Hollyoaks - well this is creepy!

[Imnobody4]

This is an important conversation to have #Hollyoaks

https://twitter.com/Flashmaggie/status/1765511265076613611?t=DMjXSrOUX7zq5tzRgsRGEA&s=19

Ah, sure, this is just a caring, supportive older guy (guy is gender neutral! We're told that all the time!) who is helping this young, distressed, pubertal girl as she struggles with the changes her body is going through.

I wonder who the script writer is.

Here you go fox.

Your dismissal of the reality of the action here:

"It was a hand on the shoulder."

No. It was much more. But you seem to be too blinkered to see the truth.

Having strong body dysphoria is common to anorexia and to thinking your body is wrong. It is common in teenagers.

Having experienced trauma, being autistic, feeling despised for being gay, feeling cast out because you live in care, are not illnesses as such but forms of distress common to children who may think that changing their gender will improve their lives.

My interpretation of that scene has nothing to do with my own sexual boundaries. In any case there is nothing sexual there. I suppose it could develop into something sexual in the future, but there is no evidence from the scene that it will. It's a trans woman comforting a distressed child.

It's an actress playing a character and those pictures in no way hint at paedophilia or unsuitability to be around children. What do you think they prove?

WTF, where on earth did you get that from?

Oh how surprising, you're back, after flouncing in disgust at our wrongthink. Can't be that devastating.

I find it very telling that the wrong kind of woman shares her own experience of sexual assault on this thread and is simply dismissed and torn to shreds. Solidarity, sisters!

This is not an actress, but a male. An actress is a woman. It's also funny that the word only seems to survive because males like it, the actresses themselves mostly use the sex neutral "actor"

Why did you post those pictures? It must have been to make some kind of point.

My mistake. She's an actor.

Can't help but be reminded of Jeffrey Marsh!

YY.

I am very sorry indeed that you experienced sexual abuse. I had missed where you explained that on this thread.

I am also sorry you cannot see that
if this scene were real, this little girl would not be safe from either sexual or mental abuse, or both, from this man, whatever his identity.

It is also my conviction, that this is dangerous grooming by the programme makers if they take your line that this is a normal human relationship.
Only a tangled interpretation of Q theory could make it so.

Who knows how the story will end though.

I really don't think that Hollyoaks would go down the path of the trans woman being an abuser, and from what I've read of the story so far, that's very much not the case

That's not the point. That would make a different point, wouldn't it?

Whoever they are, they should be ashamed of themselves for using Hollyoaks as a platform to glamourise an older male grooming a female child with mental health issues.

You'd hope that TV companies are more aware of how predators operate in plain sight - Savile, Glitter, Harris etc? Perhaps I'm naive in thinking they're going to explore a challenging issue of how self interested adults can socially groom young children into believing their bodies are wrong and need fixing?

Time will tell as the story unfolds

Well, I am not surprised.

The minute I saw the clip I knew there would either be people who see it as a TQ+ idea of normal, or people so cowed by transactivists, and so keen to be on the right side of history, that they deny what they are seeing in front of them: grooming by an older man of a very young girl for sex, grooming by an older man/transwoman to get a child to be transgender.

Why does being trans require medical treatment?

Your interpretation has EVERYTHING to do with low boundaries. That is the entire point!

Your boundaries frame your interpretation. Do you see how that works? It is not hard.

No. It is a male person sliding both their hands from a child's should to their mid upper arm while standing behind them, very close, to talk in their ear. You first interpreted this as 'just a hand on the shoulder'. This was so very clearly wrong. You can continue to deny it but just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that the action is in any way appropriate.

Again, you continued dismissal of this is a very clear sign that you cannot see safeguarding red flag behaviour.

No one is dismissing your experience or tearing you to shreds. People are politely pointing out the flaws in your interpretation of events being portrayed in a video clip.

I am sad that you were sexually assaulted. It does not change the fact that you cannot identify inappropriate behaviour between an adult male and a child.

By the way fox, if you are now claiming to be 'slut shamed', I will point out just how ableist your accusation of me being 'obsessive' for detailing the scene in question.

See how that works? How fucking kind and tolerant are you!

Had this scene been a woman's male boss stood behind a woman for 28 seconds in the staff tea room running his hands up and down her shoulders and arms telling her if she had any problems at work then he was there to help most people would see that for what it was.

But older man pretending to be a woman alone with a young girl doing the same thing and Fox is very much "nothing to see here".

it's worrying that women can be so far down the be kind hole that they can't see what's in front of their face.

That is a very very good point boiled.

That this is considered 'comforting' a child is horrendous! If it was the mother, yes. But this is a male adult that is :

Sliding both their hands from a child's should to their mid upper arm while standing behind them, very close, to talk in their ear.

This is an intimate act!