worried about DD/DS being molested on plane? plane has more chance of crashing!

[ManfredMann]

www.theotherglassceiling.com/2014/05/sexism-paternalism-flying-high-what-are.html

give the blokes a break !

[EverythingsDozy]

I flew alone once at the age of 14. I was told I wasn't allowed a window seat and had to sit on the aisle "in case some dodgy man sits next to you".
I did, indeed, get a man sitting next to me and instead of being dodgy he was actually an arse. He told me I must swap with him (and sit between him and his wife who wanted the window!) because he needed to stretch his legs in the aisle. I also wasn't allowed to put my laptop under the seat because of his (not that long) legs

[treaclesoda]

Yes, I honestly would be angry. The only possible reason for moving away from him is because you think he is sinister. Then the other people around you think 'oh, look at the fuss that woman made when he sat down there, he must have done something, I wonder what he did?' etc. So my DH, who would have done nothing more awful than choose a vacant seat next to a child, suddenly has a load of people looking at him and thinking he has done something. They don't know what, but their minds work overtime and they start putting two and two together, and they get five.

[turgiday]

Who was talking about the cinema? The thread was about unaccompanied children on the plane.

[treaclesoda]

It was another poster who mentioned the cinema, I was responding to that comment.

[PersonOfInterest]

They may be at greater risk of being abused by their Dad than a stranger calamitous but not a plane!

Sadly, predatory Dads don't need to take opportunistic moments with lone children on planes.

A lone child on a plane is clearly at greater risk from a stranger than their Dad.

[CalamitouslyWrong]

Not necessarily, because dad can take them to the toilet.

[CalamitouslyWrong]

Yes.

Much more effective than having a moral panic about 'predatory men' on planes.

[PersonOfInterest]

I'm not sure what a 'moral panic' is but statistically there are 'predatory men' on planes (would you prefer a different term? What?)

We can teach children to protect themselves AND we can minimise the risk of them coming into contact with them. Yes both!

[turgiday]

Okay we should put all unaccompanied children on planes next to men to avoid a moral panic and men getting upset. And to hell with the small number of children who get sexually harassed or abused as a result of that action. Because the truth is, they should be the focus.

[PersonOfInterest]

Well that's that then!! Men and their livid wives are happy, moral panic diverted and hardly any children suffer as a consequence.

[treaclesoda]

If some random person implies that my husband is a predatory paedophile for no other reason than because he is out in public, I think feeling livid is fairly understandable.

I feel exactly the same about anything that works on the assumption that everyone is presumed guilty in order to protect against the tiny number of people who might actually be a risk.

Its dangerous for society as a whole because it is exactly the sort of paranoia that results in people, male and female, being reluctant to go near a strange child. You know those horror stories where a child escapes from their nursery and is found wandering about, lost and terrified, miles from home? And people say 'oh, it was in the middle of a busy time, loads of people saw him/her, and no one intervened, that's terrible!'. Well, this sort of paranoia is partly why.

[Spero]

A lone child on a plane is clearly at greater risk from a stranger than their Dad

Given that statistics clearly and routinely show that children are at greater risk of being hurt or killed by their parents or carers, than by strangers, I don't think this statement is true.

[Delphiniumsblue]

I agree with you treaclesoda- I would be livid if my DH was thought to be risky for no other reason than he is male! And it is where we get to the utterly ridiculous ( but understandable) position where a man dare not aid a lost child.
Children need to know that most people are fine but a small number are not- and then go through the scenario of 'what would you do if..........'.
They will never risk assess for themselves if their parents are incapable of it.

[PersonOfInterest]

When they're on that plane, unaccompanied, they're definitely at greater risk from a stranger than a family member.

Every other day then yes, the greater risk is from their parents or carers.

[TalkinPeace]

as a kid I flew as an unaccompanied minor A LOT
the biggest risk with me and strange adults was the time I vomited into the briefcase of the chap sitting next to me

FFS
the cabin crew were allowed to hold my hand
I sat on the captain's lap while in the cockpit (or I was too short to see out the window)
but I had common sense about boundaries

[PersonOfInterest]

The issue is assault of children.

The issue is not that a small child may find themselves in a situation that despite the best preparation in the world they can't cope with.

Because claiming that would be victim blaming.

[TalkinPeace]

cotton wool
cures everything
NOT

[windchime]

I have exactly zero interest in sitting next to someone else's child and humoring them for hours

I totally agree with this. If someone is neglectful enough to put a lone child on a plane without a known chaperone, then they deserve the stress imo.

[candycoatedwaterdrops]

It's all very well saying "most abusers are men, so I'd rather my child sat next to a woman" but most children are abused by people known to them. I've seen people on here flap about their child potentially sitting next to a random man but I'd willing to bet they don't flap as much when they drop them off for a day with a male relative who they are statistically more likely to be abused by.

I just don't think you can have you life dictated by the fear of a sexual predator attacking your child and I say this as someone who knows far too much about child sexual abuse.

[candycoatedwaterdrops]

Teaching your children how to respond when something makes them uncomfortable e.g. the NSPCC's 'pants rule' is not victim blaming FFS, it's common sense!

[Spero]

PersonofInterest, well yes, if there is no family member on board then their risk of being sexually assaulted by a family member on that flight is zero.

But these debates are infuriating because they obscure what the REAL risks are to children. Most children are at risk of death and serious injury in their homes, at the hands of the people who ought to be caring for them.

And instead of people getting upset about that, and upset about cuts to essential services that might support these families or protect these children we are having debates about predatory paedophiles on planes.

Can someone please point me to ANY recorded incidence of children being sexually abused by strangers on a plane? Just where is this supposed to happen? I am assuming someone might notice and think it a little odd if an adult tries to get into one of the teeny toilets with a child.

Or is this a problem confined to first or business class where there is a bit more room.