To think paedophilia isn't a daily mail invention?

[kingofshadows]

As the weather gets warmer I have already noticed various threads about where to permit children to be naked and the inevitable answers state that there 'isn't a paedophile around every corner!' (generally with a hearty 'gosh, how silly!' tone), that people who don't let their innocent children remove their clothing are ruining their childhoods and the Daily Mail readers are the ones who don't let their children run round in this state.

I have never bought a copy of the Daily Mail.

However, I do think - know - paedophiles exist.

Aibu to be sick of the insinuation that those of us who are concerned about sexual abuse of our children are hysterical daily mail readers?

[scarletforya]

Yanbu

Some people have lead lives untouched by it/unaware of it. There is a pedophile around every corner. And on every street. It's just that people aren't aware.

I don't mean that people should go around living in fear, but dismissing the fact that it's so widespread as hysteria is foolish.

Being realistic is not the same as being paranoid.

[kingofshadows]

Thank you Scarlett. I expressed myself very clumsily in my first post so I am grateful you clarified my meaning for me.

[StarsInTheNightSky]

YANBU paedophilia and sex crimes are far, far more common than those not touched by them would ever realise .

[TiredButFine]

YANBU, there is one round plenty of corners. And that's just the ones who have been caught.

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

Of course there are paedophiles. Most children know them as 'Grandad' or 'Uncle Brian'.
The family member paedophile is far more prevalent than the random who sits in the park to get his rocks off.

[SwearyInn]

Agreed - there are a vast number of paedophiles - many more than the police can deal with. It's not hysterical - its being sensibly and justifiably cautious.

[Tuskerfull]

You're not being U to be concerned about sexual abuse, but you are being U to equate letting children be unclothed in public to putting them at risk of sexual abuse. As I'm sure you know they are at far more risk from your family members and friends than random strangers on the beach or by the pool.

[MrsGentlyBenevolent]

It's unfortunatly true. There are far more people with this illness out there than people care to imagine. I'm not a scaremongerer - I've just been in the awful position to be shocked finding out exactly who would be capable of such a thing. I don't 'suspect' everyone, but I'm wary and know it's not a DM problem (not a reader either).

[AnnaMagdalene]

It is now clear to me that my father (who is no longer alive) had an improper interest in small female children.

I do not think it really mattered to him whether those children were clothed or unclothed (playing on a beach, paddling pool etc.)

What mattered to him was being able to access and befriend those children. (Perhaps via their families.)

So I think you can argue that a child who is playing unclothed in the sun or wather - but who has a secure, caring, appropriately aware and vigilant family is entirely 'safe.' A child who is clothed, but who is in some way vulnerable, whose family have taken their eye off the ball or may be flattered by the friendliness and interest of a man who takes his time to get to know them and whoseems clever and respectable may be unsafe.

[WorraLiberty]

I get what you're saying OP but some people take this sort of thing to new levels of hysteria.

Often I think it's more about the parent's anxiety issues rather than
paedophilia, but it can be easier for them to insist it's due to the threat of paedophiles, rather than face the fact they might have a problem that's curtailing their child's freedom.

[MarchLikeAnAnt]

YANBU I reported a man yesterday for taking photos of naked children playing in a water fountain and there were a couple of other men watching the children intently too.

[Pagwatch]

To turn your op around - just because I think that people can be quite hysterical about perceived risks to children simply by virtue of their being naked at a paddling pool, does not mean I am unaffected or unaware of the existence of paedophiles .

I know all too well they exist. I just think assuming that a toddler being naked places him/her at risk is often a bit stupid.

[Northernparent68]

Taking pictures of naked children is clearly wrong, but the men "watching intently" might have been parents watching their own children.

[hedgehogsdontbite]

I was watching naked children playing in the paddling pool at the park today. I hope nobody thought I was a paedophile.

[PotteringAlong]

Maybe, as they were playing in water and as this thread seems to suggest you should be hyper vigilant at all times, they were watching their pen children intently?

[MajesticWhine]

I think YANBU. I used to think worrying about paedophiles was a bit hysterical, but unfortunately there is evidence that it is incredibly widespread.

[MagicalHamSandwich]

Yes, pardon hikes obviously exist. And no, it's arguably not a good idea to let your unattended children run around naked in public spaces.

That having been said: your partner, parents, siblings and friends are statistically the much bigger risk to your children than a stranger at a park. So YANB totally U but the notion that strangers in public represent a significantly higher risk than what children are normally exposed to kind of is.

[scalala]

YANBU, there was that study recently that suggested one in 35 men had paedophile tendencies and some academics have suggested that paedophilia is so common it could be considered part of normal male sexuality, not acting on it but the feelings. Horrific!

[MagicalHamSandwich]

Paedophiles obviously! I don't know if pardon hikes exist. My iPhone seems to think they do!

[MarchLikeAnAnt]

No, I was there for hours with my toddler and the men had no children with them. It makes sense that people with that inclination would take the opportunity on a hot day and flock to a destination they know naked children will be.

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

What happened when you reported them?

[kingofshadows]

I don't have any issue, particularly, with unclothed children. I don't personally let my DD run naked - it isn't a 'paedophila' fear but just a vague sense that (to me) it isn't quite the ticket.

Yet some typical exchanges on here go 'do you let your children go naked at the beach?'
'No, I prefer them to have something on.'
'Oh, FGS, there isn't a paedophile around every corner, you know!'

While I am wholly aware of the statistics about relatives and friends and while I recognise someone looking at my child can't hurt her, I hate the dismissive attitude.

[yorkshapudding]

I agree with pp that childhood sexual abuse is much more prevalent than many people would like to think. It's the "stranger danger" aspect that is exaggerated by the likes of the DM. Statistically speaking, a child is safer running around naked at the park than they are in their own home with their own family.

[Pagwatch]

[shrug]

Honestly, I can't spend my life worrying about whether a random man is watching a naked toddler.

I'd rather save my worrying for real honest to god risks and spend my time doing productive things like teaching my children about safety on line and doing everything I can to prevent them being a vulnerable target to their biggest actual danger - people who have unsupervised access to them.

[MarchLikeAnAnt]

The city centre ambassador moved the photo man on.