Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Do we live in a "paedophile" culture? I think so.

193 replies

BlytheSpiritsSpirit · 05/08/2019 13:22

I came across this old article on Feminist Current:

You’ve heard of rape culture, but have you heard of pedophile culture?

It's really made me stop and think; children are hyper-sexualised in our culture, aren't they? A recent issue my own DD brought up was the way Millie Bobby Brown from Stranger Things has been sexualised as she's grown (example here) and her co-star Finn Wolfhard (example here)

Why do people feel it's ok to sexualise children like this? What about the beauty pagents for 3 year olds, the drag queen competitions for pre-teens, or remember the internet countdown for when the Olsen twins turned 18? (that was a while ago, so clearly this isn't a new phenomenon)

The more I think about it, the more disturbed I get. I think we do live in a paedophile culture, or at least a culture where the hyper-sexualisation of children is completely normalised. AIBU?

OP posts:
LolaSmiles · 07/08/2019 16:31

Fresta
But it's a totally incomplete and vulnerable level of awareness.

So to take an example of a hypothetical 16 year old girl wearing their bum showing shorts.
Do they have enough awareness that showing your bum/cleavage can get sexual or flirty attention? Absolutely. Anyone who has worked with teenagers has seen those Bambi steps into dating and flirting and dealing with the opposite/same sex romantically.

Do they have enough awareness to realise they've been sold a narrative where liberating teen sexuality and confidence conveniently matchrs the agenda of socialising teen girls into narrow view of sex appeal as defined by men? Not a chance. And what's worse is that there are adults out there who will say "but it's just clothes that make them happy... There's nothing sexy about them..." (The usual woman lacking critical thinking about how ideals of female beauty seem to magically match male fantasies of sexually attractive women).

But focusing on the fact they're biologically developed and therefore basically an adult in this respect downplays the most crucial factor, that they are young and vulnerable and so so susceptible to marketing, peer pressure, social norms (including those imposed by parents). Their level of development is neither here nor there in almost every respect.

Fresta · 07/08/2019 16:43

Lola, yes I agree with everything you have just said! And this was what I was originally trying to point out- that girls wearing sexually provocative clothing are doing so because they are aware that it makes them sexually attractive/cute and gets attention because they do have sexual awareness- not because it is 'comfy'- They need educating and guidance about their choices and the reasons they are making them, not acceptance and empowerment excuses- but other posters seem to be in denial about this and seem to think now I'm some sort of paedophile or teen sex advocate- yes a little bit more critical thinking is definitely required which is what I was trying to instigate by my 'devils advocate' comments.

SuperSara · 07/08/2019 16:48

But focusing on the fact they're biologically developed and therefore basically an adult in this respect downplays the most crucial factor, that they are young and vulnerable and so so susceptible to marketing, peer pressure, social norms (including those imposed by parents). Their level of development is neither here nor there in almost every respect.

I completely agree with this ^^

What I don't agree with - and this is not aimed at you @LolaSmiles - is calling men preying on 16yo girls 'paedophiles'.

My issue with it is that the label is providing them with a 'get out'. They can simply say they're not paedophiles because they're not attracted to sexually immature children.

That then detracts from what they really are, which is child abusers, rapists, sick perverts and many other labels that can be quite rightly levelled at this sort of scum.

So I apologise if my being opposed to overuse of the label 'paedophile' is detracting from the matter or, god forbid, if it comes across as defending the disgusting bastards, but hopefully what I'm saying makes some sort of sense to someone.

LolaSmiles · 07/08/2019 17:01

Fresta
I was also a bit worried about your focus on sexual maturity to be fair.

I think with different wording in places you point could perhaps have been clearer. It did sound like you were advocating a bit close to the line.

The thing is that until the adults in these children's lives wise up and also consider how they themselves have been socialised and are subject to marketing and social pressure then they're an advertiser's dream (and to don the tin foil, the dream for whoever seems to be behind this sexualisation dressed up as liberation agenda).

Marilynmansonsthermos · 07/08/2019 17:49

While everyone is frothing about Fresta's comments, I'm not sure how Wheresmymojo's comment on page 4 escaped attention!
"I'm on the fence about the whole 'MAP' thing"...really, why?? Paedophile apologist much?

Needadvices · 07/08/2019 18:01

@Cocobean30 i completely agree.

Needadvices · 07/08/2019 18:07

Also i agree that sexual contact with a teen is not pedophilia. Could be abuse etc but pedophilia relates to children, not to whose people think are too young . Plenty 15 years old have sex under their parents roof from what we read on mumsnet for example. I think issues are getting muddled up.

Needadvices · 07/08/2019 18:09

And to pp that affirm a 16 year old is a child...no, its a young adult.not a child

justasking111 · 07/08/2019 18:57

Should the age of consent be adjusted?

Longlongsummer · 07/08/2019 19:13

I think that ‘fuzzy line’, like girls being 16 so ‘it’s okay’ or men justifying fancying 13 years as ‘they looked like 16’ shows how being ‘unclear’ is used as a justification for abuse. It’s all abuse of one form or another isn’t it

lyralalala · 07/08/2019 19:45

While everyone is frothing about Fresta's comments, I'm not sure how Wheresmymojo's comment on page 4 escaped attention!
"I'm on the fence about the whole 'MAP' thing"...really, why?? Paedophile apologist much?

I’d like all of those who consider themselves “MAP” to be very open and public about it - so I can keep my kids well away from them

They, and the fetishists, shouldn’t be allowed to take over Pride, but I don’t actually have an objection to them shouting about what they are as long as it’s an adult only setting. I think children are safer when we know that information as usually it’s well hidden

Mummyoflittledragon · 07/08/2019 19:45

Fresta
You were not clear at all. Obviously the vast majority of 16 yos are physically sexually mature. That wasn’t what I and others took from your posts and you had plenty of opportunities to clarify your comments before getting upset with me.

Marilyn
Yes I saw it. You are right. Going to reread now.

TheInebriati · 07/08/2019 19:53

There is more to the age of consent than physical maturity, which is why some adults are incapable of giving consent. They may be mentally or emotionally too immature to understand what they are consenting to, or the potential consequences.

I am suspicious of anyone who wants to reduce the age of consent. There is no good reason to, it is not suggested for the benefit of children.

Beesandcheese · 07/08/2019 20:03

I think the example on here answer your question. Short shorts on children are not there for seines. But so many people get all flustered and find it inappropriate. ... the same with seeing a child's pants if they are doing tricks or sitting carelessly. So many people are constantly thinking in a sexual way that they find the innocent flash of pants somehow to be sexual. Really disturbing, but fortunately their pearl (or male? Equivalent) clutching angst over the length of girls' shorts helps me steer clear.

Fresta · 07/08/2019 20:07

If bum cheek revealing shorts and cropped tops are nothing to do with sexiness then why don't we see boys wearing them? I do agree about seeing girl's pants though while doing handstands etc.- nothing sexual about that- just the downside of wearing a skirt!

LolaSmiles · 07/08/2019 20:18

Marilynmansonsthermos
I made the decision not to engage with them. Every now and then on threads about children, sexuality, gender and so on there's always a couple of posters who post ridiculous inflammatory comments designed to hijack the debate. I'm fairly cynical and think they're the types of people who will then screenshot replies and place their own spin on it about how terrible Mumsnet is for oppressing child expression (aka caring about safeguarding and ensuring children are saw from adults who seek to harm them).

MuseumGardens · 08/08/2019 12:57

For those looking for shorts for teen girls. H&M Women's section are good. Definitely don't show their bum

Mesmermancer · 08/08/2019 13:48

And to pp that affirm a 16 year old is a child...no, its a young adult.not a child

No, in England they are a child.

Mesmermancer · 08/08/2019 13:52

That then detracts from what they really are, which is child abusers, rapists, sick perverts and many other labels that can be quite rightly levelled at this sort of scum.

How is a man having sex with a 16 year old a rapist and an abuser if it is consensual?

Mesmermancer · 08/08/2019 13:57

No-one wears shorts that show their bum cheeks just because they are comfy! sunshine I see girls wearing them and they are all usually young girls with lovely figures, who know they have a nice bottom and are showing it off! It's a fashion! But it's a fashion based on a sexual part of the body- like wearing crop tops, mini skirts, low cut tops, backless dresses etc. It's a fashion designed to titilate the opposite sex

Can't speak for every teenager, but I wore short shorts from 14 and it was because of these reasons. Also chokers because BDSM aesthetic. Used to get looked at sexually by older teen boys and adult men, used to give me a thrill.

Mummyoflittledragon · 08/08/2019 14:35

Mesmermancer
You must have been a lot more sexually aware than me when I was 14 or even 16. I had no desire to thrill grown men or boys. I did end up on the radar of a man, who was going on 30 when I was 16. It was a confusing time. I knew nothing of bdsm until I was a lot older. I did wear extremely short skirts and my appearance was somewhat alternative by 16 and wouldn’t have appealed to anyone not in the goth type scene.

I really object to the statement you have quoted.

LolaSmiles · 08/08/2019 19:01

mummy
I can't believe you are going to try to suggests teenagers have no awareness of what gets flirty or romantic attention.
They do. They did when I was a teen. And they increasingly do with social media, normalisation of porn, increasingly sexualised culture, love island etc.

Next up: teen boys who take topless selfies that show the top of their boxers have no idea that it might be attractive to girls... Teen girls who take selfies where half their face is missing but all their cleavage is showing have no idea that boobs can be attractive. Hmm

Needadvices · 08/08/2019 19:15

Mesmermancer if 16 years old are children why can they get married , live by themselves, agree to sex?

Mummyoflittledragon · 08/08/2019 19:21

No of course not. I’m not that silly. By “young girls”. I assume Fresta poster means older girls say 14 + aren’t exclusively wearing their clothes just to titilate the opposite sex. It’s a lot more complex. Or maybe I misread the comment? Because I thought she meant that’s the only reason to choose those clothes.

Mummyoflittledragon · 08/08/2019 19:24

Needadvices
Legally they are children until they reach their 18th birthday. 16 and 17 year olds can only get married in Scotland without their parents permission. As for living alone, the law is a bit woolly on that. A parent / guardian is legally responsible for a child of that age but cannot physically prevent them from leaving home.