The Times - One in ten British men have carried out sexual offences against children, according to a major survey.

[WandaWomblesaurus]

archive.ph/v6q2y

From the article
"One in ten British men have carried out sexual offences against children, according to a major survey. The study involving 1,500 British men was carried out by Edinburgh University’s Childlight unit, a research centre that investigates the risk of sexual exploitation of children and young people, and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
It found that 10.1 per cent of men admitted they had engaged in child sexual offending, either online or offline.
Almost one in twenty (4.8 per cent) of those surveyed said they had had sexual contact with a child when they themselves were aged 18 or older.
The results also showed that 5 per cent of British men had sexual feelings towards children and had acted upon those feelings, while an additional 7 per cent admitted to having sexual feelings towards children but did not act on them.
The findings have raised concerns that there is a “public health emergency” with a rapid increase of child sex abuse online."

There's so much to unpack here but it's extremely worrying and very important to discuss given how much safeguarding has been corroded over the last few years.

10% of men admit to it, anyway.

And, as always, it's always great to see people minimising and excusing this shit. Well done 👍

I’m not sure it is that key. To clarify, I meant when it was accepted that you couldn’t walk past a building site without being shouted or whistled at which, thankfully, is no longer tolerated like it used to be. The stares/shouts/comments etc from other men seems to have continued as ever, without any consequences.

@blacksax the different laws are not consistent which age they use, 18 or 16. So if two 17 year olds videoed themselves legally having sex they’d be committing an offence of creating child pornography.

It’s not pornography. It’s images of csa. There’s a huge and important difference between the two.

If they are both 17 and it's a consensually created video for their private use (and it remains so) then it's really not CSA is it?

I would like some more details on this study.
I am surprised that the numbers aren't higher if most respondents were talking about teenagers. If they are talking about primary school and younger then I'm both horrified and unsurprised.

This is very shocking, It’s odd I came across this thread because I was looking for threads about what I see as a very strange culture of loathing towards children in British society. I only recently had a child and I cannot believe how much of a pariah I seem to have become in some contexts, people seem very entitled to be openly hostile and rude to me because I’m with my baby (a quiet, lovely baby I should say). Honestly while this is a very different topic there may be a common cause- I do sort of wonder if weve collectively dehumanised children as a society in some respects, they are one literal minority group some people see fit to treat worse than dogs. I believe pornography fuels woman hatred, could it be doing the same with children?

Because the survey is not about consensual sex with someone 16 or over, it's about sexual offences. Anyone under 18 is legally a child.

That's reading a heck of a lot from a sample of 1,500 men. I'd need more info as to the sample, ages locations, social classes etc and, in particular, the questions they were asked by the survey before I accepted this 10% figure as anywhere near realistic.

Very perceptive, and sadly true ime.

I do think we need to see the detail- there is a great difference between say a 17 year old and a 13 year old being perved at, not that either is acceptable.

The survey asks about 'sexual contact' and 'sexual feelings' if you read the wording in the OP. Both of which are legal for someone aged 16-17.

It’s a self-selecting online survey. To call it a “major survey” is sensationalist and incorrect.

You read what I wrote and decided that that was the point I was making? That it was two 17 year olds I had the issue with? 🙄

Pornography implies consent. The term ‘child pornography’ is really bloody offensive to many of the victims and survivors of csa who had images taken of them without their consent. Most people now understand that it is a very dated term and no longer use it, instead calling it images of csa.

Yes that was the point i be took because your comment was specifically in response to someone discussing consensual 17 year olds videoing themselves. You were saying that was CSA images. I was saying they are not.

In general I agree with you though of course.

No, my comment was specifically in response to a person using that awful term. That’s why I said that there was a very important difference between the two terms. I made no comment about 17 year olds.

But as we seem to be in agreement about the use of the term, it does seem fairly pointless to bicker over it and derail the thread. Have a lovely evening 🙂

I agree that the stats given are difficult to interpret without seeing the questionnaire used in the survey but I wouldn't be surprised if the figures were as reported and possibly even higher.

Gail Dines has done some interviews with men who have committed sexual offences against children and she found that there is a whole new cohort of child abusers being created by extreme porn. Her theory, developed from the interviews, is that men who would not fit the criteria of a paedophile i.e those sexually attracted to children are abusing children in the pursuit of "sexual novelty" after being desensitised to sexual norms by the extreme nature of most available porn.

If Gail is correct then these figures will only get worse.

Some countries, and 16 states in the US, now consider porn a public health crisis.

You know, it really isn’t helpful to conflate fairly different things and then go nuclear at anyone who points out that that is happening. It doesn’t make you an apologist for paedophilia to say that there is a difference between an 18 year old male being attracted to a 17 year old and acting on it, and a 30 year old male and a 17 year old. Saying that there is no distinction between the two allows the people who think the latter is fine to hide behind the former.

Your comment was irrelevant to what I said though, as the situation I described was consensual, and images of something legal not CSA. Only the images would be illegal, not what they depict, which is a peculiarity of the way the laws are drafted (presumably as a deterrent to teenagers). I suspect this has something to do with how the figures in the article are so high, as many more people would admit to sending nudes of themselves as a teenager (quite possibly without realising that it would be considered a crime) than answering yes to a question like ‘have you committed CSA’. It’s why we need to see the questions before we can draw anything from the article, as others have said.

I’m obviously being really unclear here. I didn’t think I was, but I’ll give it another go.

I do not give a shit about the sex lives of seventeen year olds, other than a general hope that none of them do anything which could have long term repercussions for them. I have made no comment on what 17 year olds are doing, legally or otherwise. I don’t care. It’s none of my business and I have no significant opinions on them.

What I did have an issue with was your use of the term ‘child pornography’. I told you that it is not called that. It is called images of csa. So instead of saying So if two 17 year olds videoed themselves legally having sex they’d be committing an offence of creating child pornography you would say So if two 17 year olds videoed themselves legally having sex they’d be committing an offence of creating images of csa. You might feel that it is an irrelevant point but, as I said above, it is a vital distinction for many victims and/or survivors of csa who did not and could not give their consent for what happened to them.

There are various words and phrases which used to be common parlance but are now, quite rightly, understood to be racist or ableist or homophobic or misogynistic etc. The phrase you used to describe images of csa is one of those terms and is both hurtful and offensive.

The men that leer and shout at schoolgirls in from their vehicles, the men that like that animated Japanese porn of children I can’t remember the name of, the men that ask you to wear school uniform to turn them on, the men who like “barely legal” porn, the men who were excited about seeing 16 year old Samantha Fox topless, or the kind of porn where the women are over 18 but look older, the men who can’t stop themselves from looking at young girls in the street, the men who chat up the obviously too young girls in the pub or club, some sports coaches (gymnastics?) some teachers, some men at cadets or Scouts or Guides,

We know these men.

You weren’t unclear at all. I fully understand and agree with using the term ‘images of CSA’ to describe images of CSA. What I find absurd and disagree with you on is using the term to describe images of a legal act between consenting adults. Conflating the two is not helpful for victims of CSA nor for understanding what is going on in our society.

I genuinely don’t understand what it is that you don’t understand about what I wrote. Have you forgotten that you used the term CP in your post, rather than images of csa?

What I find absurd and disagree with you on is using the term to describe images of a legal act between consenting adults I did not use that term to describe images of a legal act between consenting adults, or consenting 17 year olds, or even consenting 16 year olds. I happen to agree with the point you made. The ONLY part of your post that I had a problem with was YOUR use of the CP term. Those two words. Literally nothing else. I’ve explained this several times now.

So according to this my entirely consensual, respectful and enjoyable first sexual relationship when I was 16 and my boyfriend was 19 counts as sexual contact with a child…

They shouldn't be seeing 17 year olds in that light. I see them as children and could never think of them that way, only in a protective sense.