To not think my daughter should be made to use a changing room..

[hairnets]

When getting changed after swimming with her Dad?

He told me today that she received a telling off ("major roasting" were his words) for refusing to use her own changing room after he took her swimming. He felt that it wasn't appropriate for her to get changed out in the open because there were other men about in the room.

She's 5.

I obviously think he's BU and I know exactly why I do but interested in what others think before I bang on about why he's BU - If that makes any sense!!

They're pretty mild. If you want to know what true misogyny is, read 'Hustler'.

Those magazines are not porn magazines. I agree they are unsuitable reading material for a 5 yr old, but then she is not reading them I suspect.

squeaky - the OP did say earlier he had them where she could see them, I think? If I've misremembered, sorry. But I thought that was the issue.

I don't think we all have to agree with the OP, either about how she feels about her DD's nakedness or about magazines with naked women in sexually provocative poses (TBH, to me that is porn). But can't we all see there's something inconsistent in teh dad's attitude here?

(I'm trying to say why I think she brought it up, and that it's not an irrelevant point as has been suggested, because clearly it does say soemthing about his more general attitude towards nakedness.)

I know what "true misogyny" is

I also think that mags like Nuts and Zoo contribute to normalising it within our society

hence, dickheads like this bloke leave these "perfectly harmless" mags around for impressionable youngsters to look at

a 5yo may not "read" them, but they will certainly be absorbing the messages that they promote (and 5yo's will look)

Yes - doing a quick google for the covers of zoo does kind of indicate that the occasional glance at a willy in the changing rooms is going to be the least of the problems this child has with 'modesty'.

Well, many "womens" magazines contain nudity... perfume adverts being a prime example of women in provocative poses.

Nuts, Zoo, FHM, are simply publications which mirror similar ones on the market aimed at women.

Most of the blokes I know have read them at some point, mainly because there are very few magazines which are "mens" magazines, with male fashion, gadget info, and other male orientated stuff.

Many of the womens mags are equally as "sexist" if you want to see it that way, and will be very stereotypical with their attitude towards men.

I don't like those either, squeaky

It doesn't make it right that men are objectified either

I don't believe that men find it impacts quite as much on their life though (in general)

That's ok then is it squeaky?

I don't get what you're saying: you're saying nudity in magazines is ok, but not in the changing room? What I'm not understanding is, I would think that if this bloke is bothered about nudity, he'd also be bothered about it in magazines. I don't know why he's not, and TBH I do not really understand what was going through his head, but then often on AIBU you don't. But I do see why the OP brought the point up, because she is also trying to understand what was going through his head.

Btw, Zoo and Nuts don't 'mirror' women's publications - other way around. Which I think is questionable for all sorts of other reasons TBH!

I've never read Chat and so on - but I am a bit confused because I glance at magazines in the supermarket and the only ones I've seen with naked men in provocative poses on the cover seem to be aimed at gay men. Are tehre softcore porn mags for women I've just not seen in my newsagents or do I blank them out or something?

And while we are on the subject of magazines. I find the ones aimed at women, with headlines plastered all over the FRONT of them, like

My Stepdad Raped Me
My husband killed my child
How my boyfriend tortured my son

as being more unsuitable coffee table or toilet material for any child. Yet they are regularly displayed on the tills at supermarkets where a child is likely to spend longer looking at them than on the usual magazine stands.

I don't think his attitude is inconsistent at all.
Not when it's looked at in a wider context-perhaps if he reads The Sun as well, he is led to believe that perverts are everywhere and that they are strangers (yeah, The Sun somehow avoids saying that it is those close to the children who are more likely to abuse for some reason. Probably not to offend its readership. That's really, really bad of the newspaper).
So we've got a man who reads Zoo and Nuts and likes a bit of titillation, but I don't see how this makes him a bad father.
And I really don't get the connection between children's bodies and seeing adult women posing of their own free will in a magazine. I just don't.
That is quite a leap on the part of the opening poster.

'Misogyny' means hatred of women, not children.

"I mean, if this bloke were simply very relaxed about nudity, or simply very strict about it, it'd make sense. it's teh contradiction she's saying si weird, isn't it?"

There is time and place for nudity. I do not like being nude in front of the strangers despite finding my body beautiful and not at all something to be ashamed of, yet I have no problem at looking at pictures and photographs of nude people, yet I dislike even despise Nuts, yet again I find Helmut Newton and Edward Weston nude models beautiful.

I would not like to have a 5-6 yo boy changing where I am changing, yet I am happy to bear it all for a doctor who cares for me. There is nothing sexual here, it is a matter of personal conditioning and comfort.

The OP's ex- was wrong to tell his daughter off, yet I think OP's reasoning lies in her general dislike for her ex.

True, squeaky, they are nasty. I didn't see the OP saying she read them though? I mean she could be disliking both kinds, couldn't she?

wamster - we know what misogyny means. But you can't see why nakedness and nakedeness might be compared?

No-one is forcing you to agree with the OP's view on porn. But how on earth can you understand him saying nakedness in one context is wrong, and in another is fine - what makes teh difference? The adult woman's free will? Are you sying the child going swimming strops off because they're coerced?

Makes no sense.

The thing here is, if this dad is worried about his DD being naked or seeing naked men, why is he not worried about her seeing naked women? It's surely a lot easier to explain the first scenario than the second! I mean, 'daddy, why is that man all hairy' is an embarrassing question at the pool, but it's quite innocent. 'Daddy, why does that lady have her legs splayed and her boobies showing' is, I would suggest, a bit more concerning.

I think the point is with this bloke is that "tarts who sleep with men after a few dates" ( really ?) in Nuts/Zoo are somehow "other" than his own daughter

Classic misogyny, madonna/whore, whatever you want to call it

Such double standards in a man are a red flag, as far as I am concerned

or that he thinks seeing sexualised nudity in women is ok, but nudity of any type (including the type that is completely in context ie. a pool changing room) in men is not for his own daughter's eyes

both those mindsets tell me something negative about him (and those that defend it)

bemy - I agree completely about context. But IMO, the context in which nudity is most difficult to justify to a child, is when that child is seeing sexualized pictures, as in Nuts or Zoo (note I'm not saying porn again, though IMO it is porn).

I cannot understand how this bloke thinks he'll damage his DD's modesty in the one context, but not in the other. I may well be missing something, but if so, what?

I would not want my 5 yo daughter to change in the room full of naked men, nothing to do with her modesty though. I would just find the setting inappropriate (private cubicle with the dad is fine) and uncomfortable for me as a parent.

I get that bemy - I'm not banging the drum for unashamed nudity here. But I am surprised to find that attitude goes together with saying it's ok to have mags of naked women lying around. I would find that inappropriate too. Would you not?

I would find reading Nuts inappropriate even without the nude pictures. Same for Closer. I am very judgey about consumers of this shite, sorry.

Dunno why you're apologizing for it! I am too.

LRD, btw I absolutely understand you are not 'banging'. I just find think these two (soft porn magazines and a child in a room full of naked strangers) two separate topics, not one about the inconsistencies.

Going back to the OPs post about how he left one of these magazines in his toilet. That could have been a one off incident, and is it even recent?

Any waiting room usually has a stack of magazines that have content which is unsuitable for children to read.

I dont think the mags should be left lying around in the toilet, but a 5yo is unlikely to sit on the toilet reading it either.

Fair enough bemy - I was trying to work out why I think the OP brought it up, really.

I think the OP might be right there's a connection between the two, but it's not a necessary connection IMO, just one that comes about when you are trying very hard to understand what motivates someone else.

I don't follow your point squeaky, sorry.