To think paedophilia isn't a daily mail invention?

[kingofshadows]

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?

Of course paedophiles exist but to let the risk affect your life does border on the hysterical. I can understand if the parent was for selves abused as a child, a huge part of my work is helping victims of abuse develop their sense of risk management which has been influenced by their own abusive experiences. This is common problem when victims go on to have children themselves, basically living life in the middle of the 2 extremes of fear, anxiety and paranoi regarding paedophiles and a complete disregard for personal safety.

And I feel really sad that men watching children "intently" is now seen as wrong and suspicious by some - that could be my DH as he's a male childminder.

As a child I saw three flashers on separate occasions, was followed to and from school for a couple of days by a strange man (who was known for following little girls for short periods), and a strange man attempted to abduct me whilst I waited outside a shop for my mum. He was eventually arrested for attempting to abduct two other girls from near a local school. Plus a couple of friends' dads and uncles who were very handsy with small girls and a dodgy uncle.

A close male relative was groomed and sexually abused over some years by two monks who taught at his school. One of my best friends at senior school was raped by a stranger at a party. Another was a teenage prostitute - she'd been sexually abused as a child by her father.

I know how common paedophilia is. These are just the ones that spring immediately to mind; ones that I know about.

But I don't organise my daughter's life around it. We certainly ensure she knows about stranger danger - that's how I saved myself from the potential abductor. But we're also teaching her about body autonomy and are trying to teach her that she should only be touched inside clothed areas by certain people for certain reasons (nappy changes, sunscreen at nursery etc). We encourage her to say if she doesn't like something, or someone. I won't put her deliberately in harms way, but she has spent this week wearing knickers and sod all else. I don't believe public semi-nudity is a significant risk factor, and she is supervised. She doesn't (and won't) go totally naked unless we end up on a nudist beach - neither would I, and I also don't know what sunscreen would do to those bits!

Is there any hard evidence about the number of abuse victims that go on to commit abuse themselves? I must admit it makes me uncomfortable, not only is someone a victim of abuse but they are then themselves considered a potential danger due to this ethos.
My instinct is that, while some victims do act out their abuse, many people are just wired that way.

YANBU OP.

I find it hard to fathom the many different ways my life has been affected by paedophiles. So when it comes to my DC I am quite vigilant and I offer no apologies for that.

The sneering and tutting that's goes on here makes me feel like it's somehow my fault. And it's not.

If your life hasn't been affected lucky you. I hope your world stays that way.

But it is much more common than you think. And until you really KNOW then you may well just be cleverly kept in the dark by someone you may otherwise trust implicitly.

So all if you, please save the sneering and the DM allegations.

There is a well known criminologist ( sorry forget name) who reported that most abusers he had come accross in prison had themselves been abused. As far as women internalising abuse, in a former life I knew a lot of female sex workers, and they had all been abused, literally all of them, and this had obviously informed their life choices.
scalala I see what you are saying but I do think that actual paedophilia and fancying young teenager is quite different. Teenage girls for example are often adult height, have boobs etc. Some men will be mainly attracted to young girls, but many many more will have the capacity to be sexually attracted to post pubescent girls who are, while technically children, are not little kids. There probably is an evolutionary reason for the latter, it's acting on it , or thinking it s ok to act on, that separates the normal men from the monsters I guess.
I'm not saying that I would want to be with a man who fancies 14 year olds(obviously I wouldn't ), but it's a bit different, and could be considered a part of "normal" sexuality, so in that respect I would agree.

It seems rather patronising to suggest that some parents who would prefer their children not to run around naked in public in case they are 'perved' on by some random man, are not ALSO aware that the most immediate threat of actual abuse comes from men much closer to home..

However it always amazes me on these boards how trusting some women seem to be with new partners as regards their children, as I believe that statistically new partners carry an increased risk of being abusive, not only sexually but in general. Whenever I have mentioned this before on MN, I have been dropped on from a great height and basically silenced, as it is not what most women want to hear.It's true though.

*it's true, though

I think that the 'paedo on every corner' line is used as shorthand for 'Paedophile who is a stranger nearby and is right now going to abduct your child'.

So yes, statistically there are loads of them, potentially on every street. But the cases of children snatched by strangers are miniscule. And thats what i think people are getting at when they get irritated by the 'hysteria'.

Dont more male people have paraphilias in general?

Plus, i think a lot of people who may be victims themselves are a bit wary of attaching a particular behaviour to 'attracting' an abuser. Tis a bit victim-blamey.

There are absolutely families where abuse runs from generation to generation and any child protection officer will tell you (if they could) that every area they have worked in has notorious families on their radar where abuse is taking place across generations.

I think most people realise that children as a population are most likely to be abused by family. However we can all risk assess and I know, for example, with as much certainty as possible, that my DD is more likely to be abused by a stranger than her father, grandparents or uncles. Most of us would say the same surely?

In Families where there are vulnerabilities (Abusers already in the family, or vulnerable mothers who may be targeted and unable to protect their children) this may not be the case. But it isn't for most of us (and thankfully, most of our children won't be abused)

I can almost see how men develop this illness and I think it's down to society, often like others have said they have been abused themselves so have a perverse view of the world and boundaries to start with, secondly biologically I think most animals see a female member of sex who is post puberty as ready to engage in sexual activity (not having sex with young teens, marriage for under 16s etc was common until relatively recently, 1900s maybe?) and thirdly the society we live in sexualises (or has for a very long time) young girls, kinky school girl outfits etc, if any of you have ever been on any porn sites you will see how even if the stories/videos say teenager they seem to be written as if children or very young teens are involved, it's sick. Society seems to make the idea of sexualised girls okay. I can't say I've ever seen a pic of a young boy in a magazine and thought they were trying to sexualise him but you see girls dressed and posing like women with a definite adult feel to some pictures.

I think all of the above is definitely wrong and hope society moves more and more to protecting our children but I really don't wonder why so many men have this sick perversion when this is what they grow up with. I worry that many many men feel inappropriate feelings of lust but in general (as most men aren't monsters) they are able to control these urges and may even put them to the back of their mind and dismiss them completely.

Noname if it was the medias fault why are there paedophiles of both sexes in all cultures who abuse girls and boys. There is so much flawed logic in your post.

I agree that girls should not be sexualised but because it is not good for a female to feel how she looks is dictated by society. By your logic women who wear 'sexy' clothes have no reason to complain if thy are raped.

And for what it's worth the idea of a man looking at my daughter with sex/ lust in his eyes makes me want to vomit and carry her away to a cave.

I remember being about 12 and sneaking into a lido outside of it's opening months, when it was unseasonably warm, as many children had done.
As the changing rooms where closed we huddled
In the changing enclosure to change. Looked opposite us and in the mans changing enclosure was a Middle Aged man, stark naked and wanking at us. This happened about 5 times before I was 18, in various guises. 4 times didn't say a word
To anyone- it was our fault for sneaking in, no one would believe us (because there aren't stranger pedophiles just hanging around waiting for you are there MN? y dad at home with his beer and football was more of a threat )
1 time the wanker chased us and the person who helped us called the police. This is happening to teenagers now, every teenager.

It's not an illness.

OP, you might not be a Daily Heil reader, but you're certainly sounding hysterical. As others have said, so what if a stranger sees your child naked and does/doesn't find the image exciting? As long as you ensure they're safe, it's irrelevant.

The idea that you need to cover your children up as a result of others' potential remote titilation sounds to me somewhere on the same spectrum as covering women in a burka to protect their 'modesty'. Utter tosh.

I'm not sure if most men feel lust for children and that some just happen to control it? What about female paedophiles? Do most women fantasise about having sex with children? That's the conclusion that your logic dictates.

Some one who abuses a post pubescent teenager under 16 years old of either sex is a sex offender not a paedophiles. Both are crimes but they surely different in their motivations. I think men attracted to teenagers dressed in school uniforms are creepy but not paedophiles.

While we're on the subject of pathologising male sexuality, it may be worth noting that around 20% of child sex abusers are women (Lucy Faithful Foundation). Furthermore, male offenders are more likely to be ephebophiles, attracted to pubescent teenagers (still a crime, but surely a different paraphilia to young children).

If the risk were as high as the hysterics seem to think, no one would ever be able to let their child out of their sight over the cours of the first fifteen years of life, without them becoming a victim of abuse.

This thread reminds me; I just got back from holiday in Greece and was pleased to see that Greeks still happily let their children run around naked and/or in trunks. This recent weird prudish Anglo-Saxon trend for putting fake bikini tops on little girls to cover their nipples strikes me as deeply odd. They don't have breasts, and they're not even sexual creatures until puberty.

Surely, this is suggesting sexuality where there is none? In fact, I'd even go so far as to suggest that the parents are projecting sexuality (their own) onto the very daughters they think they're protecting from sex.

rave it's my opinion that it is an illness, something is very wrong in how these men (or people) behave. Not dissimilar to the people who want to have sex with the Eiffel Tower. I believe something must be seriously wrong in their brain for them to think what they are doing is okay.

head I have never said a woman deserves to be raped at all. Very odd interpretation of my post. I have said that young girls are often sexualised then it's likely some people (the sick people who I mentioned in my post above who have no awareness of boundaries and can't control their urges) are going to look at them in a sexual way. I think this is sick and wrong and not the young girls fault. She is free to wear whatever she likes, nobody is asking for rape or abuse and you (not me) have jumped from what I said and came back with that conclusion.

I think there's less female paedophiles as one, society doesn't groom women into thinking sexual relations with young teenagers is normal (in the ways I outlined above that I think it does with men and girls) and two, I think women have a much stronger biological urge to protect children and I think this is much bigger than their sexual urges whereas with men I think their sexual urges as stronger than women's.

Again this is all my opinion and everyone's free to disagree. Although head it would be much more adult if you don't make up lies about what I'm sayi and put them across as if I've actually said it.

As a PP said your child is more at risk clothed atnhome, than running naked around the park.

Is this actually true, though? It's a claim that's often made, but I'm not sure people interrogate it properly. Certainly, more children are abused by family members than random strangers. We know that. However, not all children are at anything like the same level of risk. There are children who are literally conceived and born to be abused. There are families where every other adult is a Schedule 1 offender. It's horrific, but don't ever think it's not happening. Clearly, these children are at much, much higher risk than the average. You'd be surprised if they weren't abused. And they skew the figures. A child with a paedophile for a parent is clearly at grave risk of sexual abuse at home, and for them the home is likely much more dangerous than the beach.

However, there are also lots of children born into families where they don't come into unsupervised contact with anyone who has sexually abused a child. Mine are at home with me now, I am their primary carer. I know for a fact that I am not a paedophile, I'm in my 30s and it would've shown itself by now. Virtually all the time they spend at home is spent in my presence. I know for a fact that I have not abused them and nor has anyone else abused them whilst they have been with me. It's possible that I could be groomed by an abuser, but it's unlikely since I'm happily married and they (obviously) target people with small children who aren't in relationships, as there's less work to do when you've not got to tempt someone away from an established partnership. As I am not planning to abuse them, and paedophilia is vanishingly unlikely to suddenly develop in a previously non-paedophilic woman in her 30s (which I am) then I cannot see that they are at risk in the home where they are virtually always with me. My children most probably are at risk from the paedo in the park than at home and fully clothed.

Additionally, when people make that claim, are they controlling for the amount of time children spend at home? The average parent or family member has a great deal more opportunity to abuse a child than a predator in a public place who takes his chances where he can get them. I understand the point people are making when they say we need to be aware that friends and family can be predators too, just not sure if this claim is particularly accurate or helpful.