To be a bit shocked by what i saw today.

[TheLadyEvenstar]

I took DS's out today and shortly before we left I let the play in the splash zone.

DS2 had his shorts and t-shirt on as it was very very hot and sunny ds1 was in rolled up tracky bottoms and his t-shirt.

I was a bit shocked by a couple of things I saw.

1 was a little girl running around naked - which tbh made it difficult to take photos of DS1 and DS2 playing although i managed to avoid catching her in all but 1 photo and that one has been editted so she has now got black knickers on.

The other thing was a young girl possible 7yrs old in a tiny bikini who was crouched over the jets of the splash zone gyrating herself everytime the water shot upwards

Now while I wasn't directly watching her I could hear other people talking and finally one mentioned to her parents that this possibly wasn't the best thing for her to do in public.

I have to admit the 2nd thing was more shocking than the little girl running round.

"my DS ought to be covered up"

Part of the concept of victorian prudery, now mapped into some of the Muslim community, was that men were so uncontrollable around women that the merest sight of uncovered flesh will make them into monsters, and as it's their essential nature the poor dears can't help it and women should therefore protect them from temptation. Now even people who would reject that argument think that somehow it is the responsibility of parents and children to protect paedophiles from the risk that they may be unable to control themselves. The effect, in all cases, is to transfer responsibility for crime to the victim, and panders to a common defence of paedophiles and rapists (she was asking for it with her cute little uniform / short skirt).

Which is nonsense, and making excuses for bad people. The objective risk of your 5 year old child being sexually assaulted by a stranger is orders of magnitude less than that for your 15 year old daughter. No one sane suggests that 15 year old girls should be supervised at all times and dressed in shapeless sacks because men might get inflamed, rather we tell our daughters to take mild precautions - most of them also doing double duty as protection against more substantial risks - and rely on the law, social taboos and the comfort of strangers to do the rest. It's perfectly possible to be interested in something, indeed interested sexually, and yet not be a uncontrolled monster (I sat two seats up from Euan McGregor on a transatlantic flight some years ago: he did not seem at immediate risk of the woman next to him tearing his clothes off, although she did keep fiddling with her hair). If someone with a sexual interest in children harms them it's because they're a criminal, and the responsibility lies with them. Losing sight of that starts to breed the idea that somehow it was the fault of the parent or, God Help Us, the child that they didn't behave in a way that would keep the criminal from offending.

When women who are being beaten by their abusive husbands are heard saying that it's partly their fault for upsetting him, the word we use is co-dependency and it's seen as part of the pattern of abuse. When women who are raped are told in court that they shouldn't have been wearing a low-cut blouse, it's roundly condemned as making excuses for rapists. Why are we making parents and children responsible for the actions of people who cannot control their urges?

ds (8) and ds3 (5) recently swam naked on a couple of occasions in a moorland river with a bunch of other kids. I think most of the other kids had swimming stuff, it hadn't occurred to me to bring any. If I had been present when they were getting in the river I might have made them keep their pants on, but I arrived a bit late so didn't bother. TBH I was more bothered about their bare feet and prickles. It was part of a weekend where they really did get a chance to run free and somehow seemed fitting. At the end of the weekend ds2 said 'mummy this has been the best holiday every' so I think something was right. The Daily Telegraph photographer ambled down to the river to take photos then beat a very hasty retreat once he clocked my two - felt a bit sorry for him really, had I seen him taking photos I would have assumed he was avoiding my naked two (for his own protection!).

DS1 would merrily run round naked given half the chance. He's 11 so obviously we don't let him. I've been thinking we need one of those old fashioned towel things that fasten at the neck to get him changed on the beach. Getting him into a wetsuit is tricky (doesn't help it's a full on winter one) and there can be lots of us squeezing him in whilst he's happy to show all. One of those neck towels would make it a bit more discreet and would keep dh happier. Anyone know where to get one? I've been looking but can't find anything.

DS1 has recently read A boy called it. I don't see it as "porn for abusers". I am not an abuser nor is he.

I think thats a bit of an OTT comment to be honest and is also irrelevant to this thread.

tokyo - thankyou

why would anyone, anyone, let an 11 year old read those books??????????

YABU.

Children don't have to adjust their actions for the sake of paedophiles, implying that there is anything a child could do that makes any difference to the actions of sick fucks is pretty sick in itself.

Girls like their bits as much as boys.

Morloth, I did already say I had over reacted.

The issue I have with misery lit/misery porn/ whatever the genre is now called is that it's usually made up/ massively embellished and is basically a work of fiction.

Fiction writing is created and sold as entertainment. That's its main purpose. Many of us really enjoy reading made up stories (I know I do).

I just find it a bit icky that people find made up stories about sustained child abuse entertaining. There isnt even a storyline most of the time.

but whatever we think of it as adults - is it appropriate reading material for kids of 11???

i'm genuinely really shocked so sorry if going off thread slightly

OP - I don't understand how you can show such concern for something fairly innocent - but let your child read violent porn. It's contradictive.

Catinboots. He asked to read it a while back and I said no, he had seen me read it before and we share a lot of books ~ autobiographies, fact books, etc
I knew eventually he would read it and so i allowed him to on the understanding he read it in the room with me and if he had any questions he asked me them and if it upset him too much then he put it back on the shelf until he was older. The book is still on the living room shelf open at the last page he read. Last night he was reading
"My name is David" - which is a kids book. So i assume he didn't want to carry on with the dave pelzer book.

Either way he would have read it if he had wanted to whether that be my copy or a library copy.

Back to the OP (I haven't managed to read all of the thread). A few weeks ago we went for a walk down to the beach. Once there, the sun really came out so I let my two strip down to their knickers and undies (they are 10 and 11).

They had an absolute riot on a quiet area of beach, looking in a rock pool for creatures and jumping in and out of the waves. There was another little boy and his Mum there, I think he would have been about 8. He was oblivious to my kids almost nudity but his Mum looked really uncomfortable. I felt so bad that we moved away from her (and him) even though all 3 were really enjoying playing together.

Children have to grow up so fast these days... tis a real shame.

I ran around naked on the beach/ park until i was about 5, there are tonnes of photos of me (gee thanks mum). It did me no damage at all! Children are innocent, just because there is a tiny chance someone out there isn't doesn't mean you have to stifle the innocence of all the kids! if a parent has an eye on them, where is the harm in a naked butt in a splash park!?

Furthermore, I am a childless adult (well for the next 7 months!) and i do not look at little kids playing in the nude as anything other than innocent! Not every childless adult is a threat you know, we are on the whole very normal and once children ourselves. Why not let kids enjoy themselves, and find more important things to worry about!

I actually love seeing small children run about naked. I think their innocence and obvious joy in being nekkid is beautiful. Always makes me smile. Most of the spanish children we saw on the beach in Tenerife were starkers, and no one batted an eyelid. We are odd about nudity in this country.

"I just find it a bit icky that people find made up stories about sustained child abuse entertaining."

And, worse, enjoy them all the more because they believe them not to be made up.

One of the most horrific aspects of child pornography is that it's used by abusers to normalise their crimes, both by telling themselves that what they are doing is normal because other people are doing it (and here's the evidence) or by telling their victims that what they having done to them is normal (and here's the evidence). Anecdotally, access to hardcore pornography on an industrial scale is causing teenage girls to be pressurised into things they don't want to do because "everyone is doing it" (and here's the evidence). That's a key justification for censorship, even when all the participants in the production are consenting (which is, of course, itself a whole other can of ideological worms): that the list of third parties potentially affected is endless.

It hardly seems a leap to believe that the rampant spread of misery lit is normalising abuse for abusers and the abused. I think the publishers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and people who buy these sorts of books should have a long look in the mirror about why they enjoy them.

I think it's sad that anyone is shocked. As long as the little one had sun cream/hat on, why should she have her innocent fun curtailed on the off chance that there is a creep somewhere in the park taking an unhealthy interest.

The child wasn't in danger, there were parents present and she is far too young to feel any embarrassment. As for the older one, perhaps her behaviour wasn't the best but you're a mum, you know kids do things like that, why are you shocked?

If I was her mum, I'd have had a chat with her when I could talk to her on her own.

And I'd just like to say that I have two pictures of my DS playing in the water at Runnymede with no clothes on (he was 20 months) and there are two unknown children in the background, about the same age, also naked. All I see is my son's joy. It had never occurred to me to think of it in any other way.

Please everyone who has just come onto this thread. I already said I over reacted and shocked was the wrong word.

Yes, TLE, but I think what most people are trying to say is that the fact that you were so strongly affected - whichever word you now wish to describe this feeling with - is perhaps an indicator that you're (still?) affected by something else that might have happened (?) and should probably think of how this affects your day-to-day life. Either that or you're just extremely judgey without considering your own behaviour and parenting. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your parenting btw, just saying we should all look at ourselves first before wanting to "better" others.) Because whether you like it or not, these things are transferred to our children unless we specifically deal with it and understand why we feel the way we do.

Denial is a bugger.

As an adult without kids, I am slightly offended that I am considered suspicious & can't be trusted around your children.
I think you need to spend some more time in the real world and less time reading the newspapers.

I never said you couldn't be trusted fgs i said there were a lot of childless adults walking around and also that i know even those with children can pose a risk to children.

For the record I rarely read a newspaper.

"I think a lot of the posters in here would have felt the same...but the MN bullies have scented blood, and they're not going to stop till they've made you feel like an overprotective weirdo, and a bad parent."
I resent childwiththecherrytattoo's comment. Mn bullies looking for blood.
I am not a bully and do not appreciate being called one.
I agree with MisSal's post. She says better, what I was trying to.
where is this supposed bullying ?

why do childless adults being around worry you???

jesus....paranoia here is amazing...and this is from me who has seen a childs body after a paedophile got hold of him!! the child wasnt alive. it was horrific and i still have some perspective over paedophiles,even with 5 water loving children

ILT please read I said I over reacted and also shocked was the wrong word. I also said I know peadophiles come in differnt forms with children as well as without.

oblomov - i think there has been a bit of bulling here or if not bullying then hostility and a lack of any support/understanding.

And yes, I know AIBU isn't really the place to come for that but... given, TLE has accepted she was BU to be shocked and had given some of her personal history to explain her reaction so I think its pretty crass to keep banging on with comments such as estya's one above 'more time in the real world and less time reading newspapers'

TLE has already alluded to two separate things that have occurred in the 'real world' that are likely to have been the cause of the reaction she had.

so what is the issue here then TLE???

~ILT, i accepted I was bu and then it continued.

CakeandRoses, not to be funny, but I think a lot of posters try to keep to the OP here, as if you were to take TLE's history into account, I believe the responses would be even worse. After the last thread of that type, I've decided to strictly stick to the actual issue on hand, but I feel you can't really take the stand of saying "there's more to this", as really, there is more to this.

Enough said, and I do realise this will make sense to no-one but me. Hey ho.