To draw your attention to this thread?

[FrankButchersDickieBow]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4311179-To-think-my-children-and-I-shouldnt-be-exposed-to-perversions-on-ITV-during-prime-family-TV-time

Actually not sure if this is a TAAT and will be not allowed, but I am perplexed by the apologists on this thread.

Women who object to a pixelated penis on a family show, have been called Puritans, Mary Whitehouse, pearl clutches, even a 'Karen' in there - you know, all the usual tropes when women are trying to protect their own boundaries and more importantly, the boundaries of children.

I have found it absolutely infuriating.

A lot of support, but also a lot of women minimising this shit.

Yes I saw that thread. I wasn't impressed if this is how parents think now.

The genitals were obscured but it still feels wrong to me.

It does feel.a bit like.... Men just want to flash us and are working through the loopholes in order to do it.

Thanks for the picture, chickenyhead. I read the thread yesterday in AIBU and also felt frustrated. The original post used the word “perversion” and lots of people seemed to object to that, which I guess comes down to the current drive to normalise all things sexual. Having seen the pictures, I can see why she said it. It definitely looks like something a man would do to get sexual kicks, probably related to exhibitionism.

@FrankButchersDickieBow I think the thread likely will be taken down as a TAAT if you leave it in its current form. Might you be able to rephrase it so it’s not about the other thread, but a feminist issue about how this stuff is being normalized in society or similar? You could contact Mumsnet staff then and ask them if they’d mind changing it, rather than removing it.

I saw the thread, and was utterly gobsmacked at some of the responses. A few months ago, we were all devastated and outraged at the murder of Sarah Everard. Her murderer was a known flasher.

Sick of being made to feel that when safe-guarding issues are raised, we get gaslighted and told we are 'old' or 'phobic' or prudes.

Totally agree, OP. Since when was it deemed that men's desire to expose themselves trumped women's and children's desire not to have genitals waved at them? Since forever probably, I guess....

I have never found nakedness an issue. There is a tendency to link too many things together so that nudity automatically equates with perversion. I don't know what the programme is, but I'm sure my family would find this silly rather than shocking. We are used to seeing naked men in foreign films (as a family) and usually someone yells out 'ooh a willy' and back we go to watching. I also remember all the debates about women always being the ones whose bodies were on display and men discretely covered. We thought that sexist.

I don't think (but I could be wrong) that nakedness, of itself is a feminist issue. Flashing and perversion are, for sure because they are linked to dominance, but this display is just daft. trying to get shocked laughter, so not worth much of a thought in my book.

Maybe when men stop flashing at women and children, or claiming to be women in order to live out their fantasies in order to take their penises into women's spaces, women and children might be less likely to be bothered by supposedly innocent and daft exposure of male genitals in front of them, highame. It might be worth reflecting on what reaction men would be likely to have to a similar innocent exposure of female genitalia to them. And why it would be so different.

I saw that thread and didn't comment- hadn't seen the programme.

Now that @Chickenyhead has posted a shot of what was on the screen, then, yeah, I am bothered.
If my 5yo son sat with his legs akimbo as in the 2nd picture, I'd think that I was doing something wrong. I'd correct him and insist that other people dont need to see that.

It's not prudery...it's asserting boundaries about what is/isn't appropriate.

Minimising people's right to assert their boundaries is a power move.

Ugh...some of those comments...

Are they regular posters? Because if so that's depressing.

I agree OP.

Whether silly or not, it is undeniably sexualised and in a position I hope never to see my children in.

I’ll admit @Makeupyourmind when I initially saw your other post I thought you were overreacting, for some reason I felt uncomfortable with your use of the word “perversion”.

I specifically didn’t comment at the time because I knew I needed to reflect on why I had such a dismissive attitude to your phrasing, I’m still struggling to put my finger on it.

I don’t think ywbu, but yeah, I’m still really conflicted. I’m sure many people on your other thread feel similarly but fell into the pile on.

(If anyone has any insight or ideas as to where my internal conflict may arise from in open to it)

There was a depressing feel of 'what's wrong with children seeing the genitals and naked bodies of adults?' on that thread. It really is becoming normalised in society. To what end?

Also, @Makeupyourmind, there was an alarming amount of posters who took exception to you referring to a 12 year old as a 'little girl'. I have seen so many other posts referring to children that age (and older) as little girls but on your thread, it seemed not be acceptable. I found the hand waving quite sinister.

I think we have such a high tolerance for kink now that anything lower than hard-core is seen as normal. Porn is ubiquitous.

It should and would have been considered perverted not so long ago.

I will stick with inappropriate before the watershed, as my experience of seeing perversion is higher than I'd like it to be.

I agree op. There is a concerted effort to break down barriers so males can have free access to women and children
Women are there to carry babies and fulfil men's wishes.

I saw that thread and didn't comment as I'd not seen the show, but seeing the screen shot I understand the issue. That is not family viewing.

It concerns me how many women are quick to brand women who don't want sexualised content around children as pearl clutching prudes. There's a worrying push to normalise sexualised content and sexual behaviour that is largely based around male sexuality and male fantasy being imposed on women and children.

@highame

I have never found nakedness an issue. There is a tendency to link too many things together so that nudity automatically equates with perversion. I don't know what the programme is, but I'm sure my family would find this silly rather than shocking. We are used to seeing naked men in foreign films (as a family) and usually someone yells out 'ooh a willy' and back we go to watching. I also remember all the debates about women always being the ones whose bodies were on display and men discretely covered. We thought that sexist.

I don't think (but I could be wrong) that nakedness, of itself is a feminist issue. Flashing and perversion are, for sure because they are linked to dominance, but this display is just daft. trying to get shocked laughter, so not worth much of a thought in my book.

The difference for me is a scene where a man happens to be naked- 'ooh, a Willy!'- and a scene where a man is deliberately waving his tackle about.

I do think it's a deliberate attempt to shock and to trample boundaries. It's like the transparent trousers, or the thin white stretchy cloth trousers over a hard on that some bloke is displaying around the supermarkets.

It's done deliberately to dominate.

It's grooming & I do regard it as a perversion.
Getting your bits out for a 'family' tv show is not & never should be normal.
What decent adult would even feel comfortable exposing themselves like that for an audience they know will include children?

This is just another attempt to normalise what should be adult behaviour in the presence of children which just makes them vulnerable to the next steps on the grooming ladder.
Parents & teachers (hopefully) teach young boys not to wave their genitals in peoples faces or expose themselves to the general public, then tv shows like that teach them that it's okay for adult men to do so.

The fact that so many people think it's 'not that bad' just shows how effective this sort of grooming is.

I don't know that I would call it perversion but it crossed a line.

It's perversion. We shouldn't shy away from the word.

I understand and have considered whether perversion is the right word. It could be taken to mean that he was doing it for a sexual thrill. I'm not saying that that was the case.

I think maybe people think of the word 'pervert' or 'perversion' as an old-fashioned word and feel uncomfortable with its overtone of moral judgment. They perhaps associate it, for example, with previous generations' attitudes to homosexuality.

But the point is that some men absolutely do do this for a sexual thrill. So why would people be surprised when people suspect that is a motive?

Someone waggling their genitals, pixilated or not, has no place on a TV show that's aimed at children
I can't believe I have to say that.