AIBU to not want to socialise with someone convicted of sexual offences related to children?

[tomhardyonthewaltzers]

Am I losing my mind? because apparently I'm being unreasonable!.

A friends wedding is coming up. Invitation arrived ages ago and I accepted. I was really looking forward to it as would see lots of friends from Uni I haven't seen for years.

One of our old friendship group was several years ago convicted of making and distributing child abuse images. He got a suspended sentence. His GF was also part of our friendship group and she stuck by him. I cut contact with both of them.

A few years later he was caught again and jailed this time. GF found out she was pregnant just after he went inside. Again she stuck by him and they now have two children together and are still a couple but not living together since he was released.

They're both invited to the wedding which I only just found out. So I told friend who's getting married that I won't attend now because they're going.

So now I'm being pressured by the rest of the friendship group. Told that friend who's getting married is devastated, that her wedding won't be the same if I'm not there to watch her get married. Can't I just put my opinion aside for one day? That they don't want to see him either but wouldn't let the bride down. I was even called selfish!.

I CANNOT watch him laughing and joking at the reception or having a dance or whatever. I just can't watch him enjoy himself knowing what he's done and I am more angry with his partner really, although I know that's unfair but I just can't fathom her thought processes at all.

Would anyone on here be able to put it aside and go? I do feel guilty about letting my friend down and upsetting her and it seems like I'm the only one of our friendship group making this decision.

That's heartbreaking flan

for you and your very brave dp

And yet in that response sgb you still haven't said what you would with regard to this offender in this circumstance.

People who've served time are not low level offenders. Being convicted once before did not stop him and given the way people around him are behaving he seemingly has no deterrent now. In addition do you really think offenders of this kind don't go on to do worse?

First of all I should like to say that I am a survivor of being sexually abused for 2 years between the age of 7 and 9
But some of the frothing fanatical views expressed on this thread are truly repulsive.
Firstly, there is no evidence to say this man has ever laid a finger on a child.I disagree with the idea that a distributor of indecent images is as culpable as the abuser.Would you say that a receiver of stolen goods is as bad as a robber who puts a bullet in a shopkeeper's head?
secondly these extremist views are what prevent a person with paedophilia, which is something that is not their fault, having the courage to seek help before they offend.
Thirdly Forgiveness and letting people move on is a good and empowering thing.Forever making someone, a social pariah and worse those they associate with, is really quite a short step from what happens in some of the most extrem regimes around the world.
Calling people goady, child abuse apologists because they post some thing you don't happen to agree with is not an attractive trait either.

Someone who works in the porn industry (and who has frequented mumsnet for years) should know that there is no such thing as 'child porn.'
I just can't accept that she was ignorant on this

I could walk out of my office now and ask everybody I see if they knew what child porn was/meant , if I'm lucky everybody who works in my office would say "no the term is images of child abuse" but I would be no where near as hopeful about people who didn't work in the same industry as me, and I would have no hope whatsoever about most people who are attached to the legal pornography trade much the same as if I asked a reporter.

In terms of the situation as described by OP: I would probably base my decision predominantly on what I knew of the bride and groom (ie are they under coercion and in need of support or are they believers in redemption, or are they just people reluctant to rock the boat).

"Pan goes out of his way to be a goady fucker. Gets his kicks out of it don't you know."
Wow! Quite an assertion there, Walter. It would appear 'goady' in this context means not agreeing with the OP in her choice but recognising it's her choice. Not very goady that is it? Or...your def. of what goady means is very very vague.

AFN - if what's here is triggering or upsetting to posters then the suggestion is the same i.e. stop reading. NOT.....for others to not post their opinion on attending or not. IF this was in a more sensitive area of the site then it might be different. But it's in AIBU and that makes a bit of a difference.

This is bothering me now, too.

SGB you keep referring to 'low level offenders' as though they are somehow more acceptable.

The law has rated these crimes out of necessity, not because on is more ok than the other, morally at least.

Legally, a 'low level offender' might not be as bad as someone else. That doesn't mean that morally they shouldn't be held accountable for what thye've done.

The average man, for example, is not a paedophile. He is not sexually attracted to children. Nor does he get off on looking at images or watching videos of a child being abused in ANY WAY.

That is the standard of guest you want at your wedding, that you want to socialise with.

There is NO LEVEL of ok for peopel who contribute in any way to CSA, whether they go to prison for it or not.

It's not just about immediate danger to your children. It's about saying "I will spend my time with people who don't take pleasure in the abuse of children". Is that really so outside your realms of understanding?

It's really not that difficult to chose not to spend time with paedophiles, custodial sentence or not.

"Calling people goady, child abuse apologists because they post some thing you don't happen to agree with is not an attractive trait either."

thanks for that measure of sanity.

And my use of a specific term in quote marks was because that's the term a lot of people use, not because it's the term that I use or 'accept'.

I don't think it would be a bad idea if the question: 'Would you take your children to a wedding with a convicted child abuser?' was asked on The Wright Stuff.

It appears most MNetters would not. I imagine most viewers of TWS wouldn't either. I'd guess the same would go for most Daily Mail readers.

SGB, why base it on the bride and groom? Why not on the fact that one if the guests is a twice convicted paedophile (my phone won't even suggest that word!) Who the hell could have coerced them? This pervert is just a uni friend, not their uncle!

Excuse the typos. It's all the frothing I'm doing.

Pan telling abuse survivors not to read the thread then is goady and being an absolute cunt. Hope that clears it up for you.

Cate fortunately you don't get to decide that abuse survivors should just forgive because it's the right thing to do.

Comparing it to a robbery, especially given your own abuse, is utterly bizarre and not worth arguing about.

Finally, in terms of attractiveness of traits, I would much rather be overly zealous in my defence of survivors and the people who choose not to be around them, than be someone who could even be in the position to be accused of being an apologist.

From my experience. A neighbour, and very good friend of mine, was recently convicted and imprisoned for 12 months (served 6) for the sexual assault of 4 women. These are the women who chose to come forward, I know now that there are plenty of others out there. Not the same as child sexual abuse, but in my book it's still appalling.
Since he's been out, some old friends of his have visited, he's carried on with his hobby, he's back with his wife in the house where some of the assaults took place. He's got his life back.

"Still appalling"? Don't feel the need to apologize for finding a rapist who rapes adult women appalling.

But this, exactly, is why I don't think this "But think of YOUR children" that many people here try will succeed in making anyone realize that socializing with paedophiles might be a bad idea.

Some women don't even have the self-preservation instinct to keep away from a man who raped adult women, why would they keep their children away from a child abuser?

(I would keep children away from someone like that regardless of whether he'll have any opportunity to attack them. Men who rape have a specific mindset that often shows in their behaviour, and childran can only notice that and use it as a signal to run away if they are allowed to run away. Forcing children to socialize with a man who gives creepy vibes is numbing their instincts.)

Would you say that a receiver of stolen goods is as bad as a robber who puts a bullet in a shopkeeper's head?

Not comparable in the slightest.

Well it confirms a few impressions about you Walter.

I would probably base my decision predominantly on what I knew of the bride and groom (ie are they under coercion and in need of support or are they believers in redemption, or are they just people reluctant to rock the boat)

Why? Why would you base it only on the B&G and not on your own feelings, thoughts and instincts?

Seems a bit weird for your children's fate to be in the hands of someone else because she's wearing a frothy dress on the day.

Sock are you still going to defend her now? You can see she's not misunderstanding anything. She's sticking by what she said

Ive made it quite clear I think her views are horrible and should have been deleted, I'm not defending her views at all. I just don't think being stupid is quite the same as being an abuse apoligist

Well it confirms a few impressions about you Walter.

Good. Then we understand each other.

You think I am someone who is hysterical and frothy and incapable of rational discussion. And I think you are someone who can't be trusted to safeguard children properly.

Isn't it nice to know where we stand? :)

"I will spend my time with people who don't take pleasure in the abuse of children".

But is having paedophilia a person's choice? They certainly have the choice not to look at abusive pictures but they will still be turned on by the though of it. So
walter is it acceptable to socialise with the non-image viewing individual who is turned on by the thought of abusing children
Yes or no answer!

Cate it is because there are people willing to receive stolen goods that they are stolen in the first place.
It is because people want to see and pay for images of children being abused that they are being abused for the consumption if those people.
Yes, they are just as culpable.

Firstly, there is no evidence to say this man has ever laid a finger on a child.I disagree with the idea that a distributor of indecent images is as culpable as the abuser.Would you say that a receiver of stolen goods is as bad as a robber who puts a bullet in a shopkeeper's head?

Yes, the receiver is as bad, if not worse.
If there were no receivers of stolen goods, there would be no thieves as it would be pointless. The two are equally responsible.

If not a single person ever paid for sick pictures, there would be no point creating those sick pictures. There can be no supply without demand.

*Would you say that a receiver of stolen goods is as bad as a robber who puts a bullet in a shopkeeper's head?

Not comparable in the slightest.*

why not?

seeyou