Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think paedophilia isn't a daily mail invention?

186 replies

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:03

As the weather gets warmer I have already noticed various threads about where to permit children to be naked and the inevitable answers state that there 'isn't a paedophile around every corner!' (generally with a hearty 'gosh, how silly!' tone), that people who don't let their innocent children remove their clothing are ruining their childhoods and the Daily Mail readers are the ones who don't let their children run round in this state.

I have never bought a copy of the Daily Mail.

However, I do think - know - paedophiles exist.

Aibu to be sick of the insinuation that those of us who are concerned about sexual abuse of our children are hysterical daily mail readers?

OP posts:
FenellaFellorick · 02/07/2015 18:37

There are most certainly paedophiles around. I don't think anyone is saying they do not exist. Clearly they do. And yes, they go out in public and yes, they will watch children. And yes, this is deeply uncomfortable and disturbing.

However, what is the risk to a toddler of being with their parent, in a park, playing in a fountain, parent right there, a few feet away? It is unheard of for a paedophile to jump the wall, elbow the adults out of the way, throw a toddler over their shoulder and leg it out of the park with them, with the child's watchful parent chasing after them. The worst you could reasonably be say to be true is that there may be someone in the park who watches. Risk to the child from eyes? Zero.

The far more common risk from a paedophile comes when your parents let them babysit for you. When your dad says don't be rude, sit on uncle tom's knee and your mum says don't be shy, give my friend a hug and tells you off for not wanting to and your parent's friend convinces them they are someone they can trust with you.

Or it's your mum's brother or your dad's cousin. Or it's actually your dad. Who comes into your bedroom at night when your mum's asleep. Or maybe she's not. Maybe she closes her eyes and ears because there are none so blind, as they say.

That's where the danger is. In the home. In the family. In the circle of friends. To a lesser extent in the clubs and groups. But the daily mail isn't saying omg there's a paedophile in every family! Watch out for grandad at the christmas party! Don't let uncle matt tuck little daisy in...

No, it's all perverts in bushes. And not out of a genuine desire to raise awareness but with a disturbing salacious undertone.

If people were more aware of the risk from family and friends, instead of getting het up about the man in the park who sits on a bench and watches the kids on the swings, perhaps fewer children would be abused.

cailindana · 02/07/2015 18:37

Yes paedophiles exist, I was abused by two of them and know many others who were also abused. But none of us were abused because our parents let us run around naked. Is there some evidence of a link between parents allowing nakedness and abuse?

The80sweregreat · 02/07/2015 18:37

Of course they exist , my own poor mum was abused by an uncle in the 1930s. In those days things were covered up, not spoken about. She didnt know for years her older sister had the same experience. Affected her all her life.
These people are out there and the internet has made things easier for them to operate.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:38

I don't think I am spending my life worrying about whether a man is staring at my toddler pagwatch and this sort of put down is almost imperceptible but inevitable on threads like this - the suggestion that if you acknowledge the existence of sexual abusers you are 'spending your life' thinking about them - whilst, we are reminded none too gently - ignoring our own husbands/brothers/fathers/friends.

OP posts:
FenellaFellorick · 02/07/2015 18:41

and the highest risk group of course, is children in the care system, who suffer a far far higher rate of abuse than children not in care.

That's a huge problem that just doesn't seem to be anyone's (in authority) priority

AreYouSupposedToBeInIowa · 02/07/2015 18:41

I grew up in what appeared to be a sleepy lovely village. As I grew older and more aware, I began to realise what a seedy underbelly the place had. I used to get a lot of babysitting and in short order realised that there was swinging and wife swapping as a common occurrence. Later on again heard on the grapevine of far far seedier and illegal stuff going on and saw some of it therefore I think it is fair to assume that my village was not unique, in which case.....eeeuw. YANBU OP.

Tuskerfull · 02/07/2015 18:42

I didn't read pagwatch's post as a put down, and I don't see how it can be read that way. I think you are over-sensitive about this topic for whatever reason, OP.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:42

The thread isn't an extension of 'should children be allowed to run round naked.'

My answer is always - whatever you, as the parent, feel comfortable with.

I don't feel comfortable with it so I do not.

Because of this, I apparently read the Daily Mail (I don't) see a paedophile around every corner (I don't) and am unaware that most abuse happens in the family (I'm not unaware.)

Carry on doing whatever with your own child; I have no issues with that at all.

But after being raped repeatedly by a paedophile (a relative stranger - not a family friend!) I do know they exist and I don't think that knowledge makes me 'hysterical.' I object to those words.

OP posts:
cailindana · 02/07/2015 18:42

I think everyone is aware abusers exist king, but I'm not sure what your point is.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:43

It's a subtle put down and im saying that reluctantly; I like pagwatch.

But she has intentionally or otherwise implied that some people's lives are spent worrying about paedophiles and that they are not a risk.

OP posts:
StarsInTheNightSky · 02/07/2015 18:43

We're not in the uk and we own a ranch (sorry, just for context). One of our dogs recently attacked and pinned down one of the men working for us. Turns out he was a paedophile and was trying to act on his feelings with our cleaner's daughter, who is six. She was playing hide and seek with some other children and he persuaded her to hide in the barn (which is a way away from anything else) with him, our dog got to him in time, luckily (she adores the little girl). By all accounts he was a well loved, well respected man.

Tuskerfull · 02/07/2015 18:43

By the way, every single person on this thread has "acknowledged the existence of sexual abusers", whether they agree with the Daily-Mail-hysteria train of thinking or not.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/07/2015 18:43

he suggestion that if you acknowledge the existence of sexual abusers you are 'spending your life' thinking about them - whilst, we are reminded none too gently - ignoring our own husbands/brothers/fathers/friends.

But you are choosing to curtail your children's freedom due to an incorrectly percieved risk. As a PP said your child is more at risk clothed atnhome, than running naked around the park.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:45

I don't feel her freedom is curtailed because I don't permit her to remove her clothing whenever she feels like it but we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

OP posts:
Tuskerfull · 02/07/2015 18:46

But she has intentionally or otherwise implied that some people's lives are spent worrying about paedophiles and that they are not a risk.

The former - yes, and it's true. There are parents out there who are obsessed with protecting their children from paedophiles. That isn't a put down.

The latter - no, she didn't imply that at all. She was correctly saying that someone watching a naked child in a park is not a risk to them, it's people with unsupervised access to the child that are the risk.

Pagwatch · 02/07/2015 18:46

It was not a put down.
It was an honest assessment of how I chose to process the risk.

I was abused throughout my childhood - I also know they exist. But actually it is possible to have an inappropriate or disproportionate reaction to the risk and my feeling is that assuming nudity = increased risk is disproportionate.

I chose to try and be rational so that my personal experience didn't leech into my children's experience.

Linking 'naked toddleron beach ' with 'paedophile' is not helpful imho.

The risk to our children is not on the beach. Why would I chose to worry about that.

NoNameDame · 02/07/2015 18:47

I think people are mis-interpreting some of the other comments. I saw 1 where a mum said she wouldn't let her dd sit with we legs open and knickers on show on the bus as there could be dirty old men getting gratification from it.

I don't think she was worried the child was in danger of abuse, after all she was with her and they would get off the bus never to see the man again. However I think she just objected to her dd being the content of his mental illness.

The same way I would want men looking at compromising pictures of me I don't think it makes me open to abuse but I still don't want to feature in other people perversions.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:48

Yes, I understand that pag; I don't disagree.

However, the assumption (I don't mean yourself here but the prevalent view on mumsnet) that restricting the places your DC undress make you a hysterical DM reader is an insulting one.

Sorry to hear about your experiences.

OP posts:
StarsInTheNightSky · 02/07/2015 18:48

I agree with king (and sadly seems like we had similar experiences growing up too) not letting your child strip off when they want is not curtailing their freedom.

Pagwatch · 02/07/2015 18:48

X-post

Kingofshadows

You are either not actually reading what I write in a desperate attempt to be outraged or you are being obtuse.

Either way you are doing little to convince me that you are, as you insist, not hysterical.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:48

I can assure you I am not hysterical pag but I'm afraid you're not convincing me you're not trying to put me down.

OP posts:
StarsInTheNightSky · 02/07/2015 18:50

And isn't it fucking depressing how many sick bastards there are out there?!

Tuskerfull · 02/07/2015 18:50

How would you take your child to the beach to paddle, or to splash in a fountain, without them being naked at some point? Genuine question, I can't imagine it. Never going to play in the sea as a kid seems very sad to me.

Pagwatch · 02/07/2015 18:51

X-posted again.

I just can't agree with the premis really.

I don't see reluctance to let children undress immediately linked with hysterical fear of paedophiles unless it's raised as a reason.

I too am sorry about your experiences. It leaves quite a legacy doesn't it.

kingofshadows · 02/07/2015 18:51

It does pag, it does Flowers

Tusker - lost there? It isn't difficult!

OP posts: