Male grooming behaviour

[testing987654321]

Why are we so scared of speaking about behaviour which creeps us out and we know to be wrong?

It's well known that Jimmy Savile was not subtle in his approach. Many people knew what he was doing, he even wrote about it in his autobiography but somehow the truth didn't come out properly until after his death.

Similarly, the grooming gangs in Rotherham were not picked up for a long time, because no-one cared sufficiently about the girls affected and were trying to avoid being racist.

When the NSPCC came to talk on Mumsnet many women wanted to know why they weren't doing more to protect girls' boundaries in school. The NSPCC were not interested in answering.

Why is it that women can recognise boundary breaking behaviour as dangerous but organisations are very reluctant to allow discussion of it?

Have we learned nothing?

I've just had another post about this deleted. I've asked MNHQ to clarify how discussing male grooming behaviour (like in Rotherham) breaks talk guidelines.

My deleted post was about married men preying on teenage girls, and it was in reply to a post in which Rotherham was mentioned. Both posts were deleted.

That's why I started this thread. I want to know how we can prevent harm to children when we can't speak about safeguarding.

Adults describing sexually explicit acts in a pornified way to under 18s is inappropriate, creepy and worrying. Surely it's okay to say that?

It really comes down to: women don't count. If they're young girls, they count even less.

Until women do count, I'm not convinced anything will change except some facesaving tinkering around the edges.

Social weight follows wealth, so possibly the one thing that might make a lot of other problems fall away is if women start getting paid for all their unpaid work.

A Universal Basic Income, but it goes to women until gender disparities in wealth have disappeared.

Yes, I know. rolleyes hard

We're not scared about speaking out about it so much as MN is scared of allowing us to do so.

You say Male grooming, but who inroduced the girls to the Rotherham gangs?? Thats right another Girl. on one hand she knew what she was doing on the other I truely believe she too was a grooomed victim. (Cought treated her as a perpetrator I believe.)

You say Male grooming, but who inroduced the girls to the Rotherham gangs?? Thats right another Girl. on one hand she knew what she was doing on the other I truely believe she too was a grooomed victim.

ONE WOMAN! One woman amongst all those men, but she being talked about is your priority.

I've had a reply from MNHQ about my deleted post. My comment on the content of the book was interpreted as a personal comment about JD. I don't think I can say more about it without being deleted again.

who inroduced the girls to the Rotherham gangs?? Thats right another Girl

This girl was a victim of those men AND the police. The only reason she was named as a participant was because the CPS wanted to use her evidence but didn't want to put her on the stand as a victim because they thought she wasn't likeable enough for a jury. They didn't bother to inform her of this and she didn't find out about it until social services tried to remove her child as the CPS action rendered her a child abuser in the eyes of the courts. It was a fucking scandal the way that girl was treated.

Wow having just looked out appears the nspcc have updated their website and re worded their definitions.

Definately good to see!

Although obviously it would have been even better if they would have been able to answer the safeguarding questions posted to them as opposed to backing out because they couldn't justify signing off on mixed sex accommodation in schools.

I shall ask for ny post to be deleted

I agree as I said i believe she was a victim.

Why is it that women can recognise boundary breaking behaviour as dangerous but organisations are very reluctant to allow discussion of it?

I think there are a few things going on with this, and they aren't always easy to deal with. One significant one is that we have seen in the past decades that there can be real tension in perceptions of boundaries.

We know for example that people's perceptions of who is breaking a boundary can be influenced by less than admirable motives, sometimes unconsciously. As much as we can see now that fears of being labeled racist have meant people ignored things that should not have been ignored, it's also the case that racism has motivated people characterise certain groups as predatory, without real reason.

The other question that seems to come up is, which boundaries are valid. I think this has been a real struggle for many people, especially in terms for example of gay men in particular being seen as unsuitable to be around children - it's really become the lens many people see these kinds of questions through

To a large extent as a culture we've also lost a clear consensus on what counts as an abnormal interest or behaviour - probably paedophilia is the only one that remains with some significant force. For many, the bar has become what is private adult behaviour - the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation and all that. It leaves very little scope to define boundary pushing behaviours - everything social is completely separate from what people do in the bedroom. The same teacher in charge of the healthy relationship and sexuality class might be spending his nights meeting strangers for kinky pup fetish sex and bondage. And that's not only something that we have to accept because you can't control everything, but the sense is it's just another healthy form of private adult sexuality.

Maybe as a culture we misjudged a little what would happen when we said anything private and consensual was ok. People thought, of course we will still have discernment, this will just keep the state out of people's business. But there is a sense when you say, whatever people want is good and healthy, people actually start to believe that.

SarahTancredi the usual definition of sexual abuse the NSPCC use on their website has always been fine. It is the definition that they teach children in schools during there Speak Out, Stay Safe assembly that is the problem. They are continuing to define sexual abuse in terms of a child’s feelings about what is being done too them - so “when a child is being made, asked or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them. (my bold)

IMO this is an awful definition to teach children especially as many abusers will seek to convince children that the abuse is something they wanted or even initiated. An abused child absorbing this definition of abuse may also feel unable to speak out as she may feel abnormal or stupid that she didn’t react with the apparently ‘normal’ fear or worry that children should when being abused. I am sure that many abusers would be pleased with a definition like that being taught to primary school children as it makes their own manipulation easier. Groom a child to believe that they wanted the sexual abuse and when a child finally figures out that what they have been subjected to is abuse and that they need help, then let them fear the shame of being considered stupid or abnormal enough to have allowed the abuse to happen.

Grooming is not just something that happens to the child. It is also what happens to the adults around them. It may well start before the child is even born. It is where a person seeks to convince those around him or her that they are a good, perhaps even a wonderful, person. An abused child may be the first to recognise a predator for who they are, but if all the adults around them have been groomed by him to consider him incapable of abuse then she is going to feel unable speak up.

Equally if a child sees a wider society that has been groomed to perhaps place some blame on the child for not speaking out quickly enough or for being old or educated enough to ‘know better’, or for being the wrong sort of victim or a society that upholds any group of people or profession as a “sacred caste” (thank you LangCleg) or a society which can’t recognise the truth or that doesn’t value or even consider girls’ boundaries or dignity and which forces a child to threaten to go to court to defend these boundaries or which thinks that some types of abuse of women is acceptable or which thinks that all sexual practices are fun and their promotion acceptable, then she will fear the response and the shame when she talks about the abuse that she has been subjected to.

I absolutely believe that grooming is not just something that happens to a child. It is something that happens all the time to most/ all of adult society too. I don’t think that it only happens because of the intention to sexual abuse children, sometimes it is just manipulation to get what is wanted, but sexual predators will take advantage whenever they can. I think almost everyone is susceptible to being groomed and we are rarely aware of it. All organisations should be, but rarely are, on high alert for it.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/services/speak-out-stay-safe?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7tj48tKy6QIVSLDtCh2VxwFiEAAYASAAEgL3avD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds#article-top

This girl was a victim of those men AND the police. The only reason she was named as a participant was because the CPS wanted to use her evidence but didn't want to put her on the stand as a victim because they thought she wasn't likeable enough for a jury. They didn't bother to inform her of this and she didn't find out about it until social services tried to remove her child as the CPS action rendered her a child abuser in the eyes of the courts. It was a fucking scandal the way that girl was treated.

That's absolutely horrendous. I'm so sick of these purity tests the CPS put victims through.
We should do a FOI to work out what proportion of rape and sexual abuse cases are abandoned because the CPS thinks the victim won't elicit enough sympathy.
It's like these bastards called the girls white trash and then the CPS agreed.

Why are we so scared of speaking about behaviour which creeps us out and we know to be wrong?
I think it's directly related to this.
Once a man is in a powerful position, you have to be absolutely spotless before you can accuse him. You have to be spotless to support the victim. Nobody involved in bringing the abuser to justice can have any skeletons in their closet at all.
There's a real antipathy towards "ruining a man's life" that sets the bar really high for victims.
We are told we should be grateful for male scout leaders and primary school teachers and entertainers like Savile who gave so much to charity. We should be grateful for them and not put them at risk of having their "lives ruined".
I mean, we have the rule of law, we have libel laws, and we have a public who are keen to give certain men the benefit of the doubt, but still we shy away from putting these men through the process of being investigated after an allegation is made because we have put them on some kind of pedestal. (I know this has been discussed at length).
I feel we are more attached, as a populace, to the idea of these pedestals than to the actual men who inhabit them. I don't know if it's a hangover from feudal times or if we all feel better with powerful and supposedly morally pure men about. The fact so many religious men are predatory (NAPALT) and that the other positions are ones in which we "should feel grateful" towards a man mean that they leverage women's socialisation against us. We are so keen to see morally pure, good strong men that we end up defending bastard rapists.
I wonder if we just aren't ready to give up that image of the perfect selfless man? Nobody is talking about the OXFAM paedophiles any more are they? It was too injurious to the public psyche, to process that men volunteering to help the starving in third world countries were paying peanuts to abuse underage girls.
I think once we have unpacked our feelings about "perfect men" and worked through our disappointment that Jesus-like men do not walk among us, we can start to treat these victims properly and these crimes with the appropriate gravity.

There is such an undercurrent in society that that is what women are for. That someone's partner raping them isn't so bad, it was just unwanted sex. That's why prostitution isn't 'so bad', why page 3 was tolerated, porn is fine etc.

It's what women are for.

Until we're actually seen as full people like men stuff like this will continue to be brushed under the carpet. It wasn't proper rape - he didn't use any violence - putting your penis in a woman who doesn't want it thre isn't violent in and of itself, because that's what women are for

We are so keen to see morally pure, good strong men that we end up defending bastard rapists.

I'm not sure- I'm afraid it's more that for whatever reason, many many men take advantage of opportunity. It's like a default setting.

As men become powerful they meet less resistance as they inch toward transgression. I'm not convinced they make themselves powerful in order to offend, gain access etc. It's worse. Make them powerful and they probably will offend because they can.

We actually need really definitive social prohibition and some kind of structure to keep them in line.

I know I haven't expressed myself well. Sorry. I know what I mean...

I get you, pickle, and I agree. Some men specifically set out to get themselves into positions that will make it easier to abuse, but there are many more who're opportunistic predators and that does in some ways seem to be the default setting, reinforced by the societal idea that that's what women are for anyway.

I agree with all that but when we talk about positions of power then maybe that refers to the guy who ran the IMF who raped the chambermaid (and whose life has most definitely not been ruined).
A scout leader isn't much of a position of power. What I'm suggesting is that we don't challenge the scout leader not because of fear or awe of his power, but because we can't bear to imagine that "selfless" men are predators.
We are psychologically ok with accepting rich powerful men as predators, it doesn't upset us as much as when someone we wanted to believe was good turned out to be yet another pervert.
If we have these morally pure, amazing selfless men and we are so pathetically grateful for their sacrifices, we put them beyond reproach, morally.
Whereas with the rich and powerful we just don't have the ability to hold them to account, because they are above the law and can buy their way out of anything, and sex offences are just one of a long list of crimes those men can carry out with impunity.

Some men specifically set out to get themselves into positions that will make it easier to abuse, but there are many more who're opportunistic predators
The opportunism aspect is also too much for people to accept.
I read the number one risk factor for CSA in a family is overcrowding. When a girl is forced to share a room or a bed with an uncle or a cousin or a brother.
Which, taken to the logical next step, means all men are capable of it and just don't have the opportunity.
Which is just too much for people to deal with.
Much easier to pretend there are "animals" and "monsters" out there whose mothers never raised them right.

Yeah, it's one of those this thought is too scary so I'll reject it and get angry with the person who brought it to the forefront of my consciousness because I'd rather not have thought the implications of this through things.

Exactly.
But it's definitely a sympathy imbalance. The victims don't elicit enough sympathy because they aren't the "perfect victim" and the perpetrators elicit too much sympathy so we raise the bar for the victims so high that most of them can't make it and then use that as vindication for the perpetrators.
"Look, another failed prosecution, clearly he is being hounded."

We pay ourselves on the back for having a sophisticated legal system but we revert to popularity contests and mud-slinging all the time.

Pat*

My deleted post was about married men preying on teenage girls, and it was in reply to a post in which Rotherham was mentioned. Both posts were deleted.

I wondered what those deleted posts were for. Rotherham also came to my mind with reference to that.

A lot of the objections to our objections are being framed in terms of being prudish about teenagers naturally maturing and exploring their sexuality, but that's not it at all.

Most of us here were teenage girls and had to work out how to push back on adult male sexuality long before we were fully mature enough to understand our own.
Girls aren't being given the space to explore their own sexuality.
That space is constantly being overwhelmed by men and a society that tells them they are sex objects and it's natural to be treated like they are one.
Rotherham was a horrifying example of that and it's why victim blaming of those girls still goes on now.
As others have said, the depiction of a girl meeting adult men for sex as just naturally exploring her sexuality is a huge red flag. We need to be able to talk about this.