Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Normalisation of sexual fetishism

164 replies

QuietContraryMary · 21/12/2018 09:30

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?

OP posts:
Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 11:01

Normalises? That’s exactly the opposite of what people are saying. They are saying that bringing a SPECIFIC paraphilia involving infantilisation into the public sphere is not a good thing. Sexualisation of infantilisation is a boundary that should not be crossed.

Paraphilias involving feet or spanking ? meh - do what you want in private. That’s not what’s being discussed here.

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deepwatersolo · 21/12/2018 11:03

FWIW, I believe people enjoying BDSM are, indeed, mentally ill or have some kind of unhealthy personality disorder. I is not healthy to enjoy pain, it is not healthy to enjoy inflicting pain.

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

R0wantrees · 21/12/2018 11:05

Why do you think people who like BDSM are mentally ill?

I would hope that everyone was acutely aware of John Broadhurst's conviction this week for the 'manslaughter' of Natalie Connolly.

Natalie Connolly died in horrific circumstances.
current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3456679--TRIGGER-WARNING-Powerful-message-from-a-midwife-re-the-murder-of-Natalie-Connolly-TRIGGER-WARNING

Independent:
'Outrage at jail sentence for millionaire who claimed girlfriend died during 'rough sex'
John Broadhurst said more than 40 injuries sustained by Natalie Connolly were part of consensual activity'

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rough-sex-death-millionaire-john-broadhurst-murder-natalie-connolly-case-sentence-prison-jail-term-a8689366.html

deepwatersolo · 21/12/2018 11:06

I thought paedophilia is classified as a paraphilia? No?

givenupcaring · 21/12/2018 11:07

I always find it dangerous to say that anything between two consenting adults is OK.

Many women condede to fetishistic activities with their partner because they feel pressured do so or because they feel they cant say no. Too many women have been abused and led to beleive the are worthless sex objects that consent is meaningless.

Many fetishes are acts of power and dominance; the fact both parties may consent is as far as I am concerned irrelevant.

Even if agreed a fetish that involves the inflicting of pain or dominating the other party is not OK.

Any partner that wishes to inflict pain or dominate the other person is not a partner anyone wants.

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 11:11

I thought paedophilia is classified as a paraphilia? No?

It’s my understanding that it is classed as a paraphilia. I’m not an expert though

deepwatersolo · 21/12/2018 11:12

And, paraphilia often don‘t come alone. So, if you have one paraphilia there is a quite significantly increased chance you have another paraphilia. (Doesn‘t have the majority of those with paraphilia have more than one?). So, statistically, if you have a kink, it should be more likely you are a paedophile, compared to the general population, no?

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 11:13

So because my girlfriend and I enjoy spanking that means I’m exactly the same as a child rapist?

Multiple people have clarified that is not what they are saying. You are taking offence at something that hasn’t been said and that has been clarified a few times.

Unless you and your girlfriend are engaging in paraphilic infantilisation behaviours, then what you do together is not the subject of this thread. As people have said, repeatedly

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deepwatersolo · 21/12/2018 11:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WTFIsAGleepglorp · 21/12/2018 11:19

Normalising fetishes like this opens the door for paedophiles and the like.

They are already referring to themselves as MAPs.

Minor Attracted Person/People.

Yes, these fetishes should be known about, but introducing them to minors in conversation and lessons is just another way of grooming them.

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 11:19

People are saying that by turning it into ‘a normal fetish’ it becomes normalised and that’s worrying. I dont think we are arguing opposite sides here - that’s what people are saying.

Consensual spanking is not the focus of the thread. Normalisation of behaviour that shouldn’t be normalised is.

Melanippe · 21/12/2018 11:20

I thought paedophilia is classified as a paraphilia? No?

Yes, it is categorised under paraphilias or paraphilic disorders in both DSM V and ICD 11.

deepwatersolo · 21/12/2018 11:21

ravenlover as a scienist I don‘t care for the ‚you can‘t like dogs because Hitler loved dogs‘ type of argument. Try harder.

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deepwatersolo · 21/12/2018 11:27

ravenlover the fact of the matter is that BDSM and paedophilia are both classified as paraphilia. Another fact is that paraphilia often come in twosomes and threesomes. I cannot change these facts, just cause you don’t like them. You‘ll have to live with them.

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 11:27

The Natalie Connolly case was horrific. Someone on another thread posted an email address to write to to request a review of the sentence. Three years for a sexually motivated killing, with a serious degree of force and multiple injuries, then not seeking medical attention for a seriously injured person and leaving them to die. That’s shocking. To use the defence that she was asking for it is obscene.

I will be writing to request that the sentence is reviewed.

ravenlover · 21/12/2018 11:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

feministfairy · 21/12/2018 11:34

It was awful wasn't it Bowl ? I have also written to ask for it to be reviewed.

BettyDuMonde · 21/12/2018 11:35

I’ve always taken the ‘consenting ADULTS behind closed doors is none of mine or the governments business’.

But lately, i’m having to re-examine those thoughts due to learning more about grooming and coercive control - how do we ensure that people are consenting fully and freely? Especially if those people have experienced abuse or trauma?

Children grow up believing that their own experiences are utterly normal - my daughter assumed that everyone’s parents had entirely tattooed bodies, for example. Sadly, some children grow up witnessing unhealthy relationships or worse, and that affects what they see as ‘normal’.
How do we identify/prevent/repair this damage?

R0wantrees · 21/12/2018 11:36

Normalising fetishes like this opens the door for paedophiles and the like.

They are already referring to themselves as MAPs.

Minor Attracted Person/People.

BBC article 2014
'How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?'
By Tom de Castella & Tom Heyden

The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.

It's part of the story of how paedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt - the Paedophile Information Exchange - is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman.

The Daily Mail has revisited the story of PIE to ask how much Harman and her husband the MP Jack Dromey knew about the group during their time working at the National Council for Civil Liberties, now Liberty, in the late 1970s. PIE was affiliated to the NCCL from the late 1970s to early 1980s.

Many of the revelations are not in fact new. The story's return to the front pages demonstrates the shock people feel about how a group with "paedophile" in its name could operate so openly for so long.

PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for "children's sexuality". It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults "in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting 'under age' partners". The real aim was to normalise sex with children.

Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. "They didn't emphasise that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex," he says.

It's an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message.

It's wrong to say that PIE was tolerated during the 1970s, says Times columnist Matthew Parris. "I remember a lot of indignation about it [PIE]. It was considered outrageous."

The group's visits to universities were often opposed. In 1977 PIE's chairman Tom O'Carroll was ejected from a conference on "love and attraction" at University College, Swansea after lecturers "threatened not to deliver their papers if Mr O'Carroll stayed", the Times reported. The May 1978 issue of Magpie, PIE's in-house newspaper, records how O'Carroll had been invited to address students at Liverpool and Oxford University but that the visits were cancelled after local opposition.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Protestors and police outside Conway Hall, London, where PIE was holding its first open meeting in 1977
One of PIE's key tactics was to try to conflate its cause with gay rights. On at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE's favour.

Most gay people were horrified by any conflation of homosexuality and a sexual interest in children, says Parris. But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements. "If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net." (continues)

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.