Normalisation of sexual fetishism

[QuietContraryMary]

Just reading this story about a man with infantilism abusing a child

www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/sick-abuser-nappy-fetish-jailed-15579002

There are NHS doctors such as Dr. Christina Richards (transgender, gender clinic psychologist) who have written books www.amazon.co.uk/Sexuality-Gender-Mental-Health-Professionals/dp/085702843X?tag=mumsnetforum-21 to say all such fetishes are perfectly healthy, not paraphilic or to be judged. Indeed the phrase 'kink shaming' is used against those who suggest that role-playing paedophilia or similar activities is harmful.

What do we think about the 'thou shalt not judge' culture of saying that all sexual behaviour is a matter for those practising it?

Yeah...it's another of the 'drip, drip, drip' tactics some of these people are using to 're-educate' people into allowing them to do what they like. Add in the erosion of safeguarding and we know - we see them.

It’s shifting the window of what’s acceptable

The end result is cases like the man who killed a woman and got a paltry three years for it by using ‘rough sex gone wrong’ as a defence

Not all fetishes are harmful. This man was a paedophile and that is what was harmful about his behaviour, not the infantilism.

Some people with a fetish will also practice harmful and illegal sexual behaviours such as paedophilia or non-consensual sexual activity. Some people without a fetish practice these illegal sexual behaviours too. This man has a fetish and is also a paedophile - it’s the paedophilia and involvement of a child which makes this an abhorrent crime, the fetish in itself isn’t newsworthy.

Most people with fetishes only involve consenting adults (if they involve anyone else at all) and keep their fetish private, just like most people without fetishes only involve consenting adults in their sexual activity and keep their sex lives private.

That fetish is just a convenient mask to cover up their sexual attraction. Not fetishes are harmful. There is nothing harmful about two consenting adults who for whatever reason enjoy pissing on one another for example. So let them crack on I say. I do believe your fetish should be kept firmly behind the bedroom door however.

I think it is harmful - because it’s played out in public. What two consenting adults do in private is up to them. When it’s done in public it’s assault because others don’t consent.

But there are a few issues I think are causing concern recently.

1. Porn is everywhere and so much more accessible than it has ever been. That means more porn, reaching more people at a younger age. So not adults doing things they understand and consent to but kids, who are exposed to stuff far too young. That is resulting in a generation of young people who are getting a lot of exposure to what we’re once deemed extreme acts, before their brains are mature

1. Porn is getting more extreme in the mainstream. Acts like choking, anal etc are now seen as totally mainstream. This is shifting the window of what’s acceptable.

This is leading to cases where women have been killed by a man they’ve literall met that day and the man has used the defence of ‘wanted tough sex, went a bit wrong m’lud.’
Countless experiments have shown that vanishingly few women wi accept an offer of sex from a strange man but the reverse is not true. But the defence is being used more and more.
There has been a particularly distressing case this week, where the injuries indicted could only have been done by a prolonged attacked, with significant force. The perp did not call for medical attention.

The media have run stories smearing the victim as liking it rough with the implication she asked for it. But the law says that no one can consent to being killed or severely injured. So why did this man get three years for a brutal killing with a sexual motive? because paraphilic and violent sexual behaviour is becoming public and normalised.

It's a shifting of the Overton window, and the goal seems to be to create an environment in which women are assumed to be likely to consent to acts that even a few years ago would have been considered rather extreme and not at all common.

AngryAttackKittens says it better than I can.

I'd go so far as to say that people should be ashamed of sexual kinks involving babies and children. This ought to be totally unacceptable as it contributes to the sexualising of children. It is no surprise that this is the second case in recent months where men with a baby / nappy fetish have been jailed for sexually abusing children.

The safety of babies and children is being compromised by porn advocates and that's wrong.

I'd go so far as to say that people should be ashamed of sexual kinks involving babies and children.

Agree. People are of course free to do what they want with other consenting adults in private. At the same time, anyone fetishising children I think IS a danger to children, whether directly or via leading to such fetishisation becoming normalised.

We seem to be dead set on removing shame as a thing. But shame, like pain, serves a purpose. Not all shame is bad.

AIR the right to physically injure people during sex was a battle fought by men in the 80s or 90s

e.g. R V Brown en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown

You will still find articles such as

www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-posts/its-not-the-judiciarys-place-to-stop-people-having-kinky-sex/

The logical extension of gay men injuring each other consensually is women being killed and oops it was 'not the judiciarys place to stop people having kinky sex'

I think btw some fetishes are obviously harmful. For example infantilists recruit teenage boys via supposed incontinence support sites such as ADISC. From there they are in some cases abused by adult paedophiles.

In addition, walking round in public with a nappy for fun is inconvenient and disruptive to employability etc. Not to mention the unpleasant spectacle of things like DD/LG, master/slave being played out in public in front of non-consenting spectators, children etc. It's no different to playing porn on the bus

What do you mean by 'perfectly normal sexual fetishes', ravenlover? According to the NHS psychologist in my OP, daddy dom little girl & nappy fetishes are 'perfectly normal'.

However both clearly have paedophilic leanings, even if no children are (yet) involved.

anything?

not adults doing things they understand and consent to but kids, who are exposed to stuff far too young

Some of this exposure is being dressed up as responsible sex education by organisations and individuals that go into schools.

I looked at the BISH resources a few months ago (aimed at kids 14 and over) and there was so much stuff that I've lived happily unaware of for 60 years.

Anyway as this thread is about fetishism here is BISH reassuring us it is all quite normal and innocent stuff.

You might think that fetishes (or some fetishes) are weird but remember that this is all subjective. We’re all the same, we’re all different. For this reason I really like this phrase ‘Your Kink Is Not My Kink But Your Kink Is OK (YKINMKBYKIOK)’ There’s no evidence that people into BDSM are mentally ill – perhaps the opposite in fact.

I think it is actively very dangerous for you to conflate pedophilia with consensual adult sexual practices like spanking or foot fetish.

I’m not conflating foot fetish etc with paedophilia.

I’m saying that an adult who has a paraphilia involving infantilisation and who then plays that out in public, which involves unwilling participants is contributing to the normalisation of sexualisation of children.

Foot fetishes, spanking, etc between two people who are old enough to consent and consent willingly is not the issue. The issue is bringing paraphilic behaviour involving children into the public domain, whether directly or by normalisation

No Birthday Hugs, are you really saying you don't believe his desire brought about through dressing up as a baby during sex has anything to do with his sexual desire for children?

It's depressing how these discussions always get into 'ah buttery' and derailment. I don't give a toss what people do in complete privacy (with the normal qualifications about consent and actual harm) But we really shouldn't have to tiptoe round discussions of paedophila for fear of offending some foot fetishist.

Nobody is legitimising paedophilia - precisely the opposite. It's very weird thinking that can accuse the posters on here of "legitimising paedophilia" on the basis of this discussion.

See BACP guidance by Dr Meg John Barker:

'Gender,Sexual, and Relationship Diversity'

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

I would say that 99.9% of people who would be described as into "kinky" sex would agree that child involvement is entirely unacceptable, wrong and disgusting. Paedophiles are not accepted into kink circles. it isn't considered to be a fetish - no matter how hard they try to make it so.

The mantra of fetishes is "safe, sane and consensual" and anyone acting outside of those principles is just an abuser.

Pushing the boundaries of what is exciting in the bedroom is healthy in my opinion - provided all of the above is taken into account.

It should never ever lead to death or undue physical or mental harm. That is abuse.

Ravenlover,
Of course paedophila is a crime of power and control and I am so sorry for your experiences. But nobody on this thread has even attempted to normalise paedophilia - precisely the opposite.

This is an important discussion about the attempted normalisation of fetishes involving children and babies and we have to be allowed to express our views without being silenced. If there are posts that cross the boundaries of decency / promote dangerous behaviour and don't centre the safety of children then please report them .