Is My Experience Worthy Of Being Classed As Sexual Abuse?

[successful_workthru]

This happened in 1969 or 1970, I'm not totally sure. I was three or four years of age.

We lived in an RAF house in York. We were brought up catholics and one day we were getting our photo taken after church.

I had two sisters, one a year older, the other, two years older.

We were all dressed the same in white jumper and a red pinafore.

Me and my sisters were posing ready to have our photo taken, and just as the photographer pressed the button on his camera, I decided to pull up my knickers.

I hitched up my knickers really high and you could see my gentialia under the knicker material.

Rather than take another photo, without me showing all I have through my knickers, they used that one, with me pulling up my knickers.

They also put the photo in the local paper.

I don't know what the occasion was.

My counsellor said it was inappropriate. Some of my family have copies of that photo still, and I think my sister said her copy is hanging on the wall in her house.

I am not in touch with my family to ask what the special occasion was.

I remember my mum being very stressed that us kids do not get any marks on their clothes. My brothers also got photographed but I don't know if their photo was in the paper.

I don't like being singled out and have unwanted attention brought to me.

The adults seemed to behave badly that day and see it as funny, if it were me, I would have just taken another photo.

It's cringeworthy for me to think of creepy people fapping over that photo of me pulling my knickers up.

So, is this worthy of being classed as sexual abuse?

Thanks

[hterag]

I think it's more like the attitude of the time. Nowadays we're so sensitive to childhood sexual abuse that we're ready tackle it at the drop of a hat. Attitudes to sexual abuse have changed through time and even more so since the Jimmy Saville case. The definition of sexual abuse stays the same, but people's mentality towards it changes.

Unless the photographer was deliberately taking a shot like that for his/her own pleasure I wouldn't call it sexual abuse. There's several photos of me as a 4/5 year old stood naked on a beach or between nappy changes. The thing is, i was young and there was nothing sexual about it. Unfortunately i think the age of magazines like GQ, FHM & celebrity culture has transformed most people's opinions of what sex is. Women are too often seen as sexual objects rather than humans. My partner can't breast feed in public for fear of someone thinking it's inappropriate, but they only think that because breasts are over sexualised in the media. It's the way they see it, not the way it is.

Whilst it may be inappropriate, and there could be seedy reasons behind it, as a victim of childhood sexual abuse; rape, and physical abuse I wouldn't think it was sexual abuse, but its not down to me to decide because i don't know the full details, just what you posted. You'd need ot determine the reason why that photo was used and not retaken, and if there's some sexual reason for it then it could be classed as sexually inappropriate.

[successful_workthru]

I think it's more like the attitude of the time. Nowadays we're so sensitive to childhood sexual abuse that we're ready tackle it at the drop of a hat. Attitudes to sexual abuse have changed through time and even more so since the Jimmy Saville case. The definition of sexual abuse stays the same, but people's mentality towards it changes.

Unless the photographer was deliberately taking a shot like that for his/her own pleasure I wouldn't call it sexual abuse. There's several photos of me as a 4/5 year old stood naked on a beach or between nappy changes. The thing is, i was young and there was nothing sexual about it. Unfortunately i think the age of magazines like GQ, FHM & celebrity culture has transformed most people's opinions of what sex is. Women are too often seen as sexual objects rather than humans. My partner can't breast feed in public for fear of someone thinking it's inappropriate, but they only think that because breasts are over sexualised in the media. It's the way they see it, not the way it is.

Whilst it may be inappropriate, and there could be seedy reasons behind it, as a victim of childhood sexual abuse; rape, and physical abuse I wouldn't think it was sexual abuse, but its not down to me to decide because i don't know the full details, just what you posted. You'd need ot determine the reason why that photo was used and not retaken, and if there's some sexual reason for it then it could be classed as sexually inappropriate.

Hi hterag

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.

Sorry you had to go through such horrible experiences.

I guess I will never know the motives of that photigrapher.

Yeah abuse was not talked about back then, but I bet it was as rampant.

[hterag]

Probably more rampant, probably more accepted.

A friend once said to me after i commented on a 13 year old girl wearing a tight crop top with cleavage and short skirt with bum cheeks poking out (i said something along the lines of kids aren't kids anymore). HE said, and i had to refrain from smacking him square in the jaw "look mate, you're allowed to look but don't mention it allowed. They're called jail bait for a reason"

Rough translation "She's really attractive, i'm attracted to her, but you don't mention it out load in case someone hears. Otherwise, it's okay to be attracted to emotionally and physically unformed children"

HE ignored the words i used to express how i felt about some kids playing into the hands of our over sexualised media and just thought i was checking her out. He's 40, at the time i was 29. Both way too old for a child, obviously. What got me though is he thought that was normal, and that i was attracted to someone who had only just hit puberty and carried a Hello Kitty bag (because she was a child!)

It was rampant, and still is. Look at John Mcricik, he said on Big Brother "I went to public school and got a buggering, every kid did, didn't do me any harm" (that's not a word for word quote).

There was a "don't whinge" mentality back then, people were so scared to 'moan' that they'd rather keep quiet.

[successful_workthru]

Probably more rampant, probably more accepted.

A friend once said to me after i commented on a 13 year old girl wearing a tight crop top with cleavage and short skirt with bum cheeks poking out (i said something along the lines of kids aren't kids anymore). HE said, and i had to refrain from smacking him square in the jaw "look mate, you're allowed to look but don't mention it allowed. They're called jail bait for a reason"

Rough translation "She's really attractive, i'm attracted to her, but you don't mention it out load in case someone hears. Otherwise, it's okay to be attracted to emotionally and physically unformed children"

HE ignored the words i used to express how i felt about some kids playing into the hands of our over sexualised media and just thought i was checking her out. He's 40, at the time i was 29. Both way too old for a child, obviously. What got me though is he thought that was normal, and that i was attracted to someone who had only just hit puberty and carried a Hello Kitty bag (because she was a child!)

It was rampant, and still is. Look at John Mcricik, he said on Big Brother "I went to public school and got a buggering, every kid did, didn't do me any harm" (that's not a word for word quote).

There was a "don't whinge" mentality back then, people were so scared to 'moan' that they'd rather keep quiet.

Hi, that's terrible.

I hate seeing young kids dressed sexually, they are so vulnerable.

I would hate to be a youngster today.

Looking at John McCrirrick, I do think he was harmed by the buggering, he just doesn't know it.

'Don't moan' policies are a tool of bullies.

When I was young, I used to wear baggy clothes a lot to hide my body, because I worked with a lot of men and I could feel the creepy vibes coming from them. Lots of them were lecturous back then and again, it wasn't spoke about as much as now.

Jail bait? do you mean the men who stare at the young underage girls?

Look but don't tough, yikes, thats awful.

[hterag]

I didn't know what it meant at the time but in hindsight i think it means they're tempting sexually but you'll end up in prison if you act on it.

It's despicable. It doesn't seem to be that they're young that's the attraction, just that they're attractive, which i suppose differentiates it from peadophilia, but it's still wrong in every way.

[successful_workthru]

I didn't know what it meant at the time but in hindsight i think it means they're tempting sexually but you'll end up in prison if you act on it.

It's despicable. It doesn't seem to be that they're young that's the attraction, just that they're attractive, which i suppose differentiates it from peadophilia, but it's still wrong in every way.

Hi

I think anyone who has a sexual attraction to underage people needs help.

It's not natural.

I also think its wrong to dress kids up provocatively. x

[lonelyheartemma]

I think it probably isn't sexual abuse, we can only know if we knew the photographer's reasons for publishing it like someone else said.

But that doesn't make it ok to use that picture, I think it was disrespectful of the photographer and the paper. The attitude to naked bodies might have been different but it's your private parts and they shouldn't be put in a paper (unless you're a page 3 girl and old enough to understand what you're doing). Possibly he abused your privacy or something.

I can see why it upsets you though and I think an experience can still produce the effects of sexual abuse even though technically sexual abuse didn't happen.

[successful_workthru]

I think it probably isn't sexual abuse, we can only know if we knew the photographer's reasons for publishing it like someone else said.

But that doesn't make it ok to use that picture, I think it was disrespectful of the photographer and the paper. The attitude to naked bodies might have been different but it's your private parts and they shouldn't be put in a paper (unless you're a page 3 girl and old enough to understand what you're doing). Possibly he abused your privacy or something.

I can see why it upsets you though and I think an experience can still produce the effects of sexual abuse even though technically sexual abuse didn't happen.

Hi Emma and thanks for your post.

Yeah we cannot know the photographers motive.

When my sister sad she wanted to put the pic on her wall, I felt a bit uncomfortable, but it's up to her. I don't see her anyway, so I'll never know that either.

[GUSCOTT]

Hi. New to this topic. Had a read thru and found it interesting and could understand why it has caused concern. I would like to join the topic but excuse my ignorance if I offend! The sexual exploitation, intentional or unintentional, of children has been a hot topic for a while. It's as if men (or women) would like these individuals to wear a LEGAL sign as soon as they hit 16. That one night, a child went to bed (with her teddy pjs) & wakes, unbeknownst to her (or him) that now they are legal prey! Still , it has to be "consensual" but that word has far-reaching connotations. I wholeheartedly fear for such vulnerable children. I am female and have daughters around the ages u are probably referring to. I am their mother and their bodies ARE beautiful. However their body should be their own to appreciate and respect until the age they feel comfortable to be 'legal' & not on ther 16th birthday! !! I am at the pointvwhere I am starting to allow a little eyeliner, slightly tighter blouses etc and every inch I give them, is painful. But I want them to love their body as it is the coating for the real wonderful person they are. Teach them about their bodies, allow them to push parental boundaries AND hope the parents have a keen eye on them. I may view the world differently, as an adult survivor of child sexual abuse. I did not dress provocatively, in fact I was a tomboy. My downfall was being born into the wrong family. After grooming and initial abuse, I lost all respect for my body, my self...this allowed others to see the victim in me and prey upon this further. So my girls see all the scars on the outside and are slowly, & age appropriately, letting to see the inside scarring. I allow them a certain amount of freedom and hence self control. I ensure I 'stunmble' upon them in their underwear, quickly glamcing for signs of self-harm. This to me would be a frightening encounter and I would need to investigate further. I love them, want them to he strong and have pride in themselves, unlike I did. Be aware, if u hold them back too much against their will, they will rebel and that is when that 'lecturous bastard' swoops in. Give them love but teach them self-love/worth/pride/esteem. Let them know the dangers but do not openly scare them shitless! The abusers know how to spot the weak one in the crowd. But in the end, through the passageway of puberty and adolescence, we hand them over to a world with a huge mix of individuals. I hope I prepare them well. Recent studies show the brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25, so why are our kids morally 'legal' at 16. But again, it comes down to preparation, nurturing and love which every child should receive.

[GUSCOTT]

It may not be legally sexual abuse. However, you have the right to feel completely violated. That is real and is tremendously painful. I wonder how this new law was passed for the 'lowest' of society to be able to delete their past crimes from open view. If you feel violated by the presence of this picture, you should have the right to have the copies destroyed and erased from your life for the right reasons. I do fesr thst this picture is a trigger in your head for other, later, negative, illegal or immoral actions. That picture and that scene has more importance, in the damage, than most will realise. There is no accounting for general ignorance!

I wish u well. ;-)

[successful_workthru]

It may not be legally sexual abuse. However, you have the right to feel completely violated. That is real and is tremendously painful. I wonder how this new law was passed for the 'lowest' of society to be able to delete their past crimes from open view. If you feel violated by the presence of this picture, you should have the right to have the copies destroyed and erased from your life for the right reasons. I do fesr thst this picture is a trigger in your head for other, later, negative, illegal or immoral actions. That picture and that scene has more importance, in the damage, than most will realise. There is no accounting for general ignorance!

I wish u well. ;-)

Hi and thank you for posting. x