A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

[Scraggythang]

Via Glinner’s sub stack. Sorry if this has already been posted!

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/wtf-are-girlguiding-thinking

This is utterly bizarre @barleybadminton you really need to zero your safeguarding radar if you can't see this as an issue.

Again.... you keep missing the point. Trying something once or twice, fine between consenting adults. If you have a particular fetish or kink that is something you engage in regularly that involves lowered boundaries, there is a difference.

Posting on social media about it - red flag.

And how much of that 35% voyeurism is watching porn?

And frotteurism? You think that someone who finds that arousing should be good to work with kids? And masochism?

Seriously, do you even read what you write?

oh yeah!! I am a prude because I don't think that voyeurism, frotteurism and masochism are healthy sexual practices because two of them can be abusive for the other party involved, and frotteurism is an unwanted sexual act.

You are not convincing anyone.

Now... tell us again how Queer Theory and Foucault have been proven to be good basis for protecting children from harm.

Please... be very specific in the benefits and exactly who it benefits.

By the way, people can find a copy of that article on archive md.

Please do post another study up barley, it is always interesting to see what is shaping people's boundaries.

So far, you are very heavily reliant on 'everyone does it' and 'if you don't you are not one of the cool kids' though.

@Helleofabore

Again.... you keep missing the point. Trying something once or twice, fine between consenting adults. If you have a particular fetish or kink that is something you engage in regularly that involves lowered boundaries, there is a difference.

Posting on social media about it - red flag.

And how much of that 35% voyeurism is watching porn?

And frotteurism? You think that someone who finds that arousing should be good to work with kids? And masochism?

Seriously, do you even read what you write?

I didn't write it. It's the results of a large study, and there are several others which show the same thing. Masochism in particular is a very common fantasy amongst both sexes. Are you really suggesting that 20% of women are not suitable to work with children because they have fantasies involving masochism? A lot of them are likely to be mothers, should they have their kids taken off them too?

@Helleofabore

oh yeah!! I am a prude because I don't think that voyeurism, frotteurism and masochism are healthy sexual practices because two of them can be abusive for the other party involved, and frotteurism is an unwanted sexual act.

You are not convincing anyone.

Now... tell us again how Queer Theory and Foucault have been proven to be good basis for protecting children from harm.

Please... be very specific in the benefits and exactly who it benefits.

I don't know why you keep going on about Queer theory, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the normal diversity of adult sexual interests, tastes and kinks and avoiding going back to a world where women were slut shamed for their sexuality and considered a risk to children if their consensual sexual activities with other adults were outside of the mainstream.

Just clicked into this thread.
First post on the page:

You're clearly ignoring the fact, patiently repeated over and over again, that posting such behaviour on unlocked social media when one is in a position of power and responsibility for young children is the unacceptable behaviour and the one that shows a lack of awareness of safeguarding. It's what people do in public that is being discussed here

Last post on the page

Masochism in particular is a very common fantasy amongst both sexes. Are you really suggesting that 20% of women are not suitable to work with children because they have fantasies involving masochism?

I see everything is operating as per ancient FWR tradition.

I didn't write it. It's the results of a large study, and there are several others which show the same thing. Masochism in particular is a very common fantasy amongst both sexes. Are you really suggesting that 20% of women are not suitable to work with children because they have fantasies involving masochism? A lot of them are likely to be mothers, should they have their kids taken off them too?

And again you miss the connection. You are very keen on lowering boundaries aren't you.

Posting it on social media? Raises questions also about exhibitionism. Shall we continue to keep repeating this?

Plus, there is fantasy and there is actually doing. Plus actually then doing regularly.

And again.... there is posting it on social media.

I don't know why you keep going on about Queer theory, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the normal diversity of adult sexual interests, tastes and kinks and avoiding going back to a world where women were slut shamed for their sexuality and considered a risk to children if their consensual sexual activities with other adults were outside of the mainstream.

I suggest you start thinking about it and reading up on destabilising science and other aspects of society.

Sure, there was a diversity of sexual interests. They were kept private.

I repeat, they were NOT posted on social media.

Not one person here has 'slut shamed'. But again, you are reaching for things to discredit people telling you that there are issues.

It is YOU who are telling us that those top three sex acts mentioned in that study are perfectly fine for people who are responsible for the care of children.

Voyeurism, unwanted sexual touching and masochism.

And then you tell us that the destabilisation of society's norms around those practises and the posting of social media posts about other sexual habits has nothing to do with Queer Theory?

Barley will be attempting to justify “acceptance without exception” next…

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

See, and this is why your arguments are entirely predictable. And do you no favours.

I said I wouldn't want anyone in that position being in authority over my children. A sentiment that I'm entirely happy expressing. And I don't give a fuck if you don't like it. I do note, however, that your immediate recourse, as I said it would be, is to point out exactly how many people might be into BDSM.

I don't find it reassuring that so many people are into kink.

In the current climate, where boundaries are being eroded and safeguarding minimised, if not dismantled, I'm more than happy to get behind increased boundaries to counter the push.

When 11 is the average age at which children are being exposed to porn and women like Billie Eilish have said how it's ruined her life, you pointing out how many more people are into BDSM isn't the killer argument you think it is.

Plus goading me into saying otherwise doesn't work. It's water off a ducks back mate.

I didn't write it. It's the results of a large study, and there are several others which show the same thing. No kidding. I don't believe I have a comprehension problem.

I was referring to this, which you DID write as a defence for this individual being in a leadership role with GG.

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

"Overall, nearly half (45.6%) of the sample subjects were interested in at least one type of sexual behaviour that is considered anomalous, whereas one third (33%) had experienced the behaviour at least once," Professor Christian Joyal, one of the study's authors, explained.

"These facts suggest that we need to know what normal sexual practices are before we label a legal sexual interest as anomalous.

"Some paraphilic interests are more common than people might think, not only in terms of fantasies but also in terms of desire and behavior."

"Of the sample, 35 per cent said they were interested in voyeurism, 26 per cent in fetishism, another 26 per cent in frotteurism and 19 per cent in masochism.

They also found levels of fetishism and masochism were not significantly different between men and women."

@Helleofabore

I didn't write it. It's the results of a large study, and there are several others which show the same thing. Masochism in particular is a very common fantasy amongst both sexes. Are you really suggesting that 20% of women are not suitable to work with children because they have fantasies involving masochism? A lot of them are likely to be mothers, should they have their kids taken off them too?

And again you miss the connection. You are very keen on lowering boundaries aren't you.

Posting it on social media? Raises questions also about exhibitionism. Shall we continue to keep repeating this?

Plus, there is fantasy and there is actually doing. Plus actually then doing regularly.

And again.... there is posting it on social media.

And I've agreed, if it was an explicit photo it would be a different matter. But it's not, it's not something that would be out of place in a family comedy, it's quite possibly fancy dress and a bit of a joke.

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger? I can tell you right now the careers of several women I know would be destroyed if that were the case. And for what? Mean minded prudishness whilst the vanilla, straight, cis men who commit most sexual abuse carry on regardless.

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

Shall we look at the numbers of child on child sexual abuse and rape that is occurring in our schools? Shall we then look at the changes to school policies over the past decade? Shall we also then look at the degree of acceptability of viewing porn and the lowering of sexual boundaries?

And you continue to tell us that we are all just behind the times. And it has nothing to do with any theories...

Barley, would you consider it acceptable for someone to post a picture on social media of themselves having a poo?

Everyone poos, right? There’s nothing wrong with having a poo.

But it’s not the kind of thing you put on social media, and if someone did you can bet I would judge them for it. I wouldn’t be judging the action, but rather the decision to post.

Sorry for lowering the tone!

And I've agreed, if it was an explicit photo it would be a different matter. But it's not, it's not something that would be out of place in a family comedy, it's quite possibly fancy dress and a bit of a joke.

Your interpretation of 'explicit' lacks credibility at this point. You have persisted in telling us that lowered boundaries around children is ok.

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger? I can tell you right now the careers of several women I know would be destroyed if that were the case. And for what? Mean minded prudishness whilst the vanilla, straight, cis men who commit most sexual abuse carry on regardless

And again. Posting something of this nature on social media is an indicator that this person has lowered sexual boundaries.

But crack on.

Mean minded prudishness whilst the vanilla, straight, cis men who commit most sexual abuse carry on regardless

Again, you are the only person here who seems to be stuck on the fact that this person is same sex attracted. Why?

And are you honestly saying that no other male commits sexual abuse? Really? That safeguarding should simply ignore all other males?

How did creating an untouchable subset of males work out in the past barley?

I am going to repeat myself again. Do you actually read what you write?

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger?

Do you believe this doesn't already happen to women who work with children? Teachers can get sacked for photos of themselves having a drink in a pub, let alone any of the stuff you mentioned, let alone any of the stuff this person actually did. The double standard is insane; you'd almost think transwomen aren't women.

@Helleofabore

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

Shall we look at the numbers of child on child sexual abuse and rape that is occurring in our schools? Shall we then look at the changes to school policies over the past decade? Shall we also then look at the degree of acceptability of viewing porn and the lowering of sexual boundaries?

And you continue to tell us that we are all just behind the times. And it has nothing to do with any theories...

The prevalence of porn is indeed a problem, although that pic is not in any way pornographic. It has little to do with queer theory though, or any other theory or secrets plots or Foucault but simply capitalism. Porn makes a lot of money and the technology which underpins the internet is very dfficult to control.

Porn however, which is the explicit portrayal of sexual activity with the aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, is very different to someone posting a fully clothed picture of themselves on social media with a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh.

And again way to go including thing that are not an issue with things that are. It is your way of normalising some actions by making them the same on the hierachy as other things.

see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger?

What as 'made a slightly sexual joke on twitter' got to do with lowered sexual boundaries? ah.... yes... prudishness.

You are not very convincing here.

@allmywhat

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger?

Do you believe this doesn't already happen to women who work with children? Teachers can get sacked for photos of themselves having a drink in a pub, let alone any of the stuff you mentioned, let alone any of the stuff this person actually did. The double standard is insane; you'd almost think transwomen aren't women.

The female primary school teacher who was exposed as a dominatrix by the Daily Mail was not struck off and privacy laws meant the story largely vanished from the internet. It does happen to all women, but thankfully it happens less and there are increasingly laws in place to protect people's privacy. But it's still a problem such as this man who exposed his ex wife and forced her out of a teaching career for having an onlyfans page. Guess he's a feminist hero eh?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/teacher-claims-quit-job-after-24396320

Deep sigh.

When you are in a position of responsibility, particularly one involving children, you have to take training in safeguarding. And you have to be competent to understand it with sufficient braincells to apply it in your line of work and follow the rules.

Even if you are a very special person. The rules apply to all. Because safeguarding.

When you take a job involving safeguarding you sign up to that.

GG has a clear social media policy. Staff are not allowed to breach it and continue working for them.

Apparently unless they are male and very special, and then safeguarding is a secondary thing that oddly stops applying. This is supposed to be ok. It's actually a red flag the size of Belgium.

GG has a clear policy about guns. Taking photos of yourself with guns is a weird and disturbing thing to do, and is behaviour observed in several people prior to some very, very serious incidents in which people were murdered. It's a big safeguarding red flag. This one's about the size of the entire EU.

For some reason, being male and special, makes that safeguarding rule for others not apply. This is just now beyond irresponsible.

I'll say it very slowly: what adults do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business.

They cannot exhibit their personal fetishes on social media for anyone to find and still expect to remain in a responsible job. Not least because they have demonstrated utter incompetence of judgement and ability to safeguard children or even basically consider the needs of their role and children above their own whims.

And anyone taking pictures of themselves posing with guns should not be anywhere near children, or employed in a role responsible for them. Because again, utter incompetence of judgement and insight now alongside highly risky behaviour.

Anyone with a brain can follow this. Really.

How the individual chooses to identify should have no bearing whatsoever upon standards applied.

And when idiots come forth to make a whole lot of enabling excuses to keep highly dodgy, obviously very unsuitable male people in positions of responsibility over children purely because that male identifies as a woman?

It does not make anyone with a brain feel any safer about permitting male born people into female roles and spaces.

Porn however, which is the explicit portrayal of sexual activity with the aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, is very different to someone posting a fully clothed picture of themselves on social media with a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh.
Posting pictures of yourself with guns is hardly a bit of s laugh. Twitter is a public platform so this person might has well have rocked up to their next guide meeting in full dominatrix outfit.

It has little to do with queer theory though, or any other theory or secrets plots or Foucault but simply capitalism. Porn makes a lot of money and the technology which underpins the internet is very dfficult to control.

Porn however, which is the explicit portrayal of sexual activity with the aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, is very different to someone posting a fully clothed picture of themselves on social media with a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh.

Sure it is capitalism. Only a fool would say it is not capitalistic in nature. Look at the DVD market origins.

But I disagree with you completely that it has nothing to do with queer theory.

And posting a picture of yourself in bondage gear, or half naked in the bath, or offering to show someone your tits on social media has everything to do with the lowering of sexual boundaries on what is acceptable to post to the general public. And lowering of sexual boundaries is driven by the destabilisation of sexual norms. And you know, Foucault had a HUGE motivation for lowering the age of consent to suit his sexual habits. As did many of his friends as we are discovering now they they are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

Please explain to us again how lowering sexual boundaries of women and children is of benefit to them, particularly children.

The female primary school teacher who was exposed as a dominatrix by the Daily Mail was not struck off and privacy laws meant the story largely vanished from the internet. It does happen to all women, but thankfully it happens less and there are increasingly laws in place to protect people's privacy. But it's still a problem such as this man who exposed his ex wife and forced her out of a teaching career for having an onlyfans page. Guess he's a feminist hero eh?

You think a teacher, teaching children should be able to be a sex worker?

Are you really saying this?

a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh

You want to see more of my breasts? A slightly saucy comment? A bit of a laugh?

And this person would be in a role making sure that other leaders do not break the posts of a sexual nature rule?

And GG are supposed to be making sure our girls are well armed to deal with sexual objectification they have already and will continue to encounter?