you didn't know what was really going on), and would still like now, but you feel that others are stealing your limelight?

KoreRenati Mon 06-May-13 12:58:12

"it genuinely was different for girls in the 1970s"

So in the 70's underage kids weren't actually underage? Or was the age of consent different back then? (Hint: Set at 16 in 1885)

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Acandlelitshadow Mon 06-May-13 14:14:17

Fourteen plus?

So not primary age yet looking for a husband at all then? confused

If you're going to post offensive shite then defend it, surely the least you can do is keep up with your own story.

gordyslovesheep Mon 06-May-13 14:19:12

I was a 'girl' in the 70's b4bunnies - I think you are talking boswellox

zippey Mon 06-May-13 14:46:56

Setting aside the ridiculous comments from bunnies, there have only been two proven cases that i can think of, Jim Saville and Stuart Hall. The rest is all up in the air and the people involved should not be regarded as guilty, yet.

Im not sure things were very different decades ago but if attitudes were different I wonder if a truth, confession and reconciliation style may be the way forward where celebrities who wish to confess can do so, maybe even escaping prosecution.

I got the feeling Bill Roach was approaching this in interviews he did just before the allegations, though what he said was more to justify rather than apologise.

SpanishFly Mon 06-May-13 14:52:41

Agreed re Bill Roach - seemed like damage limitation

YoniBottsBumgina Mon 06-May-13 19:12:44

Right Holly, but I don't think that today, the man from number 55 would be merrily living there if he was well known as a flasher, because that kind of thing is also taken more seriously now. And also I think most children would be happy with an explanation of "because he's a bad man who might hurt you." I don't think there's any need to go into details of what exactly might happen.

I'm glad this kind of thing is coming into the public consciousness.

HollyBerryBush Mon 06-May-13 19:17:43

but I don't think that today, the man from number 55 would be merrily living there if he was well known as a flasher, because that kind of thing is also taken more seriously now

yoni so he owned his own house, how would YOU force him to move? Where would you house him?

Please don't project today onto yesteryear - I though I gave a rational post explaining past and present.

I'd lay money on if we all had access to convictions records none of us would be more than 100 yards from someone we wouldn't want to be living within a100 miles of.

Those girls may have been chasing fame and affection but did not have the capacity to agree to what was done to them as they did not understand why it was happening or the ramifications because they were children! That is why it is against the law.

By your shitty logic b4bunnies, every groupie out there deserves being used and abused by these monsters.

YoniBottsBumgina Mon 06-May-13 19:34:36

In a prison? confused Okay, I admit I don't know what police protocol is for flashing etc but I'm always hearing on here that the police take it very seriously as offenders usually go on to rape if not prevented.

I suppose my point is that it's less to do with talking about sex and more to do with the fact we don't have as close knit communities any more.

YoniBottsBumgina Mon 06-May-13 19:39:07

Sorry, it takes me so long to type on my phone that I forget my point. The reason i was comparing is because I can't imagine a situation today where I would have to tell my children to avoid a particular house because things are so different now.

HollyBerryBush Mon 06-May-13 19:39:07

You still can't force a house sale.

And a known flasher isn't the same as a convicted one.

The reason my hysterical NDN didn't press charges was because she was too nice he agreed to therapy - and I'm not too up on the details of that, it was so long ago.

I might have snarled at you, I am sorry, I thought you were digging me out when I thought I'd been very balanced in my posts . I realise you weren't at all (digging me out).

Why was my post deleted?!

nooka Tue 07-May-13 05:08:58

Both my big sisters were flashed at (as girls/teens in the 70s). When they came home upset and told my mother she told them not to be so silly about it and that 'that's just what some men did'. Certainly no suggestion of telling the police or any other authority. So when I was sexually assaulted myself at 12 or so I didn't tell her at all. I think that there was plenty of bad stuff happening, it just went underground and has stayed there for a long long time.

For those with celebrity status I expect they felt powerful and above reproach and those they abused felt too small and powerless to do anything about it, and if they did tell anyone they were probably told not to be silly and that it was probably their own fault.

Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested too.

Sorry for what happened to you nooka.

Lazyjaney Tue 07-May-13 07:36:11

I do worry that this is starting to turn into a bit of a frenzy though. It will be very bad news if some accusations are spurious, as it will push advances of the last few years way back again.

DollyTwat Tue 07-May-13 07:43:07

Lots of people are being arrested, not all of them famous though. You don't get to hear about those for that reason.

Have you seen the Mary Moss files? It's a list of VERY famous people who visited Elm guest house? The police, politicians etc were all in on it. I think it's where the famous people went so they had protection

fluffyraggies Tue 07-May-13 07:53:06

My childhood spanned the 70s to 80s.

I was flashed at 3 or 4 times in local parks aged between about 7 to 10. I would tell my mum, i was told to cycle away from 'funny men'. No police.

While i was at primary school a friend of mine was abused on the top deck of a bus. A man made her hold his penis. We were told to stay off the top deck. No police.

From 12 upwards i would use the London Underground to get about and would regularly get touched/felt/rubbed against when it was crowded. I couldn't get away so used to just bite my lip and keep quiet till i got to my stop.

As a teenager other things happened which i 'put behind me' as that was what i'd learned was the way to deal with it. It has coloured my life and my attitude to myself. My self worth. Best not to make a fuss.

I have 3 DDs. I told them from the day they were old enough to be out of my sight that if something happened to them that they didn't like, or that someone touched them etc. etc., or they were worried about someone they were to scream/shout/leave/tell me straight way and get the hell away. To hell with worrying about being polite, or causing a scene. To my knowledge they have managed to get to their teens and early 20s without being a victim to any abuse. Thank God.

Thank God times have changed. Thank God this is not swept under the carpet anymore.

evilartsgraduate Tue 07-May-13 07:57:15

It won't be all men who did it (viz the childcare scandal a couple of years back), but men are disproportionately likely to be celebrities/in positions of power, especially historically. Also, although Men's Rights Activitists like to pretend differently, the skew is heavily in the direction of that gender whether the perp is famous or not.

cory Tue 07-May-13 09:30:21

Another point about life in the 60s and 70s is that it would be more difficult for young children to report abuse because they didn't have the vocabulary. They might have felt uncomfortable about certain things but having never heard anyone talk about what was ok and what wasn't, never having heard anyone talk about sex or touching at all apart from sniggers in the playground, it could be very difficult to understand, let alone to verbalise, that the way the TV star or the headteacher touched you that made you so uncomfortable was actually sexual. As for knowing it was illegal and that you could tell the police, we knew nothing of the sort. I had a friend who found she had very nearly consented to sex with a close relative because she didn't know what those words meant. That would be almost unthinkable of a 9yo today. But it happened back then.

As for knowing who the weird ones were, that knowledge could protect against abusers, certainly. Or be used against perfectly harmless and decent people with Tourette's syndrom, cerebral palsy or Downs Syndrome. When I was a child, everyone who was different was perceived as slightly scary. A somewhat blunt instrument.

I prefer the openness of today.

boschy Tue 07-May-13 10:03:40

I was thinking about this this morning. I think there must be a kind of breakpoint in celebrity, where these men reach the point that they believe in themselves so much, that they can do what they want just because they are so famous. Meanwhile they are surrounded by yes men, and they're in such a bubble that they think nothing can touch them.

Back then, when there were fewer 'celebrities' their power was probably much greater. And perhaps there was an element inside them that made them seek out the fame and the power in order to carry out the abuse.

I also think that the perceptions WERE different - people believed in 'good' and 'bad' girls, they believed in women as commodities, certainly in celebrity-land.

I also wonder if for some of those who abused boys there was an aspect about the unacceptability of homosexuality? I am NOT for a minute saying that homosexuality = child abuser, of course, but perhaps the inability to be openly and happily gay caused some to take out their frustrations like that.

LouiseSmith Tue 07-May-13 10:50:58

WOW!! I am actually shocked by what I have read B4bunnies.

In all honesty it sounds as though you had a dislike for the girl, which you have taken with you into adulthood. The girl was abused, weather she offered it on a plate or not was irrelevant. Even if her clothes weren't leaving much to the imagination, she was a CHILD! She did not deserve to be abused.

That's all im saying on the matter for fear of developing potty mouth!

MonkeyingAroundTown Tue 07-May-13 12:52:40

Jimmy tarbuck now! sexual allegations on a young boy

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Tue 07-May-13 22:48:20

B4Bunnies' views are basically the prevailing views of that era - is it any wonder that people didn't bother to try to prosecute, or assumed no-one would believe them?

It takes a good generation for these sorts of attitudes to shift, so there's no hope that B4 will be swayed by this thread. She(?) believes she's right and can't - or won't - see why people are so appalled by her thoughts.

ManifestoMT Tue 07-May-13 23:43:05

They are not the thoughts of the era at all.
I went to an all girls school. A magnet for flashers, to which the police were called. The police hid in bushes and caught the flashers much to the great amusement of all us girls. This was in the 70's 80's .
You are talking about an era where the majority of men respected women, opened doors expected you to get out of a lift first, walked you home to keep you safe. There were some wankers but generally women were respected and protected (and patronised) but hey!
A greater percentage of rapists were convicted in the 70's than there are now. Possibly because you needed a stronger case to get there but still.

AnyFucker Tue 07-May-13 23:48:26

I agree with MT

Peter Sutcliffe was murdering prostitutes (and some women who were not, but apparently he believed they were) all through the 1970's and that was taken very seriously

I expect B4B would think they "had it coming", going off his/her posts on this thread

Anna1976 Wed 08-May-13 00:44:28

I think something relevant about attitudes in the 1960s-1980s, that was changing as I was growing up - is that a lot of women were very much self-defined by what other people thought of their appearance or behaviour.

So there seems to have been more normalization both of others (men) in positions of power feeling they had the right to comment on, influence and determine women's lives, and of behaviour that we would now regard as attention-seeking in women - because a lot of women's self-definition was in terms of how they related to other people.

Being only "a pretty girl" or "a good mother" or "a good wife " or "a good daughter" is quite different from being "a good lawyer who has kids, a partner and parents and gets on well with all of them and leads a happy and productive life".

Obviously second-wave feminism was about trying to change that self-definition, but a lot of women my mother's age (born 1940s-50s) really didn't get it, and never realised there was an alternative to being defined by men in positions of power.

There is also the generational shift from before the pill to after the pill - "inconsequential" flirting in the 1950s may or may not have led to sexual activity, whereas similar levels of intimacy in the 1980s or 1990s were more likely to lead to an expectation of sexual activity. So the behaviours were a bit out of step with the consequences.

My mother brought me and my sister up to be self-defined by attention from boyfriends and older men. She framed this as "I get on better with men, they're so much more interesting than women" and constantly reporting on attention from men about the fact they thought she was beautiful or had said something intelligent.

My sister, growing up in the 1980s, got sucked into this mode of self-definition, but of course - it being the 1980s as opposed ot the 1950s - ended up in the minefield of extensive teenage sexual activity (i.e. experiencing depth of feeling and experience that she was far too young and inexperienced to process). She was regarded as a "slut" and "asking for it" by boys in the local schools, and as "beautiful" and "successful" by my mother. She appears to have actually been very, very unhappy, because totally defining yourself by interactions with people who ultimately don't respect you, is hardly likely to lead to happiness. She is now very insecure, very much defined by appearance, and not in a healthy frame of mind.

I was an ugly failure, according to my mother. Perhaps because of that, I never consciously self-defined by what others thought of my appearance or behaviour. I've always thought it was up to me to run my own life. Looking back, I was in 3 moderately abusive relationships aged 16-29, where I was trying to self-define partly by what others thought of my appearance and behaviours. Thankfully I got to grow beyond that.

sashh Wed 08-May-13 00:45:04

Peter Sutcliffe was murdering prostitutes (and some women who were not, but apparently he believed they were) all through the 1970's and that was taken very seriously

The women were not though. At least two survived attacks and told the police he had a Yorkshire accent, but they were ignored because they had tapes of a Geordie.

As for the 'good' and 'bad' girls, I watched a documentary about 5 years ago where they re interviewed the detectives and others who worked on the case (few WPCs in a building with no curtains working into the night and feeling vulnerable) the expolice were still referring to prostitutes and 'innocent' victims.

As far as I'm concerned they were all innocent.

Anna1976 Wed 08-May-13 00:52:52

It is probably quite relevant that both my mother and my sister are now absolutely strident victim-blamers when talking about abuse cases on the news. They think self-possessed women are asking for it, tarty women use sex to entrap men, and that women go to the police only to make trouble or get money. They don't see that underage "troublemakers" or "little tarts" have to have got their understanding of the world and interactions from somewhere, i.e. grooming and self-affirmation by what others think of appearance.

Anna1976 Wed 08-May-13 00:55:32

(I hasten to add that someone seen as a "troublemaker" by my mother is absolutely not ever behaving in a way that justifies being taken advantage of.)

Been lurking until now, but I had to say something here.

Anna1976 shock I feel for you and your sister. I also feel for the young girl who b4bunnies talked about. All this abuse starts in the home.

My mum used to have this saying, which used to make me cringe. She used it when I was young, single and unworldly.

'You're nobody 'til somebody loves you'.

And she said it in a sing-song type of voice, like it was a song she heard. (if it was a song, I'd like to get a gun and shoot the b&#$£@÷d who wrote it.

When I got older, I realised the saying wasn't just cringeworthy, it was, still is, downright bloody dangerous.

The saying,to me, translates as 'you have to have somebody to be validated', because thats what it really means at the end of the day.

Everybody has a fundamental need to be loved/validated, and to a young vulnerable girl with no real experience of the world, to have this drummed into her head would drive them into the clutches of somebody evil enough to spot the vulnerability and groom her over a period of time, using the right words to make the victim feel validated, before the abuse begins sad

ConferencePear Wed 08-May-13 10:35:18

It really was a song.

Anna1976 Wed 08-May-13 10:48:15

Crushed - yes, self-image starts in the home, and when that's really unhealthy - then yes, the people who imparted the self-definition are kind of complicit in subsequent problems htat stem from the vulnerability that could so easily have been avoided. Even though you'd have to be seriously screwed up to actually want to impart ideas like that.

What a truly horrible song.

CheerfulYank Wed 08-May-13 10:52:14

Wellllll...the song wasn't really intended that way but that line on its own is cringe worthy. I think it s an old Dean Martin or Sinatra song that talks about all the money in the world not bringing you comfort when you're old, etc. My grandpa used to sing it because we loved him and were comforting to him in his older years.

Anna1976 Wed 08-May-13 11:03:16

CheerfulYank - that's good to know smile

Though i think my mother had clearly firmly internalised just that one line from it... as had the mother of b4bunnies' friend. grinsadangryconfused

Cheerfulyank. - thanks for sharing the meaning of the song. I obviously won't be shooting anybody now smile

I see it differently now I know what it is about, but that one line ruins it, doesn't it? You must have lovely memories of your Grandpa smile.

Anna1976 - my Mum only ever sang that one line. I never heard her sing any other part of the song. Chances are, somebody sang just that one line to her...chances are, she just didn't know the rest of the song. Chances are she meant it. Because I hadn't forgotten it.

I hope the victims get the acknowledgement they deserve.

Jenny0505 Wed 08-May-13 16:01:09

Anna1976, I know what you mean, my dd is much more attractive than I ever was, which obviously delights my mother. She makes remarks about it, and then she looks irritated when I say afterwards to my daughter 'not that you're under any obligation to decorate the world'.

Feel sorry for b4bunnies friend. I couldn't stand up to my mother when she chose my a level subjects for me.... I don't think b4bunnies friend could have said 'actually, no mother, i'm going to stay in and work on my essay this weekend'. We're all socialised (largely by our parents) so to blame this poor girl as b4bunnies does for 'using sex' to catch a man sad it beggars belief. The poor child. 14 years old.......... Some of these people like b4bunnies wouldn't expect a 14 year old boy to be able to navigate their way through complicated adult dilemmas, to reject a much older member of the opposite sex with social skill so as not to cause any awkwardness or embarrassment. That was tricky in 20s, so how is a 14 year old supposed to handle it and keep everybody happy.

Jenny0505 Wed 08-May-13 16:02:41

ps, with dd I praise her with other things, like overcoming nerves before a practical exam. I tell her 'you were scared but you tackled your nerves and went in and did well anyway!". I don't tell her she's UNattractive obviously!!

Anna1976 Wed 08-May-13 21:21:08

Jenny0505 - good for you smile - that sounds like a very good comeback! I usually tie myself in knots trying to say similar things to niece/nephews/godchildren though am getting better at picking what to praise before I start the sentence...

and yes - expecting a 14 year old to simper away at a 1950s school dance and effectively process why different boys treat her differently is bad enough - how on earth does anyone expect a 14 year old to go to parties full of rich kids every Saturday night, with lots of alcohol and drugs around, and "be a success with the boys", and effectively process messages from the boys who think she's "asking for it", the ones who think she's a disgusting tart, the mothers like ours who think she's wonderfully beautiful and a real success with the boys, vs. the mothers who think she's a slut, vs. the mothers (and a lot of the more vocal school teachers who knew what was going on) who think she's in dire need of help from social services? hmm Only the seriously deluded could think it's a good idea to expose anyone to that set of mixed messages as a form of self-definition.

b4bunnies Wed 08-May-13 21:25:46

jenny505 - that's what's made me mention it - i feel sorry for my friend, retrospectively, too. her mother, was very domineering. so was mine but mine wasn't star-struck. but there was that feeling that unless people find you sexually attractive, you aren't anyone at all. my mum's still of that view, even though she's in her last days.

JennyMakkers Thu 09-May-13 19:42:45

So can you understand how a young girl with a domineering mother who has no belief in herself is definitely a victim if her mother (also no doubt with a low self-esteem) offers her daughter up as a sacrifice at the alter of fame?

My mum was a bit domineering too, but at least she steered me well away from danger. I'm very cautious now, feel like I need her approval all the time. My self-esteem isn't great but at least my mother's style of domineering was to keep me AWAY from potential 'dangers'. Heaven help a 14 year old whose mother offers her up like this. And I'm sure it's still happening. Doesn't make it ok, now, in the past, in the future.

ManifestoMT Thu 09-May-13 22:36:23

I think we are all defined by our families and culture.
I don't recognise that validation by men at all, my parents were born in the 30's I was born in the 60's so you could say quite old fashioned and conservative views, but I was brought up to be just as good as any man. To educate myself first and then get married to someone who loved and respected you, but no harm if you didn't get a man. I was brought up to be beholden to no one and earn and keep my own money.
I always remember breaking my heart over some one and my mum saying "what of him, it was his loss you don't need any man for any thing now they have sperm banks" I was :0.
Most of our neighbours were like that. Most of the women worked all through their lives and were the generation who lived through the war, lived through civil rights and fought for women's rights.
The were the burning your bras and standing on your own feet people. Feminists who still dollied themselves up but stood their ground.
It's due to those women in the 60's 70's 80's that we have the rights we have now.
They weren't all at home tied to the kitchen sink.
The men I knew growing up respected and liked women, as in they liked them as people they weren't objects or just a shag piece. My dad washed, cooked looked after us as he had to as my mum worked. It was a partnership. I think it was because they came from large close families, where women were worked on farms so everyone mucked in as if you didn't you didn't survive.

Hmmm different lives different perspectives.
I feel more down trodden now as I am working my arse off for a huge mortgage, child care costs. My dd's are going to have to deal with men and women who have been brought up in a highly sexualised culture, who have access to extreme porn and where the socialising is more on the net than rl.

Cross fingers it will all turn out lovely

ManifestoMT Thu 09-May-13 22:39:04

"
Crushed. A song for you

You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You"

You're nobody 'til somebody loves you
You're nobody 'til somebody cares
You may be king, you may possess the world and its gold
But gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old

The world still is the same, you'll never change it
As sure as the star shines above
You're nobody 'til somebody loves you
So find yourself somebody to love

The world still is the same, you'll never change it
As sure as the star shines above
You're nobody 'til somebody loves you
So find yourself somebody to love
So find yourself somebody to love

Anna1976 Thu 09-May-13 23:35:07

Manifesto - you sound like you had a good upbringing with sensible people. I guess I was talking about people who really didn't have the perspective that your parents had & passed to you.

The women with whom my father worked, during his career, were probably brought up like you were - they would have had to be self-defined by something other than male validation, to survive doing medicine in a colonial backwater in the 1960s.

But the women my mother mixed/mixes with at her tennis club are all very similar to her - trophy wives who brought up the kids, decorated the house, and didn't ever get to do anything they wanted for themselves, because that's not what women did - 1970s second wave feminism appears to have completely passed them by and they seem to still be living in suburbia in the 1960s. Except thankfully their skirts are a bit longer now they're in their 70s...

NB my parents always said that "the 1960s was the decade that made the 1950s look interesting", so they weren't exactly rioting in the Sorbonne in 1968. More deciding what colour nail polish to buy in Woolworths this week...

nooka Fri 10-May-13 02:18:02

My parents were also born in the 30s and sometimes I really wonder if they lived through the 50s/60s at all! My mother is very traditional, revered her father and thinks her daughters should revere both my father and our husbands, pretty much through thick and thin. And yet we had her lesbian Greenham common protesting friends living with us for a while. Weird mixture!

NKffffffffabeee2d7X127640abcce Fri 10-May-13 14:20:57

Just want to respond to Boschy - actually, if you state that some men in that era abused boys because they were suppressing homosexuality, then you are suggesting gay men are potential sex offenders. Which is unacceptable gobshite.

I work in this field and it's often an excuse men who have offended against children come out with - it always turns out to be denial about their actual feelings. There is a world of difference in being attracted to and having consensual relationships with an adult of the same gender, and being attracted to a child, who is not capable of consenting. That distinction is no different now than it was 30 years ago.

Thanks manifesto smile

I see how the line fits in with the rest of the song, just awful on it's own sad

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