How old is 'too old' for a child to be naked at a splash park?

[00100001]

Sitting here with the 4yo niece charge at a splash park... 6/7 year old girl running round starkers! I'm a bit shocked tbh.

Now I have been "caught short" before, but she's just been sent in the water in her knickers, because she can always just go commando on the way home.

I think anything around 3+ is too old tbh.

I'm surprised she's not self conscious. It's lovely that she's not but I have a similar age DD and she likes to wear cycling shorts under her school dresses so the boys don't see her pants. Very sad she thinks like this but this is what she wants.

Children (in fact everyone) should not be naked in public. Nobody gains anything out of the child being naked, there is no reason why they should be. If you wouldn’t let your child run round soft play naked, there is no good reason for them to run round a public water park naked.

No child should be naked in public, at any age.

I personally don't think living in a country that is liberal about nudity means peadophiles are less common. People, sadly, will still be attracted to kids, that's not going to change. It just makes it easier to get material because it's the norm and people have less inhibitions/caution about it.

It does seem to be the parents who push this idea of how lovely nakedness is, I guess based on their own childhood and beliefs (about being progressive and enlightened).

I have children and aside from dropping their towel when they get out of the bath, none of them are remotely interested in being naked.

They have never asked to remove their pants at the beach or pool. Don't care. Why would they?

No child of any age should be naked in public.

and perhaps some cultures don’t sexualise children’s bodies (or adult bodies ) to the same extent in the way this thread suggests

this is incredibly naive. Sexualisation of children’s bodies happens worldwide, there is nothing to suggest it happens less among the “liberal Europeans”. Any police officer or social worker could tell you there is massive amounts of men (and women To a lesser degree) in the UK who are obtaining these images for the dark web. Pretending it happens less won’t protect these children’s image being taken with smartphones. There is zero reason for children to be naked in public.

In fact some European countries seem to have quite oddly lenient approaches to paedophilia https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aba38/the-dad-whos-fought-for-years-to-ban-a-paedophiles-handbook-in-europe

More to the point, when the child grows up and has an adults knowledge about the world, how do people think the children feel knowing paedophiles may have been taking pictures of them naked?

The person who's DD wears shorts under school dress, it's to stop people taking upskirt pics on their mobile, some adults do it too. It's just one of those things that's become wise to do these days. I'm sure there's plenty who don't, but wearing shorts under dress isn't uncommon.

So no benefit for the child then? As I thought! So why do it? No positive but a positive but a potential negative.

I think I feel like highlighting that the majority of abuse takes place within families or by someone known to the child…..we do seem to have an obsession with paedophiles being a separate species
I think many people know this.

It's not an obsession to teach children boundaries.

How can parents teach their children the pants rule, that some areas are private, that their child needs to speak out if someone wants to look or touch there, and then take their child to a splash pad and say "don't worry, just run around naked with a bunch of strangers in a location that's highly likely to have adults there specifically to look at children" whilst mentally giving themselves a pat on the back for not being like all the prudish parents who keep their children clothed in public?

I always find it funny that people think putting on knickers is a peado deterrent. Pretty sure they will still be around regardless.

I wouldn't allow my child to be naked at all in public, not even a baby.

Of course they will, however those of us putting pants etc on a child are just trying to limo the chances of their image being used for nefarious reasons. What’s the issue with that?

IME in Germany there is a romantic idea that nudity is fine because you shouldn't have any shame around your body, Frei Korpur Kultur etc. And some children are raised to believe that. But in reality i have seen time and again in places where people are swimming naked creeps hanging around, being creepy. As well as tourists from other cultures staring. And men happily lolling about near teenagers naked and exposing themselves.
And then there are the famous clubs with dark rooms where it's considered cool to have consenting sex with strangers (and if everyone consents, fine) but of course predators go to those places too and it's not possible to consent if you're affected by drugs (and of course cameras are banned and taken away at the door.)
And don't get me started on the Kitas that hold 'free play parties' where the kids strip off and dance naked (not one my dc went to, but one I heard about when a mum asked if she thought it was normal online).
Breathtakingly naive given the world we now live in, but if you went to the police here you would be considered crazy.

Some cultures may be happier naked. But to imply that leads to less child sexual ability is incredibly naïve.

Paedophiles exist everywhere. And yes, majority of abusers will know that child, but I would've be happy knowing an image of my child's naked body was making the rounds on the dark web.

There are of course much worse things on the dark web. However, I think to access them, you have to share pictures of your own.
I have no idea if a naked child at a splashpark would be "good enough" to allow you access but I would definitely rather not take the risk.
I think the free nudity European culture needs to catch up with the phone culture. It might be nice and freeing to be a naked three year old for five minutes in hot weather, but not when pictures of that can follow you around for life.

Paedos definitely still view images of naked children. Whether or not there's worse around is irrelevant. How many times have people like this been caught and the police say they have clad x y and z.

They have a mixture.

Even if there's no photos, I don't want someone like that seeing my child's private parts. It's an unnecessary risk with no benefit whatsoever

I'm astonished at the near unanimity for 'no child naked at any age'.

To me this is the same argument that misogynist cultures use to force women into 'modest' garments - ie there are bad men around and it is your responsibility to avoid inflaming them.

Paedophiles sexualise children. We don't have to join in.

We're talking about covering private part a with a nappy, not shrouding children. It's so easy, I'm not serving my child on a platter to prove a point.

I would call asking my child to wear clothes in public protecting my child not forcing my child to do something.
Other parents can choose to parent differently.
You might be ok with the possibility of paedophiles getting hold of pictures of your children, but your children, when they are old enough to make informed choices about these things, might not be.

My teenage DC was recently embarrassed because a friend of mine showed videos of him age one (fully clothed) at a birthday party to her DD and friends, who are in his class at school. I can't imagine how he would have felt if he had been naked.

I'm astonished at the near unanimity for 'no child naked at any age'.

To me this is the same argument that misogynist cultures use to force women into 'modest' garments - ie there are bad men around and it is your responsibility to avoid inflaming them.

Paedophiles sexualise children. We don't have to join in.

It's not the same at all.
Children and women are NEVER responsible for the actions of vile and predatory men.

Promoting safeguarding is not sexualising children and it's really concerning how often adults wanting boundaries is subjected to a weird version of DARVO, where wanting boundaries is apparently as bad as being a predatory adult.

I have a duty of care to my children.
I teach them the pants rule.
I teach them anatomical terms.
I'm aware that most abuse and harm to children comes from people known to the family.
I'm also aware that predatory adults will seek to gain access to children and will seek to attend places where they can view children.
I have a duty to safeguard my children.
I have a duty to give them clear messages about privacy, consent and boundaries.

Why would I want to do anything that leaves my children with mixed messages about privacy and boundaries when doing so makes them more vulnerable?

The only people who benefit from parents giving mixed messages and relaxing/blurring boundaries between children and adults are the sorts of adults parents shouldn't want anywhere near their children.

Paedophiles sexualise children. We don't have to join in.

Exactly, we don't join in by ensuring they don't have access to naked children.

As I said earlier, when a splash park opened in my old suburb, a man literally lay along a tree branch, hidden by leaves, and watched the kids. He may have had a phone as well, I don't know. Knowing he was there, I would not have given him the opportunity to view my naked child, no.

I agree with this

Personally, none of my children are ever naked in public. I have a family member who is a convicted paedophile. He is a member of a family naturist club (he has no 'family'), I would assume, so that he can have easy access to seeing children naked (children are also required to be naked, if you can believe it, except in certain areas for 'health & safety reasons'. I have no doubt that more public spaces would be a magnet for these creeps.