to wonder why powerful men abusing vulnerable children is newsworthy now?

[PamelaTodd]

I’m not suggesting that the rape and exploitation of children and vulnerable women isn’t reprehensible, but my question is why is this an issue now ?

In the case of Mountbatten, his habits were an open secret. The FBI has a file about him, based on information from people in his social circle. It has been suggested that the Gardai, RUC, IRA and MI5 were all aware of his activities with the Kincora Boys home. But it just didn’t seem to matter to anyone very much.

Epstein doesn't seem to have been discreet, even if his friends all claim an astonishing degree of naïveté and myopia. The news stories being released in the last month aren’t new. They’ve been held in editor’s vaults until now. Why now? Why didn’t any of this matter to us (the public interest) until now?

If anything society is more tolerant than ever of kinks and fetishes, as well as the spectrum of sexual orientation. I can’t find the post now, but there was a mention of paedophiles (or “minor attracted persons”) openly meeting up at one of this year’s pride march.

It seems odd to me that the more buttoned up society of the past would sweep this under the carpet, and our hyper sexualised tolerant society is so shocked. If I’m honest I’m a little bit scared that this is just a step in normalizing it. That we’re supposed to absorb the idea that this sort of thing is so widespread and endemic that there’s nothing we can ever hope to do about it.

There have been attempts before by victims of these (and other injustices) to come forward but they’ve been discredited, or silenced. Why are we listening now? What’s changed?

And what else is locked away in news editors’ values that we should know about?

Fetishists shouldn't be stopped from attending Pride in case children happen to be there.

Not one person on this thread has said this.

There's a lot of debate over whether fetishists should be welcome at Pride

you are right it's not, but as no one but you has even mentioned this it shouldn't be an issue.

This is about pedophiles using pride as a way of gaining access to children.

The attitude that it's okay for pedophiles to interact with child if the parents are stupid enough to let it happen is very telling.

Oh my god this is so disingenuous, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't think it's appropriate for children to interact with people in fetish gear. But I think it's the parents' responsibility to prevent that, not the fetishist. And if a child does interact with a child at Pride, it doesn't make them a pedophile. It means the child shouldn't be at Pride.

Your alternative seems to be banning fetishists from Pride so it's a more sanitised place for children. I don't think that's what Pride is or should be about.

But whether you think fetishists belong at Pride or not, it's absurd to suggest that they are automatically abusive to children for representing their fetish at Pride

You are the only person who has suggested this. You are the only person having a debate, seemingly with yourself, about the rights and wrong of fetish at pride.

Nobody else on this thread is talking about this.

Your alternative seems to be banning fetishists from Pride so it's a more sanitised place for children. I don't think that's what Pride is or should be about.

Not one person apart from you is talking about banning fetishists from Pride, this thread isn't about that.

Fetishists shouldn't be stopped from attending Pride in case children happen to be there.

Not one person on this thread has said this.

Then what's your solution? How are you going to stop fetishists being branded pedophiles because children talk to them at Pride?

This is about pedophiles using pride as a way of gaining access to children.

It wasn't when we started this conversation, but fine.

Where's your evidence that this is happening? How is this the fault of Pride instead of pedophiles? What do you think Pride should be doing that it isn't?

The weird thing is, you are agreeing that I don't think it's appropriate for children to interact with people in fetish gear,. and it's ripe for MAPs to take advantage of. but for some reason you've invented an argument that no one else has mentioned about banning.

Not one person apart from you is talking about banning fetishists from Pride, this thread isn't about that.

Since you're repeating yourself, I will do. If you accept that fetishists are welcome at Pride (which I am glad you do), how do you stop them from being labelled as pedophiles because parents insist on bringing their kids?

OP I think one of the reasons were seeing more stories on child sexual exploitation and the authorities are taking more action is because we have more women in positions of authority. Not only are women far, far, far less likely to sexually abuse children they are also far more likely to think protecting children is a legitimate and important role of the state.

Agree with previous poster about the Internet being a big factor too.

What do you think Pride should be doing that it isn't?

1)Child friendly area and sexual fetish area.
2) 2 parades, or at least split, so half is for fetishists and then there's a break and families then get their own.
3) at the very least people / security stopping children hugging men in fetish gear, maybe walking in front.

A few off the top of my head.

Then there is having a child friendly day and a fetish day.

There is loads of stuff you can do to keep up safeguarding so children are kept safe.

The weird thing is, you are agreeing that I don't think it's appropriate for children to interact with people in fetish gear,. and it's ripe for MAPs to take advantage of. but for some reason you've invented an argument that no one else has mentioned about banning.

Why do you keep using the euphemism 'MAP'?

It legitimises pedophiles. It gives weight to their argument that their abuse is a legitimate sexual orientation which should be accepted. It has been denounced by people working in child protection.

Family friendly in the morning and sexual at night?

It's all about general safeguarding.

Why do you keep using the euphemism 'MAP'?

Because you took objection to the idea pedophiles could use pride to access children, and then said (to paraphrase) if parents are that stupid it's their problem.

Also the spell check keeps changing it to the American spelling.

@CaptainKirksSpookyghost all reasonable suggestions, and it looks like I've won you over. At the start of this thread you posted a photo of a child interacting with someone in fetish gear and indicated that in your view this was indicative that the person in fetish gear was a pedophile gaining sexual enjoyment from the interaction with the child.

Now you seem to recognise that fetishists are entitled to attend Pride, that it's not their fault if children also attend and interact with them, and that it doesn't make them abusers if this happens.

I'm considering this a victory

@CaptainKirksSpookyghost all reasonable suggestions, and it looks like I've won you over. At the start of this thread you posted a photo of a child interacting with someone in fetish gear and indicated that in your view this was indicative that the person in fetish gear was a pedophile gaining sexual enjoyment from the interaction with the child.

Now you seem to recognise that fetishists are entitled to attend Pride, that it's not their fault if children also attend and interact with them, and that it doesn't make them abusers if this happens.

You are honestly reading your own thread aren't you.

None of this happened.

so anyway, peadophiles are a big problem at pride.

Because you took objection to the idea pedophiles could use pride to access children, and then said (to paraphrase) if parents are that stupid it's their problem.

1. That's not an explanation for why you are using a term that legitimises pedophilia.

1. I didn't take objection to that idea. I said that pedophiles are not and never have been welcome at Pride, despite their own attempts to claim they should be. Individual pedophiles may attend Pride. That's not the same as pedophiles being welcomed or represented by Pride.

1. You aren't paraphrasing, you're just making things up. I said fetishists shouldn't be accused of being pedophiles because they sometimes interact with children who come to Pride. It's the responsibility of parents to safeguard their children. If they choose to let their kid interact with a fetishist, it doesn't make that fetishist a pedophile.

so anyway, peadophiles are a big problem at pride.

Are you able to cite a source for this?

None of this happened.

Literally exactly what happened, but your ability to undertake mental contortions has been well evidenced on this thread.

You aren't paraphrasing, you're just making things up. I said fetishists shouldn't be accused of being pedophiles because they sometimes interact with children who come to Pride. It's the responsibility of parents to safeguard their children.

Gaining sexual pleasure from a child interacting with your fetish does in my opinion make you a peadophile.

If they choose to let their kid interact with a fetishist, it doesn't make that fetishist a pedophile.

Really, if parents allow it it's not wrong?
Really?

Are you able to cite a source for this?

What that some of the people at pride are going to be peadophiles taking advantage of the access to children?

Gaining sexual pleasure from a child interacting with your fetish does in my opinion make you a peadophile.

I agree, but i don't think that's what's happening. Fetishists aren't at Pride to interact with kids. It's not their fault if kids approach them.

There may be individuals at Pride who are pedophiles. That doesn't mean we can or should tar particular groups with that brush. It means parents should protect their kids, as they would in any other setting.

*If they choose to let their kid interact with a fetishist, it doesn't make that fetishist a pedophile.
*
Really, if parents allow it it's not wrong?
Really?

Genuinely can't decide if the issue is that you aren't very bright, or that you are bright and are just gaining malicious pleasure from deliberately and facetiously misrepresenting everything I say.

Pedophilia is wrong.

A person interacting with a child while dressed in fetish gear is not automatically a pedophile. At Pride, fetishists are entitled to be there in their fetish gear. It's not their fault if a kid approaches them and starts interacting with them. It doesn't make them a pedophile.