Children sitting on Santa's knee....yay or nay?

strobe

me0w wrote: »

It would be the perfect job for a pedophile though....

How so? From what I've seen, the kid sits on Santa's knee, with the parent(s) a foot or two away, taking photos, and several other parents and kids looking on?
Sounds like an awful job for a pedophile tbh. Talk about a cock tease...

DeadHand

For Christ's sake.

The child sits up on the man's knee, not on his crotch.

In a crowded room.

Only the most paranoid, idiotic twat would see anything creepy or sexual in that.

me0w

strobe wrote: »

How so? From what I've seen, the kid sits on Santa's knee, with the parent(s) a foot or two away, taking photos, and several other parents and kids looking on?
Sounds like an awful job for a pedophile tbh. Talk about a cock tease...

Pedophiles love/ are attracted to children so they'd be inclined to work with or around them. It would be quite easy to touch a child subtly for example if they were wearing a dress, parents would be unlikely to notice.

DeadHand

me0w wrote: »

Pedophiles love/ are attracted to children so they'd be inclined to work with or around them. It would be quite easy to touch a child subtly for example if they were wearing a dress, parents would be unlikely to notice.

Gibberish.

You really think a man would be capable of slipping his hand unnoticed up a child's skirt in a small, crowded room in which the child was centre of attention?

By your logic, children should not be allowed out of their rooms, even under close supervision, lest they be "subtly" touched. Apparently, pedophiles are so crafty they can molest your children undetected even as you're watching them.

Venus In Furs

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I can honestly picture the future being similar to a world like 'Equilibrium' except at the hands of the easily offended PC public rather than an overpowering government. Holy fuk, it's getting to the point where I'd almost support the establishment of some form of separate societies for the little whimps in society who take offense and find problems in literally everything. Let them live in their own secluded utopia or something

This isn't about political correctness - it's paranoia re child safety.

DukeOfTheSharp wrote: »

Loving the 'PC culture gone mad' attitude when children can't play in their front yard without being taken away and raped by pedophiles living just down the road from them.

The bolded bit: what the actual fuq?

DukeOfTheSharp wrote: »

if people here are going to talk about any kind of culture 'gone mad', it's the this 'male population' people are referring to that seem to be 'demonized' when it comes to being near children. I'm a man, and I don't feel hard done by. I know plenty of other men who'd help out a lost child, and have the self-confidence, if challenged, to say 'well if you're so concerned, come with me and we'll all help'. It's the reactionary problem of people unwilling to set egos aside that caused children to be placed in vulnerable positions to begin with, and even now, those same egos are causing defensiveness in the face of an atmosphere that proves me need more child protection. Or are we so quick to forget Jimmy Savile was a children's entertainer, and an alleged, prolific sex offender?

I don't agree with all adult males being under suspicion, and even made to shoulder some of the responsibility (because of the gender they happen to be born) due to a minority (even if significant) of sickos tbh.
If men would prefer not to go over to a child who looks lost, upset etc, for fear of what onlookers might think, then I don't blame them - which is a very very sad state of affairs. I'd hope they'd at least ensure someone else wades in though.
It's also unfair on kids to cause a whole bunch of people to be afraid to engage with them, and to create such an atmosphere of fear and suspicion and paranoia. Anyone (male or female) who works with children should be vetted and monitored for sure, though.

I do think though only kids who are old enough to ask to be brought to Santa/sit on his knee should be the ones who do so - the Santa on this thread makes a good point that a lot of very small children are just scared of him.

Tombi!

The idea all men are dangerous is from the media.
Yes, it's very true that a lot, a lot of pedophiles are evil, disgusting, sickening men molesting, abusing, taking advantage of innocent kids.

Oh wait, yeah. I forget there are female child abusers too. They're just not reported as much.

At the end of the day: idiots buy into the media. The media just write about what sells.

Is it good that certain people (ie those with sex crimes*) be told "nope, not allowed near kids, sorry" be forbidden to be around children? You're damn right it is.
But to think that a grown man cannot help a child yet is somehow still seen as the "provider" of the family, is f**king idiotic. You don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either accept all men aren't dangerous child abusers, or you want to keep them locked away. You don't get both. And ranting about t on Facebook like an attention seeking idiot doesn't mean you're right. Even if other idiots jump around and say "YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT!".

*with that being said, I mean convicted of sex crimes that would be a danger. I have no idea of the law here. But I reckon most of us have an idea of what would consist of a "danger to children".

Venus In Furs

I don't think anyone - apart from crackpots or people who are extremely emotionally damaged and in need of professional help - literally think all men are dangerous.
The suspicion thing though stems from "most paedophiles whom we've heard of are male, therefore any man in direct contact with a child who is a stranger to them should be under suspicion as they *may* have unsavoury intentions". This is still sh-t though - particularly if it's supported by men - as it does mean the thinking is "All men are *potentially* dangerous".

Although if this thread/poll serves as a small snapshot: most people don't think along the above lines thankfully.

AudreyHepburn

DukeOfTheSharp wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's just not true, and if people here are going to talk about any kind of culture 'gone mad', it's the this 'male population' people are referring to that seem to be 'demonized' when it comes to being near children. I'm a man, and I don't feel hard done by. I know plenty of other men who'd help out a lost child, and have the self-confidence, if challenged, to say 'well if you're so concerned, come with me and we'll all help'. It's the reactionary problem of people unwilling to set egos aside that caused children to be placed in vulnerable positions to begin with, and even now, those same egos are causing defensiveness in the face of an atmosphere that proves me need more child protection. Or are we so quick to forget Jimmy Savile was a children's entertainer, and an alleged, prolific sex offender?

Jimmy Saville...Is that the bar by which all men should be judged when they are around children?

Yes children have been put in very vulnerable positions, yes they have been badly hurt and yes of course we need to protect them.

But acting as though any man with a 100 mile radius is a potential Jimmy Saville is not the way to it and is frankly OTT.

the_syco

I came across a post on Facebook today about a mother who took her child to visit Santa and was shocked to be told that he could only stand beside or sit next to Santa not on his knee because 'You can never be too careful'.

I'm reading that as some kid has pissed on the guys knee once too many times?

AudreyHepburn

the_syco wrote: »

I'm reading that as some kid has pissed on the guys knee once too many times?

You're reading it wrong. What they meant was that the child couldn't sit on Santa's lap in case Santa abused him.

Shep_Dog

me0w wrote: »

]Sad truth but most child abusers are male,

I think you mean that most child sexual abusers are male. There are other forms of child abuse.

The issue here should not just be the safety of Santa's knee but the whole thing about subjecting kids to a consumerist lie.

Rosy Posy

I came across a post on Facebook today about a mother who took her child to visit Santa and was shocked to be told that he could only stand beside or sit next to Santa not on his knee because 'You can never be too careful'.

I'd read it as they couldn't be too careful about the possibility of an allegation which could be legally and financially ruinous for them.

Grayson

DukeOfTheSharp wrote: »

Have you ever heard of a prolific pedophile touching any child in plain site? Have you ever heard of predatory pedophiles, who bide their time, groom the child and then begin assaulting them? The kind of pedophiles who look and act like everyday, normal people, being coaches for sports teams, or helping out at the local school, they might even get to dress up as Santa and see a whole bevy of children they can then pick from. You want to reduce this down to one thing, it's not about that, and until we stop reducing the topic down to a single instance, instead of looking at the bigger, much more frightening picture, a conversation like this won't go anywhere. Ignorance is bliss and reduction of reasoning is easier than accepting that the world does need changing.

All of those people still operate in secrecy for the most part. This is your child, two foot in front of you, for two minutes.

You would have to be a paranoid delusional idiot to think that your child would be in danger. They are right there in front of you.

Now if it was a "locker room Santa" I'd be a bit iffy.

There's being aware of danger but there's also being stupid. Refusing to let a child sit on santa's knee is like refusing to hug a gay person in case you catch aids.

ALiasEX

These people had better not let their kids go skiing.

The other day, a ski instructor (male) asked me (male) to go on a 2 person chair lift with a child (male).

This is not an uncommon request.

I only declined because I have not mastered getting off the lifts on my snowboard.

ALiasEX

me0w wrote: »

]

Sad truth but most child abusers are male, some females, but usually because a male is involved and she is doing it to keep him around.

Or is it the way society views female abusers and their victims, meaning the media perhaps reports it less, the victims come forward less, etc.

I was watching the inbetweeners recently. A character called the male teacher that was going after a 17 year old boy a pedo and they called the ice-cream lady that they believed gave oral sex to schoolboys a nympho.

py2006

ALiasEX wrote: »

Or is it the way society views female abusers and their victims, meaning the media perhaps reports it less, the victims come forward less, etc.

I was watching the inbetweeners recently. A character called the male teacher that was going after a 17 year old boy a pedo and they called the ice-cream lady that they believed gave oral sex to schoolboys a nympho.

Also, in the last couple years there has been a few cases highlighted in the media where female teachers have sexted and even had sex with underage boys (some only 13) and in reporting it the writer uses words like "she continued the 'affair' with the boy", or she was "depressed" and they even try to blame her husband on one occasion. Yet when a man does it we see words like, 'groomed', 'pedo', 'predator', 'molestor', 'evil' etc etc