If there's a better article about men and what goes on in some of our heads than this one this year, we'll be lucky
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Being a man
I wonder what's got into rugby players? there seem to have been a few revelations recently amongst them.
Then there's the stuff with Gerry Adams, but not detailed as yet.
The thing is where does this put us all? Does is just serve to remind people that nasty things go on and we should feel fortunate it didn't happen to us?
And how long before we begin to get a bit bored of hearing about such things?
I just don't know where its all going and why? Anyone else know?
Then there's the stuff with Gerry Adams, but not detailed as yet.
The thing is where does this put us all? Does is just serve to remind people that nasty things go on and we should feel fortunate it didn't happen to us?
And how long before we begin to get a bit bored of hearing about such things?
I just don't know where its all going and why? Anyone else know?
You posted as i read duncan,and im not really sure what your objection is.
I feel that as more people openly admit to being not"normal" and having mental health issues then understanding and tolerance can only be 50 years ago people would not addmit to having cancer,it was considered a dirty secret,i only hope that it does not take another 50 years before revelations like brian moores do not make the front page.
Yeah, but would that mean that we wouldn't need to; or get to hear about it if it wasn't front page news? Would it mean that such things returned to family secrets? So this is why I wonder what journey we are being asked to go on.
I feel that as more people openly admit to being not"normal" and having mental health issues then understanding and tolerance can only be 50 years ago people would not addmit to having cancer,it was considered a dirty secret,i only hope that it does not take another 50 years before revelations like brian moores do not make the front page.
Yeah, but would that mean that we wouldn't need to; or get to hear about it if it wasn't front page news? Would it mean that such things returned to family secrets? So this is why I wonder what journey we are being asked to go on.
Quote by Kaznkev
If there's a better article about men and what goes on in some of our heads than this one this year, we'll be lucky
that is an amazing interview,we all have our "gollum" in my opinion,but the courage to admit to it,and the intelligence to be able to describe it ,combined with wit and honesty,If i was giving out man of the year awards the recipient would already be decided
thanks for posting
Funnily enough, he's at least an acquaintance of, if not friends with, Alistair Campbell, who also has done a huge amount of good work in this field.
I also think there seem to be 2 distinct categories of revelations, and I am not sure why.
The first is the current discovery of child abuse, in which the population is immediately outraged and calls for castrations and death penalties. The child is put into care the parents jailed etc.
The second is the late in life revelation such as the rugby player. This is met with a different set of values. the population take a different view. Its water under the bridge, almost a casual acceptance that its your lot in life. that you have done well to have dealt with it and so on. Books get written, interviews are held, publications are made in quite a different tone to the first case.
So why do we react in the first but not in the second, and what does that mean for our values? We lap up both, getting our juices flowing in very different ways. Anyone know why?
The first is the current discovery of child abuse, in which the population is immediately outraged and calls for castrations and death penalties. The child is put into care the parents jailed etc.
The second is the late in life revelation such as the rugby player. This is met with a different set of values. the population take a different view. Its water under the bridge, almost a casual acceptance that its your lot in life. that you have done well to have dealt with it and so on. Books get written, interviews are held, publications are made in quite a different tone to the first case.
So why do we react in the first but not in the second, and what does that mean for our values? We lap up both, getting our juices flowing in very different ways. Anyone know why?
Quote by Kaznkev
I also think there seem to be 2 distinct categories of revelations, and I am not sure why.
The first is the current discovery of child abuse, in which the population is immediately outraged and calls for castrations and death penalties. The child is put into care the parents jailed etc.
The second is the late in life revelation such as the rugby player. This is met with a different set of values. the population take a different view. Its water under the bridge, almost a casual acceptance that its your lot in life. that you have done well to have dealt with it and so on. Books get written, interviews are held, publications are made in quite a different tone to the first case.
So why do we react in the first but not in the second, and what does that mean for our values? We lap up both, getting our juices flowing in very different ways. Anyone know why?
I am fraid duncan you are making universal aumptions about how people react,and i for one avoid the news when it is in peado frezy,
But the importance of this artcle is the openess towards the mental health issues which is being shown,imo,and the fact it alerts many to what a real man is.
Yes, a good example of your own reactions. In the first you shut yourself off, in the second you take on board all the stuff and find it fascinating. This is the kind of dichotomy or parallel values which I find at odds with each other.
What is this population of which you speak?
Seriously. Some people call for violent and irreversible penalties that are uncivilized and foolish, but the majority don't.
This is a story about how someone recovers and copes with being a victim. BM has identified who victimized him, but is telling the story not because he seeks retribution but to help him understand himself. That's his choice.
The fact that the tabloid press who feed the frenzy around are hypocrites is no surprise to me. I do wonder if anyone in the dirty squad has ever contemplated raiding the Sun's photo and back issue library to see if they've still got some of the kiddie porn they used to publish. It doesn't detract from a story about how a man who has some virtues as well as faults copes with his difficulties.
Seriously. Some people call for violent and irreversible penalties that are uncivilized and foolish, but the majority don't.
This is a story about how someone recovers and copes with being a victim. BM has identified who victimized him, but is telling the story not because he seeks retribution but to help him understand himself. That's his choice.
The fact that the tabloid press who feed the frenzy around are hypocrites is no surprise to me. I do wonder if anyone in the dirty squad has ever contemplated raiding the Sun's photo and back issue library to see if they've still got some of the kiddie porn they used to publish. It doesn't detract from a story about how a man who has some virtues as well as faults copes with his difficulties.
Quote by duncanlondon
I also think there seem to be 2 distinct categories of revelations, and I am not sure why.
The first is the current discovery of child abuse, in which the population is immediately outraged and calls for castrations and death penalties. The child is put into care the parents jailed etc.
The second is the late in life revelation such as the rugby player. This is met with a different set of values. the population take a different view. Its water under the bridge, almost a casual acceptance that its your lot in life. that you have done well to have dealt with it and so on. Books get written, interviews are held, publications are made in quite a different tone to the first case.
So why do we react in the first but not in the second, and what does that mean for our values? We lap up both, getting our juices flowing in very different ways. Anyone know why?
with a child adults know how to feel, outraged that a sick monster could take advantage of those who need protection. then they go into over drive to see justice is done and the child gets what they think it needs. however, with an adult what are you supposed to do? there is no protection you can offer them and the deed is usually years old and the person responsible either gone or not able to be brought to justice due to lack of evidence.
whips
Don't get me wrong. But this is the kind of thinking that the uses to their advantage. Its one of the fundamental rules of their game. They bank on getting away with it, or at least a reduced punishment; because time distances them and the victim from the crime.
whips
Don't get me wrong. But this is the kind of thinking that the uses to their advantage. Its one of the fundamental rules of their game. They bank on getting away with it, or at least a reduced punishment; because time distances them and the victim from the crime.
I read the article and thought whats the fuss about, I spose for various reasons Ive witnessed more than my fair share of folk coming to terms with all sorts of issues. And then I read the responses and thought hey this is really valuable to a lot of people. And yes it takes a very brave person to stand up and tell the world whats happened to them and whats going through their head even if theres a book publishing deal involved. And yes we should talk about these things more outside of the "SICK " headlines in the papers. And no its never too late to bring perpetrators to justice although its a long weary road as a friend of mine in her 40s told me, who recently saw her childhood abuser imprisoned.
And thats what went through my head.
And thats what went through my head.
I do not shut myself off,as you put it,i reguard myself as better informed on the events in the news than most,but i dislike the purient ,nay even salacious detail,that is gone into especially by the tabloid use a recent example,the nursery worker case was not just reported,but great delight sseemed to be derrived from describing which objects had been used to abuse.I can see no need to reveal these details and wonder what benifit is served by doing so.
I am unsure what i am meant to have found fascinating about the brian moore article,i expressed my admiration for an open discussion by a man of his mental health are no parralell values here,do i wish he had not been abused,yes,do i hope that judgement will be meeted out on his abuser,yes,i do not see any dichotomy with praising how he has coped.
I am not sure how one is better informed unless working in a related capacity to such issues. Well change fascination for admiration, either will do.
My doubt about the way such things are being presented is that they carry with them an underlying familiarisation, then understanding then presumably acceptance. This is what I mean by parallel values and dichotomies.
The incidents of offending seem to have escalated along with the exposure of the activity. I think it is because we are using the language and thinking of the offender, in the pursuit of trying to recognise and understand.
Whilst its admirable that people 'come out', I think its going to get worse, but it may not get better, If we continue to follow this line of exposure. I just genuinely feel there is something not quite right about this.
I am unsure what i am meant to have found fascinating about the brian moore article,i expressed my admiration for an open discussion by a man of his mental health are no parralell values here,do i wish he had not been abused,yes,do i hope that judgement will be meeted out on his abuser,yes,i do not see any dichotomy with praising how he has coped.
I am not sure how one is better informed unless working in a related capacity to such issues. Well change fascination for admiration, either will do.
My doubt about the way such things are being presented is that they carry with them an underlying familiarisation, then understanding then presumably acceptance. This is what I mean by parallel values and dichotomies.
The incidents of offending seem to have escalated along with the exposure of the activity. I think it is because we are using the language and thinking of the offender, in the pursuit of trying to recognise and understand.
Whilst its admirable that people 'come out', I think its going to get worse, but it may not get better, If we continue to follow this line of exposure. I just genuinely feel there is something not quite right about this.
Quote by duncanlondon
I do not shut myself off,as you put it,i reguard myself as better informed on the events in the news than most,but i dislike the purient ,nay even salacious detail,that is gone into especially by the tabloid use a recent example,the nursery worker case was not just reported,but great delight sseemed to be derrived from describing which objects had been used to abuse.I can see no need to reveal these details and wonder what benifit is served by doing so.
I am unsure what i am meant to have found fascinating about the brian moore article,i expressed my admiration for an open discussion by a man of his mental health are no parralell values here,do i wish he had not been abused,yes,do i hope that judgement will be meeted out on his abuser,yes,i do not see any dichotomy with praising how he has coped.
I am not sure how one is better informed unless working in a related capacity to such issues. Well change fascination for admiration, either will do.
My doubt about the way such things are being presented is that they carry with them an underlying familiarisation, then understanding then presumably acceptance. This is what I mean by parallel values and dichotomies.
The incidents of offending seem to have escalated along with the exposure of the activity. I think it is because we are using the language and thinking of the offender, in the pursuit of trying to recognise and understand.
Whilst its admirable that people 'come out', I think its going to get worse, but it may not get better, If we continue to follow this line of exposure. I just genuinely feel there is something not quite right about this.
I'm not sure how values that are moving in parallel can represent a dichotomy. I'm not sure about the use of the words understanding and acceptance either. If you think about the SARAH curve as a model of healing (Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance, Healing) then acceptance, acknowledging and understanding the facts of what has happened to them is a key component of recovery for the victim. It doesn't mean one accepts or understands the behaviour of the offender / abuser; perspective is key to this.
Familiarisation was much more important as a concept in understanding the sexualisation of children back when major media outlets were engaged in activity that would be illegal now - topless pics of sixteen year old Sam Fox anyone? The tabloid media may be prurient in their reporting of crime in general (Kaz is right about that - but they were ever thus - isn't this part of what Decline of the English Murder by Orwell is about) but an openness about the reality of offending may aid recovery for victims, in as much as they aren't isolated by their own perceived uniqueness.
Your third para claims that the incidence of offending has risen along with the exposure of the activity. The problem is there's no evidence for that claim, and it would be impossible to prove or disprove it either way. Our perceptions of the incidence of crime are way out of kilter with the reality.
It would be better, for all concerned, if we could move away from the current regime of placing strict age limits and strict liability above the ability to consent and to understand what it is one is consenting to, but the reporting of offences, especially historic offences, isn't the key driver in the incidence of offending.
I'm not sure how values that are moving in parallel can represent a dichotomy. I'm not sure about the use of the words understanding and acceptance either. If you think about the SARAH curve as a model of healing (Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance, Healing) then acceptance, acknowledging and understanding the facts of what has happened to them is a key component of recovery for the victim. It doesn't mean one accepts or understands the behaviour of the offender / abuser; perspective is key to this.
Familiarisation was much more important as a concept in understanding the sexualisation of children back when major media outlets were engaged in activity that would be illegal now - topless pics of sixteen year old Sam Fox anyone? The tabloid media may be prurient in their reporting of crime in general (Kaz is right about that - but they were ever thus - isn't this part of what Decline of the English Murder by Orwell is about) but an openness about the reality of offending may aid recovery for victims, in as much as they aren't isolated by their own perceived uniqueness.
Your third para claims that the incidence of offending has risen along with the exposure of the activity. The problem is there's no evidence for that claim, and it would be impossible to prove or disprove it either way. Our perceptions of the incidence of crime are way out of kilter with the reality.
It would be better, for all concerned, if we could move away from the current regime of placing strict age limits and strict liability above the ability to consent and to understand what it is one is consenting to, but the reporting of offences, especially historic offences, isn't the key driver in the incidence of offending.
Some people can and do genuinely forgive offenders, I think is possible with understanding. If we are not on the way to understanding, why are we being asked to consider these things?
I don't think there is any victim recovery programme which advocates the use of the press. Or is there? Somehow word got out and the press became involved.
Again quoting that the stats neither prove or disprove, simply reinstates the status quo. Probably more to the advantage of the offender, as they are of no use to the well behaved citizen.
What drives offending is the age old 'evil thrives when good people do nothing'.
What we can do is cease using sensationalisation.
Familiarisation was much more important as a concept in understanding the sexualisation of children back when major media outlets were engaged in activity that would be illegal now - topless pics of sixteen year old Sam Fox anyone? The tabloid media may be prurient in their reporting of crime in general (Kaz is right about that - but they were ever thus - isn't this part of what Decline of the English Murder by Orwell is about) but an openness about the reality of offending may aid recovery for victims, in as much as they aren't isolated by their own perceived uniqueness.
Your third para claims that the incidence of offending has risen along with the exposure of the activity. The problem is there's no evidence for that claim, and it would be impossible to prove or disprove it either way. Our perceptions of the incidence of crime are way out of kilter with the reality.
It would be better, for all concerned, if we could move away from the current regime of placing strict age limits and strict liability above the ability to consent and to understand what it is one is consenting to, but the reporting of offences, especially historic offences, isn't the key driver in the incidence of offending.
Some people can and do genuinely forgive offenders, I think is possible with understanding. If we are not on the way to understanding, why are we being asked to consider these things?
I don't think there is any victim recovery programme which advocates the use of the press. Or is there? Somehow word got out and the press became involved.
Again quoting that the stats neither prove or disprove, simply reinstates the status quo. Probably more to the advantage of the offender, as they are of no use to the well behaved citizen.
What drives offending is the age old 'evil thrives when good people do nothing'.
What we can do is cease using sensationalisation.
I'm not sure how values that are moving in parallel can represent a dichotomy. I'm not sure about the use of the words understanding and acceptance either. If you think about the SARAH curve as a model of healing (Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance, Healing) then acceptance, acknowledging and understanding the facts of what has happened to them is a key component of recovery for the victim. It doesn't mean one accepts or understands the behaviour of the offender / abuser; perspective is key to this.
Familiarisation was much more important as a concept in understanding the sexualisation of children back when major media outlets were engaged in activity that would be illegal now - topless pics of sixteen year old Sam Fox anyone? The tabloid media may be prurient in their reporting of crime in general (Kaz is right about that - but they were ever thus - isn't this part of what Decline of the English Murder by Orwell is about) but an openness about the reality of offending may aid recovery for victims, in as much as they aren't isolated by their own perceived uniqueness.
Your third para claims that the incidence of offending has risen along with the exposure of the activity. The problem is there's no evidence for that claim, and it would be impossible to prove or disprove it either way. Our perceptions of the incidence of crime are way out of kilter with the reality.
It would be better, for all concerned, if we could move away from the current regime of placing strict age limits and strict liability above the ability to consent and to understand what it is one is consenting to, but the reporting of offences, especially historic offences, isn't the key driver in the incidence of offending.
Some people can and do genuinely forgive offenders, I think is possible with understanding. If we are not on the way to understanding, why are we being asked to consider these things?
I don't think there is any victim recovery programme which advocates the use of the press. Or is there? Somehow word got out and the press became involved.
Again quoting that the stats neither prove or disprove, simply reinstates the status quo. Probably more to the advantage of the offender, as they are of no use to the well behaved citizen.
What drives offending is the age old 'evil thrives when good people do nothing'.
What we can do is cease using sensationalisation.
Familiarisation was much more important as a concept in understanding the sexualisation of children back when major media outlets were engaged in activity that would be illegal now - topless pics of sixteen year old Sam Fox anyone? The tabloid media may be prurient in their reporting of crime in general (Kaz is right about that - but they were ever thus - isn't this part of what Decline of the English Murder by Orwell is about) but an openness about the reality of offending may aid recovery for victims, in as much as they aren't isolated by their own perceived uniqueness.
Your third para claims that the incidence of offending has risen along with the exposure of the activity. The problem is there's no evidence for that claim, and it would be impossible to prove or disprove it either way. Our perceptions of the incidence of crime are way out of kilter with the reality.
It would be better, for all concerned, if we could move away from the current regime of placing strict age limits and strict liability above the ability to consent and to understand what it is one is consenting to, but the reporting of offences, especially historic offences, isn't the key driver in the incidence of offending.
Some people can and do genuinely forgive offenders, I think is possible with understanding. If we are not on the way to understanding, why are we being asked to consider these things?
I don't think there is any victim recovery programme which advocates the use of the press. Or is there? Somehow word got out and the press became involved.
Again quoting that the stats neither prove or disprove, simply reinstates the status quo. Probably more to the advantage of the offender, as they are of no use to the well behaved citizen.
What drives offending is the age old 'evil thrives when good people do nothing'.
What we can do is cease using sensationalisation.
Sex God
I had a similar experience to Brian Moore when I was 13....
A neighbour who used to teach Karate(he used to teach a lot of the local kids as well for nothing at his gym) propositioned me and wanted to take photgraphs for money....
He used his position of trust much the same as the school teacher did with Brian Moore..
He was well know and well liked by all the parents of the children he taught.....
I said no and thought nothing more of it to be honest as it didn't ring any alarm bells with me at the time....
A cpl of years later when I was more sexually mature (well more than I was at 13) it struck me as being odd and very wrong but...
Fear then took over......
Would anyone believe me if I said anything ?
Would I be the object of ridicule if I said anything ? (not forgetting this was 25 yrs ago and people were a lot less tolerant and liberated than we are now) ....
I have never mentioned this to anyone before and I suppose the anonymity of a pc makes it easier but I do wonder sometimes if this man went on and continued with his propositions or did someone have more courage than me and actually speak out against him....
I listened to Brian Moore being interviewed on Radio 2 Wednesday lunchtime and I could relate to some of the things he was saying and thought how brave he was and how much without bitterness he sounded.....
Lets hope his revelations help someone else end the termoil of being abused by someone....
A neighbour who used to teach Karate(he used to teach a lot of the local kids as well for nothing at his gym) propositioned me and wanted to take photgraphs for money....
He used his position of trust much the same as the school teacher did with Brian Moore..
He was well know and well liked by all the parents of the children he taught.....
I said no and thought nothing more of it to be honest as it didn't ring any alarm bells with me at the time....
A cpl of years later when I was more sexually mature (well more than I was at 13) it struck me as being odd and very wrong but...
Fear then took over......
Would anyone believe me if I said anything ?
Would I be the object of ridicule if I said anything ? (not forgetting this was 25 yrs ago and people were a lot less tolerant and liberated than we are now) ....
I have never mentioned this to anyone before and I suppose the anonymity of a pc makes it easier but I do wonder sometimes if this man went on and continued with his propositions or did someone have more courage than me and actually speak out against him....
I listened to Brian Moore being interviewed on Radio 2 Wednesday lunchtime and I could relate to some of the things he was saying and thought how brave he was and how much without bitterness he sounded.....
Lets hope his revelations help someone else end the termoil of being abused by someone....
I think many people experienced something similar to Steve. I did on a few occasions. But as soon as they realised they were not going to get anywhere they quickly pretended it had never happened. This was in the 1970's.
Often it was someone who was rumoured to have a reputation. Some had even been arrested and such like in other circumstances.
As young lads we just made a joke about the whole thing. When we did hear that something a bit more 'advanced' had happened we tended to think the lad was the sort who was a victim and easy prey. But keeping it as a common joke at least kept us away from such dangers.
I think the problem of standing up for yourself is just the same as ever, and in that sense I see it as no different from our day. Even with the new awareness its still an obstacle for a child to overcome and avoid. Most will successfully, others will succumb in the same age old ways.
But evil doesn't come battering at your door advertising itself, it creeps in along with you and the disorganised areas of your life, and so often you recognise your own weakness in allowing it happen or get worse.
Often it was someone who was rumoured to have a reputation. Some had even been arrested and such like in other circumstances.
As young lads we just made a joke about the whole thing. When we did hear that something a bit more 'advanced' had happened we tended to think the lad was the sort who was a victim and easy prey. But keeping it as a common joke at least kept us away from such dangers.
I think the problem of standing up for yourself is just the same as ever, and in that sense I see it as no different from our day. Even with the new awareness its still an obstacle for a child to overcome and avoid. Most will successfully, others will succumb in the same age old ways.
But evil doesn't come battering at your door advertising itself, it creeps in along with you and the disorganised areas of your life, and so often you recognise your own weakness in allowing it happen or get worse.
Sex God
Quote by duncanlondon
I think many people experienced something similar to Steve. I did on a few occasions. But as soon as they realised they were not going to get anywhere they quickly pretended it had never happened. This was in the 1970's.
Often it was someone who was rumoured to have a reputation. Some had even been arrested and such like in other circumstances.
As young lads we just made a joke about the whole thing. When we did hear that something a bit more 'advanced' had happened we tended to think the lad was the sort who was a victim and easy prey. But keeping it as a common joke at least kept us away from such dangers.
I think the problem of standing up for yourself is just the same as ever, and in that sense I see it as no different from our day. Even with the new awareness its still an obstacle for a child to overcome and avoid. Most will successfully, others will succumb in the same age old ways.
But evil doesn't come battering at your door advertising itself, it creeps in along with you and the disorganised areas of your life, and so often you recognise your own weakness in allowing it happen or get worse.
I've read this post 4 or 5 times now and I still come to the same conclusion....
It reads ,to me at least, that you are almost making lite of it all :shock:
Frankly it beggars belief how you can make such ill informed sweeping statements and actually believe them....
It's the difference between then and now. that's how we coped with it, we laughed away an unpleasant experience. Which did not escalate into a situation of abuse. I think it was because we scared off the , because they knew it was not going to happen. There wasn't the same programme of awareness as there is now, so we really felt we were on our own. can you blame us, a bunch of kids?
I think that kids today find that there is too much about this and its just weighing down on them, and taking away a lot of innocence too soon in their lives. Often it is that innocence which actually defends some of the vulnerable.
I think that kids today find that there is too much about this and its just weighing down on them, and taking away a lot of innocence too soon in their lives. Often it is that innocence which actually defends some of the vulnerable.
Quote by duncanlondon
It's the difference between then and now. that's how we coped with it, we laughed away an unpleasant experience. Which did not escalate into a situation of abuse. I think it was because we scared off the , because they knew it was not going to happen. There wasn't the same programme of awareness as there is now, so we really felt we were on our own. can you blame us, a bunch of kids?
I think that kids today find that there is too much about this and its just weighing down on them, and taking away a lot of innocence too soon in their lives. Often it is that innocence which actually defends some of the vulnerable.
how curiously childlike and naive you remain. Were you also hit over the head as a small child ?
Obviously your experience and wisdom on this subject is something I am going to have to bow down to.I will take great care to throw out the client files I have on this very subject. I have just thrown out all the textbooks I used with case studies in them that tell me totally different things to what you have shared with us.
I think that I may also resign as I was working to a totally different model with my clients and should really study at the school of life that you did.
I know that I am being pithy and sarcastic.. but this late at night I can't be bothered to deal with puerile and offensive crap by being intellectual and informative. What's your excuse duncan?
Duncan, I've seldom heard such crap.
At the tender age of 13, just after her mum had died, a friend of mine was by the "man"- her friends father- who was meant to be caring for her. Despite him firebombing her bedroom, she testified against him in court, face to face.
The words "succumb" and "weakness" don't belong on the same page.
At the tender age of 13, just after her mum had died, a friend of mine was by the "man"- her friends father- who was meant to be caring for her. Despite him firebombing her bedroom, she testified against him in court, face to face.
The words "succumb" and "weakness" don't belong on the same page.
Its easy to see why people find it difficult to talk about things like this if they are met with adverse reactions. For those of you who appear to have some working experience of this, you couldn't allow yourselves to let off that kind of reaction under real conditions? I doubt it, it would jeopardise your work and your job.
I think also that there is a difference in the generations that is being overlooked. In my day the young people I knew had those kind of attitudes to these issues, we weren't fed explicit details about it. The most recent event had been the Myra Hindley Moors Murder stuff, of which we knew very little about. Cruel jokes got about, we were young kids, we didn't know what it really meant.
It would probably be more accurate to say there was a casual attitude towards . We had songs like Maggie May, Aqualung, Taj Mahal's Good Morning Little Schoolgirl etc. We had Oz magazine. All these things treated it in a pornographic and irresponsible way. There was corruption in the police force. Child and animal porn got about.
So when I talk about that as it was then, its not how I see it now. I see it as its seen in this era now. I take on board the way its being dealt with in this era. But I still think its overkill, and its putting too much on young people at an early age. They need to know enough, not too much.
I wasn't abused but I met with attempts to do so. So again I consider myself fortunate that it didn't happen. But I wasn't in danger of being attacked and . The paedos who approached me were subtle and weren't prepared to attempt an assault. They wanted to persuade and groom and see if I took to it. Which is why I say succumb, and I perceived it as a weakness in me, if I had done so. So I fought against it because it also included some temptation.
Also in a young man's mind, I wondered why others of our generations hadn't been able to avoid the work of paedos who were operating in the characteristic way in that era. But I and others could only think it was just our good luck, that others must have given in to the persuausion. Obviously if we had heard of a full on we would have had to consider it quite differently. But we didn't meet with that kind of detail.
Fortunately again it passed over my life without real damage. Which is all I wish would be the same for anyone else, although we know that's not the case. There seems to be more child cruelty, with sexual abuse more or less taking a secondary role.
So my apologies if you have not found my limited experience of any significance to yours.
Its not easy to collect one's thought's and reorder them, and transpose them into what's needed now, some decades later.
But I suppose that takes us back to the idea of the thread and that is someone who is writing a book about their experience, who has probably benefitted from expert knowledge and help to do so.
I think also that there is a difference in the generations that is being overlooked. In my day the young people I knew had those kind of attitudes to these issues, we weren't fed explicit details about it. The most recent event had been the Myra Hindley Moors Murder stuff, of which we knew very little about. Cruel jokes got about, we were young kids, we didn't know what it really meant.
It would probably be more accurate to say there was a casual attitude towards . We had songs like Maggie May, Aqualung, Taj Mahal's Good Morning Little Schoolgirl etc. We had Oz magazine. All these things treated it in a pornographic and irresponsible way. There was corruption in the police force. Child and animal porn got about.
So when I talk about that as it was then, its not how I see it now. I see it as its seen in this era now. I take on board the way its being dealt with in this era. But I still think its overkill, and its putting too much on young people at an early age. They need to know enough, not too much.
I wasn't abused but I met with attempts to do so. So again I consider myself fortunate that it didn't happen. But I wasn't in danger of being attacked and . The paedos who approached me were subtle and weren't prepared to attempt an assault. They wanted to persuade and groom and see if I took to it. Which is why I say succumb, and I perceived it as a weakness in me, if I had done so. So I fought against it because it also included some temptation.
Also in a young man's mind, I wondered why others of our generations hadn't been able to avoid the work of paedos who were operating in the characteristic way in that era. But I and others could only think it was just our good luck, that others must have given in to the persuausion. Obviously if we had heard of a full on we would have had to consider it quite differently. But we didn't meet with that kind of detail.
Fortunately again it passed over my life without real damage. Which is all I wish would be the same for anyone else, although we know that's not the case. There seems to be more child cruelty, with sexual abuse more or less taking a secondary role.
So my apologies if you have not found my limited experience of any significance to yours.
Its not easy to collect one's thought's and reorder them, and transpose them into what's needed now, some decades later.
But I suppose that takes us back to the idea of the thread and that is someone who is writing a book about their experience, who has probably benefitted from expert knowledge and help to do so.
Quote by duncanlondon
Its easy to see why people find it difficult to talk about things like this if they are met with adverse reactions. For those of you who appear to have some working experience of this, you couldn't allow yourselves to let off that kind of reaction under real conditions? I doubt it, it would jeopardise your work and your job.
You are totally correct, but I am not at work- unless you have a significant amount of money and want to 'go private' ! thankfully the joy of the internet means that I can relax and challenge ignorance without it reflecting on my practice.
I think also that there is a difference in the generations that is being overlooked. In my day the young people I knew had those kind of attitudes to these issues, we weren't fed explicit details about it. The most recent event had been the Myra Hindley Moors Murder stuff, of which we knew very little about. Cruel jokes got about, we were young kids, we didn't know what it really meant.
Quote by splendid_
again, what you are talking about is your perspective and a limited one it is too. Some people were raised in the way that you discuss. It doesn't lessen the actual abuse and actually meant, in most cases, that the abuse went on longer and was more profound as the children concerned didn't have words for it. (I am oversimplifying but I hope that I am clear)
So when I talk about that as it was then, its not how I see it now. I see it as its seen in this era now. I take on board the way its being dealt with in this era. But I still think its overkill, and its putting too much on young people at an early age. They need to know enough, not too much.
Quote by splendid_
The children are NOT the issue here. Children knowing and being clear about what abuse is often means that 'we' can help them sooner than previously. Historically long term abuse was much more common that it is now. (you will have to trust me on that as I can't be bothered to link you to any research) Because of more information we have empowered children to initially know what is 'wrong' and then to help them locate people who are able to help and stop it
I wasn't abused but I met with attempts to do so. So again I consider myself fortunate that it didn't happen. But I wasn't in danger of being attacked and . The paedos who approached me were subtle and weren't prepared to attempt an assault. They wanted to persuade and groom and see if I took to it. Which is why I say succumb, and I perceived it as a weakness in me, if I had done so. So I fought against it because it also included some temptation.
Quote by splendid_
there are many such predators now. Much more likely is a family member who has full access to a young person. Your perception of it being any kind of 'weakness' is going to always be taken as offensive by those who have been abused or have any knowledge of it. A child is only weak because they are a child. Not because emotionally, mentally or physically they have any inherent weakness
Also in a young man's mind, I wondered why others of our generations hadn't been able to avoid the work of paedos who were operating in the characteristic way in that era. But I and others could only think it was just our good luck, that others must have given in to the persuausion. Obviously if we had heard of a full on we would have had to consider it quite differently. But we didn't meet with that kind of detail.
Fortunately again it passed over my life without real damage. Which is all I wish would be the same for anyone else, although we know that's not the case. There seems to be more child cruelty, with sexual abuse more or less taking a secondary role.
So my apologies if you have not found my limited experience of any significance to yours.
Its not easy to collect one's thought's and reorder them, and transpose them into what's needed now, some decades later.
But I suppose that takes us back to the idea of the thread and that is someone who is writing a book about their experience, who has probably benefitted from expert knowledge and help to do so.
Quote by splendid_
Basically duncan, you have waded into a subject without tact and with considerable thoughtlessness. I can see from your replies that you 'mean no harm' but in sharing your views you have caused considerable amount. I also don't want to appear too much as if your experience is of no significance but just as those who don't see the car crash aren't asked to give evidence I am unable to see what point you are making with your observations.
splendid_ wrote:
there are many such predators now. Much more likely is a family member who has full access to a young person. Your
perception of it being any kind of 'weakness' is going to always be taken as offensive by those who have been abused or
have any knowledge of it. A child is only weak because they are a child. Not because emotionally, mentally or physically
they have any inherent weakness.
okay what is it then?
Or if that kind of language has been removed from use, what has it been replaced with?
there are many such predators now. Much more likely is a family member who has full access to a young person. Your
perception of it being any kind of 'weakness' is going to always be taken as offensive by those who have been abused or
have any knowledge of it. A child is only weak because they are a child. Not because emotionally, mentally or physically
they have any inherent weakness.
okay what is it then?
Or if that kind of language has been removed from use, what has it been replaced with?
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I like it when people post what they think and feel so thank you Duncan.
I don't like it when folk tell me or others what they know to be true on subjective matters and judge others on that basis.
I think the latter causes more harm and requires more thought than the former.
Thanks.
