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.

HOW COULD ANYONE ANYONE ACTIVELY MAKE THAT CHOICE TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH A CONVICTED PEODOPHILE IS BEYOND ME.

TOTALLY BEYOND ME.

Prior to reading this thread I would have referred to the stuff the guy was convicted of having as "child pornography". I have never for one second thought it was in any way similar consensual adult pornography, it's obviously not, it's disgusting abuse, but I simply hadn't heard anything about what was an acceptable way of describing it. That's not me minimising it at all, just pure ignorance as to terminology, please don't shoot me. I now know better.

I do think people are making too much of a fuss about this.
It's not as if all pornography involving adult women is so nice and consensual and devoid of violence. So what are we to call it, then?

Pornography translates to "pictures of whores" (and no, you are not going to be able to convince me that in ancient Greek patriarchy whores were empowerfulized "sex workers"), and as such is an apt term to descripe the exploitation of women and children.

Now, if someone used the term "erotica" with regard to children, THAT would be misleading.

2000% This It's about saying "I will spend my time with people who don't take pleasure in the abuse of children".

So what are we to call it, then?

What it is. The sexual abuse of children. It doesn't need another title.

Cate your views are disgustingly naive at best.

As I have said I am a survivor of child sexual abuse, and done a lot of thinking about this matter.I don't think alienating people who have offended is the best way to prevent them, or any criminal reoffending.In fact I think it is the very worst way

Some facts re the "levels" of child sexual abuse imagery for you. trigger warning I'll try to keep this as clinical as possible, but it will still be uncomfortable for many to read.

Levels 1-5 are now outdated, but are still v useful IMHO. Level 1 is the least severe.

For a photo to be considered a Level 1 illegal image, it would have to meet a number of criteria. It has to be a child. It has to be sexual in nature. It would have genital focus.

If you found that your partner had sent a photo of themselves in the same situation as a child in a level 1 photo to a friend, you would know they are cheating. The photos are not ambiguous.

Photos of children going about their daily business (e.g. In an innocent bath, naked on a beach) would not meet this criteria.

Be absolutely certain that these photos are abuse.

Well, Cate, if you want to sit and play social niceties with abusers then that's your perogative. Just as it is OP's not to.

But I still maintain that treating these people as though they have done nothing wrong, or as though it is something that can and should be forgiven, is not only a slap in the face for their victims but also making it socially acceptable.

Catewood21 you must have had years of therapy to be thinking like this well done to coming to terms with what happened to you and understanding. They will never work in schools or in old peoples homes they will never have the same benefits as you or me. They will never get a second chance in those respects. They are being punished for life they will always be known as a pedophile never to be forgiven. That person is taking away a child's innocence and when that pedophile reaches prison they teeth are getting knocked out anyway and that is what someone I know witnessed in prison.

thebacks

Thank you for coming back and making that clear (and for your incredibly informative well written posts earlier in the thread).

It looks to me like some people do not realise this and actually believe that photos of children playing on the beach in the hands of a pedophile some how become level one images, you have explained very well why and how that is not the case

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.

You are saying you are happy to forgive.

That's your choice, Cate. However, your point, 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? is extremely depressing.

Yes, the distributor is just as bad. They enable it. They perpetuate it. Yes, receiving stolen goods is serious.

It is worrying that you cannot see this. There is a chain of people involved in the hideous crimes of CSA, and each person is culpable.

Very true Maryz.

I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread people comparing this guy's crime of enjoying images of children being abused with someone being convicted of drink driving has just blown my mind and not in a good way. Op you are completely right not to go to this wedding (unless armed with a shotgun for this piece of shit and his equally fucked up girlfriend) and IMO the bride deserves to be upset, very upset for inviting this vile creature to the wedding. 'People' like this NEVER serve their time and should NEVER be allowed to move on with their life, their victims don't have that luxury. The posters saying this or condoning his actions in any way should be ashamed of themselves. Would any of you allow this man to look after your children? After all, he's paid his debt to society and the images might not have 'been that bad' so they should be safe right? I haven't rtft, think I got to page 8 before I thought my head would pop so sorry if I've repeated things other posters have said.

Haven't RTFT as it's going far to fast! But just wanted to put another voice into the YANBU category. My DM and her DSis were sexually abused by their father and brother from a young age until they ran away at 13 and 14 respectively. After they were safe they told the rest of the family that they never ever wanted to see the father and brother again, and their family and friends respected that (let's not get into why it never went to the police, it was very rural Canada in the 1960's and a very different time). Their family still had contact with her father and brother though (and his eventual wife and kids), and my DM and her sister chose to be in contact with the brothers wife and kids, but avoided the brother. Once, DM's brother showed up at a birthday party we were all at for one of my cousins and my DM had a fit. She actually ended up calling the police to have him removed (even though he'd technically done nothing at the party), the police did remove him (again, small town, they knew he was known as a drunken asshole). Everyone but his wife and kids thought my mother was in the right for what she did, they didn't really want him around either.

So OP, you can tell the bride that at the very least she should be happy that you don't show up and call the police when you see him, NOW that would be drama!

Cate would you allow a man who had 'only' looked at pictures to babysit your children?

After all, you disagree with the idea that a distributor of indecent images is as culpable as theabuser so if he'd only looked, never touched, and deserved forgiveness and to be fully socialised, then it would be fine. Right?

Huh, and we wonder how the likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris got away with it

Enablers, you are deluded; you need psychological help. Especially if you have children. When/if you do start to 'froth' when you hear about children being used as sex objects for depraved, sick adults out there, you'll know you are making progress. When levels one to five of CSA images ALL appall you, then you can deem yourself as entering the realms of the sane.

DO YOU KNOW THAT 'JUST' SHOWING A CHILD AN INDECENT IMAGE IS ABUSIVE??????? Yes, it begins there. Seriously, educate yourselves.

The media refer to it as child porn. It isn't a sign of a poster condoning it FFS

Well I think this thread goes a long way to explaining why paedophiles don't seek help before they offend!!

I agree, cate. Seeing that there are lots of people prepared to forgive and forget and downplay child abuse (even call it child porn), they don't have to worry. They know that they will always find do-gooders who don't care about what they've done if they only shed few tears and say sorry.

The media refer to it as child porn

Oh, it's alright then.

(even call it child porn),

For fuck's sake, since when does "porn" even remotely imply that it's something positive?

Go read this thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2610074-Anybody-up-for-a-general-chat-about-the-damaging-effects-of-porn-on-young-people

Porn is shit, it's damaging, and you NEVER know if it's "consensual" (I personally doubt there even is such a thing, but even if there is you have no way of knowing unless you made it yourself), so please stop acting like being called "porn" is some badge of honor that idealizes child abuse.

If you oppose the word "porn" on the grounds that it hides the rape, then please do not use the word "porn" for anything involving real people, ever.

I can't wait to see the first "my boyfriend watches porn" thread where you ask the OP to change it to " ... videos of women being raped" ... may be eye-opening.

This may be useful information to someone:

The Lucy Faithfull Foundation aims to help people with a sexual attraction to children to not offend.

'Huh, and we wonder how the likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris got away with it'

Indeed.

I have been stunned by this thread. I would have been disgusted, but not at all surprised, if people were leaping to the defence of a man who had been convicted of sex crimes against an adult, a woman especially. But minimising and downplaying the crimes of a man convicted of sex crimes against children? Sweet lord.

OP, if you're still here, please take some comfort from the vast majority of posters on this thread who have wanted to shake your hand for standing up for your principles and not being a pathetic bleating sheep. The rest of you, falling over yourselves to make excuses for a man convicted of colluding in child sex offences, should be utterly ashamed of yourselves.