Does Nationwide Building Society REALLY think adult babies are worthy of respect?

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 2022-12-02T18:11:59+00:00

So a poster on Twitter made a thread about a throuple (this is a word for a sexual and romantic relationship between three people) where the three adult males like to imagine they are a family, and take the roles of mother, older sister and baby. The one who takes the part of the baby tweets about wearing a nappy and waking up with it "shitty". It's not unusual for people to post about their "diaper-fetishes" on social media. Nor is it unusual for people to react strongly to such posts. However this is the weird bit. A second poster tagged Nationwide Building Society in, and asked its personnel for comment. And Nationwide ^replied^. Wanna hear what the social media comms person said when Nationwide got tagged into a thread showing three males in a presumably sexual relationship who also roleplay as mother and daughters/sisters? ^2/2 We believe it's more important than ever to have respect when talking to, or about one another. Please review your comment. #MutualRespect. Amy^ [[https://twitter.com/AskNationwide/status/1598080464614576136?t=MpvcPaLc95NNl66T7bYJyQ&s=19 Click here to view in context]] Adult babies with sexual fixations on nappies are WORIADS, are they? Wow, we've dropped the standards some.

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 06/12/2022 21:25

Thank you for that! This incident has really rattled me, and it's putting me to some trouble to say why.

OP posts:

FrancescaContini · 06/12/2022 07:57

Great post, @PurgatoryOfPotholes Well articulated.

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 05/12/2022 22:29

I've been continuing to mull this over all weekend.

Why was my emotional reaction so muted, until Nationwide intervened? Why is other people's?

These adults are broadcasting their hobby on social media. They are monopolising public hygiene facilities for it.

Why is anyone asking us to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not sexual? So what if they are misjudged? If you and your partner(s) like dressing up as a baby or a toddler, it is not some kind of immutable characteristic you can't keep private. If it's not sexual and they don't like people thinking it is, they can simply not engage in it in public.

If my next door neighbour posted about wanting his wife to dress up in a nurse's outfit to give him bed baths, would anyone jump on me for presuming he got sexual pleasure from that? It's just as plausible he just "likes being taken care of", or something, surely?

Normalising adults dressing up as toddlers with nappies provides protective camouflage to men like David Challenor, for whom it was clearly a facet of his child abuse fantasies, which he carried out. He raped and abused a ten year old girl, while pretending to be a child in nappies himself.

If giving any adult baby performers the benefit of the doubt about their motivations makes it easier for other men to escalate to child rape, is that an acceptable price for society to pay?

OP posts:

FrancescaContini · 04/12/2022 09:01

bellac11 · 03/12/2022 22:11

Well, I identify as not being overdrawn and actually having about 10k in the account.

Show quote history

😂

ethelredonagoodday · 03/12/2022 23:13

nilsmousehammer · 03/12/2022 11:55

The point would be the mindless, brainless buying in of reputable institutions - a building society ffs- into 'queering' of boundaries, appropriation of resources put there for actual need to serve adults who'd like to act out their sex life in public places, and the absolute lack of appropriacy. With all of its many, many impacts on safeguarding. And normalising male sexual freedoms all over the public sphere as an everyday okay thing that good people would all clap like a lot of obedient seals about. With the resultant creep of it not only being ok for men to enter women's spaces but to do whatever the fuck they feel like regardless in there cos queer's good and you'd only mind if you're an unkind old person.

It really shouldn't have to be that this needs spelling out on this board. The dots aren't difficult to join. The time is past when anyone well informed can say 'that bit's ok, and that's ok' - it all enables the rest of the whole agenda. And those at this point shrugging and going oh well are just as much enabling that agenda at all levels and at its full extremes.

This sums up my view on it.

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 22:59

Images that were brought to Nationwide's attention above, prompting the "mutual respect line". There's also one of a pup-play event I'm not uploading because I don't understand its provenance and why it relates to Nationwide.

Does Nationwide Building Society REALLY think adult babies are worthy of respect?

OP posts:

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 22:28

1/2 Mutual respect is about showing respect towards everyone in society and treating people well regardless of any differences. We want to help create a society that is built on mutual respect.

Linky-wink

OP posts:

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 22:26

toomanytrees · 03/12/2022 22:03

What's next for Nationwide? Queering the binary of debits and credits?

Being asked to comment on an informational leaflet given to primary school children by the Swindon Pride group, which directed the reader to Mermaids. (Also directed them to an online guide to breast-binding.)

Nationwide comes into this because the company is based in Swindon and sponsors Swindon Pride.

Nationwide have responded to this with an anodyne script about promoting respect. Does directing girl children to bind their developing breasts promote self-respect?

OP posts:

bellac11 · 03/12/2022 22:11

toomanytrees · 03/12/2022 22:03

What's next for Nationwide? Queering the binary of debits and credits?

Well, I identify as not being overdrawn and actually having about 10k in the account.

toomanytrees · 03/12/2022 22:03

What's next for Nationwide? Queering the binary of debits and credits?

IcakethereforeIam · 03/12/2022 21:56

I noticed David Challinor was trending earlier, I was all, omg!! What now!! Anyway, it was something football. Same planet, different worlds.

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 21:44

Does Nationwide know about this case?!?!?

extract

The married 50-year-old was jailed for 22 years on Monday following a trial at Warwick Crown Court.

The court heard Challenor would dress up as a small girl in adult-sized baby dresses and nappies before carrying out the sickening attacks at his Coventry home.

When arrested, he accused the girl of being a liar and a fantasist – but police found the gruesome attic kitted out just as she had described.

(continues)

Andrew Wallace, for the prosecution, said Challenor had "various sexual fetishes and fantasies" including dressing up as a small girl himself.

The court heard how, when the victim was at his home, he pretended to be a little girl called Lucy and took her to his attic where he asked her "to do things to him", including performing oral sex.

After leaving, she was initially too frightened to tell anyone what he had done but eventually she confided in someone.

(continues)

And on another device were indecent images of children which had been downloaded from the internet, which included "some very graphic images" involving a baby.

OP posts:

WomaninBoots · 03/12/2022 21:37

I was just trying to clarify my memory bank about this person and dressing as a baby, Purgatory. I'm not that great at remembering stuff so might have made too big a connection.

And was just saying I have my doubts that dressing as a baby is mostly about poor blokes who were abused by their mothers and not sexual at all. Etc.

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 21:35

Sorry, it was nine minutes.

So mentioning David Challenor is too much for MN?

OP posts:

WomaninBoots · 03/12/2022 21:34

Erm. How to rephrase?

How about a linky instead? Just did a quick Google but this might answer the question I posed on my deleted post?

www.thesun.co.uk/news/7085352/david-challenor-rapist-tortured-girl-whip-electrocuted-coventry/

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 21:34

WomaninBoots · 03/12/2022 21:31

Ooops. 😂

Me, two minutes after posting: what did you say??!??!?

OP posts:

WomaninBoots · 03/12/2022 21:31

Ooops. 😂

TheKeatingFive · 03/12/2022 21:25

Time to stop pretending that every bizarre desire that wanders through people's heads is worthy of respect. It isn't.

Play your baby fetish out in private. The rest of us don't need to know this kind of bollocks is going on. Nat West should concentrate on its day job and quit affirming random sexual fetishes. Why the actual fuck is it getting involved in this?

WomaninBoots · 03/12/2022 21:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 03/12/2022 21:18

Nationwide have not followed up on this and retracted, although I have seen the account posting similar messages to other people. I'm gleaning that the head office thinks the company has a duty to speak up when anyone of the social media team perceives homophobia.

I say that a business the size of Nationwide has a responsibility not to endorse the fetishisation of children. I am aware that men dress up as toddlers within romantic/sexual relationships, but that's a far cry from telling members of the public that we have to respect it.

OP posts:

Helleofabore · 03/12/2022 21:11

Nationwide should definitely have checked what they have effectively, in people’s minds, endorsed.

They endorsed it by posting about acceptance.

About three people where one is fetishising being a child? A sexual fetish. Do they all have sex? With a person identifying as a child as well?

And posters cannot see an issue with a bank endorsing this by saying these people should be ‘respected’?

WomaninBoots · 03/12/2022 13:42

Yes nilsmousehammer exactly. "Normalising male sexual freedoms" is the set of words I was searching for.* *

At some point someone, somewhere needs to reassert some fucking boundaries.

nilsmousehammer · 03/12/2022 11:55

The point would be the mindless, brainless buying in of reputable institutions - a building society ffs- into 'queering' of boundaries, appropriation of resources put there for actual need to serve adults who'd like to act out their sex life in public places, and the absolute lack of appropriacy. With all of its many, many impacts on safeguarding. And normalising male sexual freedoms all over the public sphere as an everyday okay thing that good people would all clap like a lot of obedient seals about. With the resultant creep of it not only being ok for men to enter women's spaces but to do whatever the fuck they feel like regardless in there cos queer's good and you'd only mind if you're an unkind old person.

It really shouldn't have to be that this needs spelling out on this board. The dots aren't difficult to join. The time is past when anyone well informed can say 'that bit's ok, and that's ok' - it all enables the rest of the whole agenda. And those at this point shrugging and going oh well are just as much enabling that agenda at all levels and at its full extremes.

FrancescaContini · 03/12/2022 09:04

WomaninBoots · 02/12/2022 19:11

The idea of using a public adult changing table for sexual kicks.... rage inducing. It's like taking the absolute piss out of disabled people that actually have to use them isn't it?

Agree. JFC.

Abitofalark · 02/12/2022 22:03

Ugh. I'm not keen on twitter idiocy and don't see the point of posting a thread here about this.