A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

See, and this is why your arguments are entirely predictable. And do you no favours.

I said I wouldn't want anyone in that position being in authority over my children. A sentiment that I'm entirely happy expressing. And I don't give a fuck if you don't like it. I do note, however, that your immediate recourse, as I said it would be, is to point out exactly how many people might be into BDSM.

I don't find it reassuring that so many people are into kink.

In the current climate, where boundaries are being eroded and safeguarding minimised, if not dismantled, I'm more than happy to get behind increased boundaries to counter the push.

When 11 is the average age at which children are being exposed to porn and women like Billie Eilish have said how it's ruined her life, you pointing out how many more people are into BDSM isn't the killer argument you think it is.

Plus goading me into saying otherwise doesn't work. It's water off a ducks back mate.

Barley will be attempting to justify “acceptance without exception” next…

I don't know why you keep going on about Queer theory, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the normal diversity of adult sexual interests, tastes and kinks and avoiding going back to a world where women were slut shamed for their sexuality and considered a risk to children if their consensual sexual activities with other adults were outside of the mainstream.

I suggest you start thinking about it and reading up on destabilising science and other aspects of society.

Sure, there was a diversity of sexual interests. They were kept private.

I repeat, they were NOT posted on social media.

Not one person here has 'slut shamed'. But again, you are reaching for things to discredit people telling you that there are issues.

It is YOU who are telling us that those top three sex acts mentioned in that study are perfectly fine for people who are responsible for the care of children.

Voyeurism, unwanted sexual touching and masochism.

And then you tell us that the destabilisation of society's norms around those practises and the posting of social media posts about other sexual habits has nothing to do with Queer Theory?

I didn't write it. It's the results of a large study, and there are several others which show the same thing. Masochism in particular is a very common fantasy amongst both sexes. Are you really suggesting that 20% of women are not suitable to work with children because they have fantasies involving masochism? A lot of them are likely to be mothers, should they have their kids taken off them too?

And again you miss the connection. You are very keen on lowering boundaries aren't you.

Posting it on social media? Raises questions also about exhibitionism. Shall we continue to keep repeating this?

Plus, there is fantasy and there is actually doing. Plus actually then doing regularly.

And again.... there is posting it on social media.

Just clicked into this thread.
First post on the page:

You're clearly ignoring the fact, patiently repeated over and over again, that posting such behaviour on unlocked social media when one is in a position of power and responsibility for young children is the unacceptable behaviour and the one that shows a lack of awareness of safeguarding. It's what people do in public that is being discussed here

Last post on the page

Masochism in particular is a very common fantasy amongst both sexes. Are you really suggesting that 20% of women are not suitable to work with children because they have fantasies involving masochism?

I see everything is operating as per ancient FWR tradition.

By the way, people can find a copy of that article on archive md.

Please do post another study up barley, it is always interesting to see what is shaping people's boundaries.

So far, you are very heavily reliant on 'everyone does it' and 'if you don't you are not one of the cool kids' though.

oh yeah!! I am a prude because I don't think that voyeurism, frotteurism and masochism are healthy sexual practices because two of them can be abusive for the other party involved, and frotteurism is an unwanted sexual act.

You are not convincing anyone.

Now... tell us again how Queer Theory and Foucault have been proven to be good basis for protecting children from harm.

Please... be very specific in the benefits and exactly who it benefits.

Again.... you keep missing the point. Trying something once or twice, fine between consenting adults. If you have a particular fetish or kink that is something you engage in regularly that involves lowered boundaries, there is a difference.

Posting on social media about it - red flag.

And how much of that 35% voyeurism is watching porn?

And frotteurism? You think that someone who finds that arousing should be good to work with kids? And masochism?

Seriously, do you even read what you write?

This is utterly bizarre @barleybadminton you really need to zero your safeguarding radar if you can't see this as an issue.

You're clearly ignoring the fact, patiently repeated over and over again, that posting such behaviour on unlocked social media when one is in a position of power and responsibility for young children is the unacceptable behaviour and the one that shows a lack of awareness of safeguarding. It's what people do in public that is being discussed here.

"Overall, nearly half (45.6%) of the sample subjects were interested in at least one type of sexual behaviour that is considered anomalous, whereas one third (33%) had experienced the behaviour at least once," Professor Christian Joyal, one of the study's authors, explained.

"These facts suggest that we need to know what normal sexual practices are before we label a legal sexual interest as anomalous.

"Some paraphilic interests are more common than people might think, not only in terms of fantasies but also in terms of desire and behavior."

"Of the sample, 35 per cent said they were interested in voyeurism, 26 per cent in fetishism, another 26 per cent in frotteurism and 19 per cent in masochism.

They also found levels of fetishism and masochism were not significantly different between men and women."

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/weird-sexual-fetishes-are-actually-very-normal-study-suggests-a6922726.html

And yes, it was venomous

And to be clear, by venomous, I mean one of the most venomous in the world. I was certainly not wrapped in a cotton wool cocoon growing up. Neither is my teen.

But I still believe anyone who publishes posts about their sexual activities on their social media feed and their mishandling of guns is not suitable for being a GG leader. FFS. People in positions with children need to understand what is and is not appropriate for children.

Again, barley, please do tell us how this Queer Theory style destabilisation has worked out in the past for children (ie. Those in France that only now feel brave enough to talk about their being exploited by those people deemed intellectuals in the 70s) . I am quite sure the boys paid by Foucault can tell us how a major proponent of that theory helped them. No?

And maybe come back and tell us again how prudish we are. I am sure people calling attention to flawed policy in the past were called it too. How very progressive of you Barley?

Not to mention how offensive it is to link kink and fetishes to LGB relationships.

And to be clear, I personally wouldn't want anyone, male or female, gun toting or not, who was into BDSM in a position of authority over my children, given it relies on the fetishisation of power differentials for sexual arousal.

And, to save badminton the bother, telling me that there are already a million people into BDSM in a position of authority over my children, is not an argument that I would find convincing.

To paraphrase the late, magnificent Magdalen Berns:

I’d rather be (thought) a prude than a paedophile enabler.*

• MNHQ: I am making a general point here that anyone with an interest in safeguarding has a duty to speak up to avoid risk of harm, not about the specific GG case.

My dad was less so, he is renowned for shooting a snake that was sitting on his typewriter and having to send it away to get parts replaced.

To be clear, he sent the typewriter away NOT the snake. I daresay that the typewriter engineers would not have liked that snake arriving. And I believe they would have had a huge belly laugh at the two holes in the typewriter mechanisms. Farming life, eh?

But, as I say, a whole lot of readers reading along can see the attempts to minimise behaviour that is inappropriate for a GG leader

We can indeed.

We can also spot the decades old Peter Tatchell arguments when they plop on these threads.

I too grew up around guns, and my family and some friends still shoot. My teen went shooting with GG's and loved it. My husband is an excellent shot. My dad was less so, he is renowned for shooting a snake that was sitting on his typewriter and having to send it away to get parts replaced. And yes, it was venomous and yes, he used to pick up the pythons to remove them so he could tell the difference very well.

The poses with weapons is in no way appropriate for anyone on social media. But certainly not someone who is supposed to be an aspirational leader for young people of any sex.

I also grew up with many accidental and fatal shootings involving children shooting children.

But, crack on barley making out that everyone who disgrees is some prudish person stuck in the dim past.

It was tiresome when people first started doing it on this thread and it has not got anymore convincing. But, as I say, a whole lot of readers reading along can see the attempts to minimise behaviour that is inappropriate for a GG leader.

I grew up around guns as many people who live rurally do and even though I know it's fun shooting, I would not trust this Div Com around my girls as he clearly doesn't have it up top to understand what is and isn't appropriate.

Compared to the highly sexualised clothing a lot of pop stars, models and celebrities wear this pic is nothing, are we saying none of those women should ever be permitted to work with children? No kinky women who may have posted a pic of their outfit on the way to a club, or been inadvertently photographed inside? No punks or goths who may have worn bondage or fetishy type clothing and been photographed in it at some point?.

There is a difference between being 'photographed in it' and posting it on social media. I am sure that you, as an adult, don't need the difference explained.

Why, why does it make them a safeguarding risk? Is it the existence of a picture that makes them dangerous?

It is the series of photographs that indicate that this individual has a lack of boundaries and knowledge of what is appropriate for GG leadership. The leaders are expected not to post images of themselves of a 'sexual nature'. It is in the rules. And there is the poses with guns that would be considered not representing good weapon use.

Or is it the fact they are expressing a sexualty outside of heterosexual and traditional norms?

You are reaching here. Where are YOUR boundaries on how far you are allowing 'sexualities' to be working with children? I can mention a few that will get deleted.

You are also missing the entire point of if a 'sexuality' is being made a rather large focus of someone's social media, it raises red flag. Regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual.

You are making this about something it is not for the purpose of processing your own activist agenda. Not one person has mentioned anything about this person being a homosexual male. Not one. But you are falling into whatever false argument to try to convince people.

Are we really saying no-one slightly kinky can ever be allowed to work with kids? There'd be hardly anyone left

Again, you are the one here progressing that the majority of people must have some sort of 'kink' or fetish in their lives. And frankly, if that 'kink' or fetish was one that could put children in harms way via lowered boundaries, then yes, I agree that they should never be allowed to work with kids. Lowered boundaries is in no way beneficial to protecting children from abuse if you cannot recognise the abuse.

And there's a difference between not age appropriate and not intended for children. No kid is going to look at that pic and be corrupted or harmed.

That we will disagree on. You are set on trying to lower children's and women's boundaries.

They see far worse in music videos, on television and in computer games all the time.

That is up to the parents. Parenting a child means limiting access to what they see, even in music clips.

Ever heard of Catwoman?

You are really reaching here. Catwoman... what sexual activity in an age appropriate movie are you referring to?

Or Sedusa, a character in the Powerpuff Girls? Or watched a video by Rhianna or Madonna even?

Again, parenting does mean that you can limit what a child watches. Children do survive not watching music videos you know. It does happen and there are parents who choose to not expose their girls to videos of sexual objectification.

This isn't about online porn,or safeguarding, it's social conservatism as extreme as anything feminists fought against in the 60s and 70s.

And there is that 'you are not the cool girls' argument again. I think you will find that many feminists will have the opinion that you are talking nonsense.

Just own it, you are trying to convince parents that lowering sexual boundaries is good for children.

I want people who work with my children to understand safeguarding and boundaries. This person does not. End of.

In fact in terms of safeguarding I'd have far more concerns over someone who thinks its acceptable to share this pic without consent all over the internet despite the fact it was very clearly not posted under her own name than I would over someone who could just be going to a fancy dress party with a slightly cheeky comment attached.

If there's anyone who doesn't understand women's bounderies in this matter it's Glinner and the Daily Mail.

And there's a difference between not age appropriate and not intended for children. No kid is going to look at that pic and be corrupted or harmed. They see far worse in music videos, on television and in computer games all the time. Ever heard of Catwoman? Or Sedusa, a character in the Powerpuff Girls? Or watched a video by Rhianna or Madonna even? This isn't about online porn,or safeguarding, it's social conservatism as extreme as anything feminists fought against in the 60s and 70s.