From Broadband to Sex: The problem with teaching women to ‘Just Say No!’

From Broadband to Sex: The problem with teaching women to ‘Just Say No!’

Content warning for sexual assault, rape, victim blaming and awkward metaphors.


Since when did sexual propositions use the same techniques as the guy who tries to sell broadband to me as I walk through the high street?

You know the ones. I dread walking past them.

“Oh no. It’s those people who are going to try to sell me broadband… steer clear… steer clear…” I think frantically. Look busy. Look distracted. Stare at a shop window. Pretend to be on the…

“Hello there, miss! Have you got a moment to talk about your broadband?”

Oh shit, they got me. I blush and feel guilty that I don’t want to talk to them about broadband. I already have broadband. I am on my way to work. I don’t have time to talk about broadband right now. I wouldn’t buy it from a guy in the street anyway.

“Um I’m not interested at this time, thank you.” I mutter, embarrassed. I try to keep walking but he blocks my way. I know it won’t work.

He grins a big fake smile at me, “How do you know? You’ve not seen the deal yet!!”

Shit, I think.  “Please, I’m really not interested…” I pause and think of a reason why I am not interested, “Uhhh, I already have broadband!”

This one never works but I always try it.

“Ahhh I bet our broadband is better! We can double your speed!”

I can feel myself getting flustered and annoyed. I just want to get to work on time but he’s blocking my direction and walking in front of me whilst trying to hook me in.

I try again, “I’m really not interested, I’m really sorry. I just need to hurry as I need to get to work for 9am…”

He is not remotely concerned; he presses on.

“Ah that’s okay, this will only take 2 minutes. Will you give me two minutes? I can convince you in two minutes!”

This is getting awkward now. I need to leave, and he won’t stop talking to me.

“No, I am sorry, but I don’t have two minutes,” I reply, looking down at my feet in embarrassment and trying to edge away.

“Okay darling, one minute? I can do it in one minute if you like?”

Now I’m angry and I look him in the eye, “Look, I’ve told you a number of times. I’m not interested!”

His salesman smile drops into a frown. A frustrated frown.

“Whatever!” He snaps at me and walks off, clearly furious.

You might be thinking how familiar that sounds. You might also be thinking why I am talking about the broadband-guy in a blog about victim blaming.

Well, it occurred to me that we have a serious problem with women being able to say ‘No’  – and then not having to give a reason. This blog will explore the connotations and techniques of women not being able to assert that they just don’t want attention or sex.

It is extremely common for women to experience harassment, abuse or violence when they say ‘No’ to a relationship, unwanted attention or sex. 65% of women report experiencing street harassment from men, 23% had been sexually touched by someone in the street and 20% had been followed (, 2016). In 2017, a BBC survey revealed that over half of women had been sexually harassed by men in their workplace. Another example of violence when faced with a female saying ‘No’ is sexual assault and rape. RAINN report that 1 in 6 women report experiencing rape or attempted rape.

We also know this because women can usually reel off many instances of this happening to them, without even trying. I can guarantee that the thousands of women who read my blog have personal experiences of trying to say no, and their refusal being ignored.

I can think of some now, right off the top of my head:

  • In 2013 I was in a bar with my friend when a guy kept trying to touch me and put his arms around my waist. I didn’t know him, and I kept telling him to leave me alone. He ignored me and eventually I lost my temper and yelled at him to stop touching me so he grabbed me and bit my shoulder until I dropped to the floor. I think he ran off because when I managed to get up, he was gone.
  • In 2014, I was walking through my town centre when a man started telling me I was beautiful and sexy. I told him repeatedly that I wasn’t interested and asked him to go away. I told him I was married and so on. He didn’t care. Eventually, he got the message and responded by yelling at the top of his voice ‘I’m not interested in you, get away from me you dirty fat slag!’
  • In 2017, I was sexually attacked by a man I had never met on the night I celebrated creating the BOWSVA psychometric measure (irony, right?). I had gone out for dinner and wine with another academic to celebrate my results and months of hard work. A guy in his late forties kept hitting on me and I just asked him to leave me alone. Out of nowhere it seemed, he grabbed me and started to sexually assault me. He was so strong and I was so small compared to him. Whilst he assaulted me, he told me it was his birthday and he was entitled to me.

I know women reading this will be nodding, I know they will be thinking – yep, sounds familiar.

So, lets explore why ‘No’ doesn’t mean ‘No’. Then, we will discuss why this leads to victim blaming of women who experience sexual violence and abuse.

  1. Accept the damn compliment!

The first stage of sexual harassment is usually complimentary. Completely unwanted, but complimentary. You’re gorgeous. You’re sexy. You’re wonderful. You give them a hard on. Real romantic stuff like that. It’s quite common for women to become embarrassed and thank the guy. ‘Oh, thanks…’ or even just give an awkward smile.

‘Smile at the creep, maybe he will leave me alone. Keep walking. Don’t look back…’

So why do women do that? Why do women who receive completely unwanted comments about their bodies or their looks, thank the harasser or smile at them?

There are two main answers. The first is that women are taught that their looks are their greatest asset and that being complimented on having a sexually attractive body by Mr. Random is the pinnacle of female success. Therefore, a woman who is told by a passer-by that she’s hot or sexy, must accept that compliment, and be happy about it. In a hypersexualised society where sex sells and women are sold – this is the gold standard. Men just falling over themselves to tell you that they would ‘give you one’ is seen as evidence that you must be stunning, and you can’t expect men to be able to keep quiet when you are that tantalising. Can you?

The second answer is that women and girls are socialised into their gender role to be nice and polite, even when someone is being a complete bellend. Women who assert themselves are often called ‘aggressive’ or ‘bossy’, for example. Women are expected to be well mannered, ‘nice’ and pleasant to everyone at all times. Stepping out of that gender role box will result in her being reframed as an angry bitch.

  1. Apologising that you are not interested in them

Linked to the ‘nice, polite woman’ gender role stereotype, we have the awkward and embarrassed mutters of ‘I’m really sorry, but I’m not interested’ or ‘I’m really sorry but, no thank you.’ I’m struggling to understand why we are sorry… why are we sorry for them? Are we sorry for them? What are women apologising for when they say sorry to a guy like this:

“Eh up sexy, what’s your name then? Want a drink?”

“Ummm, I’m really sorry.. but.. I’m not interested.”

The answer? Women apologise in advance for saying no. Women are apologising for contradicting male entitlement. The man who has approached her in this way expects her to be flattered, to take the compliment, to want the drink. Women know that saying ‘no’ is risky business, so they apologise before they say no. They convey apologies for not being interested in the man, despite the fact that they don’t owe them a thing. Not even an apology. Or a response.

  1. Apologising again, and then saying ‘I have a boyfriend/I am married!’

This one is really important. This one is a real kicker. When some men hear ‘No’ and continue to persist, the next stage is to use this line. Some women say it because it is true. Some women say it when it is not true. But why do they say it to men who persist? And more concerningly, why does it often work?

“Oh come on, don’t you want a drink? You’re gorgeous!”

“Umm, sorry but I have a boyfriend…”

The depressing answer to this is wrapped up in ownership of females and male competition. When a woman says ‘no’, it is rarely enough for a man to stop harassing or pursuing her, and the woman knows that. But when a woman replies that she is ‘taken’ by a boyfriend or husband, many men accept that she ‘belongs’ to another man – and the ‘no’ becomes validated. Interestingly, I know lesbian women who are in relationships or married to other women who also say that they have a boyfriend or husband because they have learned that revealing that they are gay and have a female partner just makes the situation worse. Some lesbians have learned that the ‘male ownership’ lie works – and men leave them alone. You know, rather than asking them for a threesome.

Think about it. If you are a woman, how many times have you used this line of refusal when your first three ‘no’s didn’t work? If you are a man, how many times have women told you that they have a boyfriend or husband to stop you from sexually pursuing them? Why was the presence (real or imagined) of another man, the factor that made you realise that she wasn’t interested?

Why was an imaginary boyfriend or husband more authoritative than her first three ‘no’s?

  1. I’m better/fitter/nicer/richer than him!

However, what happens when ‘I’m sorry but I have a boyfriend/husband’ doesn’t work? Personally, I have been married for 8 years and I know I have used this hundreds of times to stop a man who was making me uncomfortable (before I became acutely aware that this was sort of like saying ‘another man already owns me so…’). I remember one guy who completely destroyed my ‘I’m married’ response to his sexual advances by saying ‘So am I!’

At that point I just stared at his wedding ring and thought, ‘Married professional, in your forties, probably have children with her, she’s probably at work or at home – and you’re here trying to convince me to have sex with you. You charmer.’

I remember trying to joke with him that if we are both married then we are both committed to other people and that he shouldn’t be hitting on me at all. He told me that his wife would never find out and that he would be better in bed than my husband. He told me he was successful and probably richer than my husband too. Then he tried to put his hand up my skirt.

So why the competition? It literally becomes an ego fight with your husband or boyfriend – that they can be better than him. Again, women are put into a position where ‘no’ means nothing. They have already said no repeatedly, then they have tried to assert that they are in a relationship and now a man is trying to convince them that they are a better man than the one they are already with. But why do they do this? Well…

  1. Persistence pays off!

Oh do I hate chick flicks. (Insert gif of me burning all chick flick DVDs). I don’t even know why they are called chick flicks. We should rename them ‘sexual harassment’ flicks’. We have a massive pop culture of teaching men and boys that when women are not interested in them, just try harder. When a woman knocks you back, she wants you really. When a girl tells you she’s taken, just try harder to be better than the guy she is with. If she ignores you, turn up at her house a few times. If she avoids you, follow her to places and make grand gestures. If she dumps you, just call her a few hundred times and turn up at her door with massive bunches of flowers until she realises that she does want you after all.

Chick flicks are just hundreds of hours of men trying to ‘woo’ women who are not interested in them. The plots are generally based on this simple formula:

  • Woman
  • Man
  • Man likes woman
  • Woman does not like or does not know man exists
  • 85 minutes of man ‘persisting’ or ‘trying to win her over’
  • Woman is harassed into loving the man
  • Woman suddenly has epiphany at the end of the film and realises that this was the man she wanted all along, even if throughout the film, he has been a complete dong.

How are women supposed to be able to say ‘no’ safely when we have created an expectation that men are supposed to persist and keep trying until she realises that she really wants him? ‘No’ becomes meaningless if persistence is king.

  1. When women say no, what they really mean is ‘yes’

The outcome of all of these examples and gender role stereotypes, is that women only say no so as not to appear ‘easy’. They say no, but really, they mean ‘persuade me!’

In the literature in forensic psychology, and certainly in my own work, we call this ‘token resistance’ – the concept that the woman is resisting sex or attention as a tokenistic gesture to show that she is not easy or ‘playing hard to get’ instead of actually meaning ‘no’. Garcia (1999) found that women were only perceived as ‘really resisting’ when they showed serious displays of distress such as crying or trying to slap the man – not only this, but the females in the scenarios who asserted themselves in these ways were rated much more negatively by both men and women than the women who did not. Many other types of sexual refusal in the scenarios were perceived as ‘token resistance’. Therefore, there became a dichotomy in which women who say ‘no’ gently and carefully or in a socially acceptable way within their gender role were perceived as engaging in ‘token resistance’ but the women who asserted themselves by shouting, crying or slapping the man in the scenario were rated negatively for asserting themselves in that way.

Ergo, women who say ‘no’ cannot win.


Why is this linked to victim blaming?

I have recently finished writing a large literature review of victim blaming and one of the sections I have written is on ‘sexual refusal’ – the ability and opportunity to say ‘no’ to sex or sexual advances. I explored a curious set of articles that discussed or tested women’s ‘sexual refusal skills’ and I even found that women and girls in universities and colleges were being trained in ‘sexual refusal’ – which is still a common feature of assertiveness training and date rape prevention training (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999). There have been further studies as recent as 2011, that have examined how ‘effective’ women’s refusals are when they have already been a victim of rape or sexual violence (Yeater et al., 2011). I found a number of theories that argued that women who are repeatedly revictimised, raped or abused have ‘poor sexual refusal skills’.

I wrote in my own literature review that some of the conclusions about ‘sexual refusal’ and women’s ‘ability to say no’ sounded a lot like victim blaming. In one blog, I have just briefly demonstrated how hard it is to have your ‘no’ taken seriously by a determined man in a society that champions his persistence to get you in bed, even when you have told him eleven times that you don’t want to. I wondered, as I wrote, why there is so much emphasis on women building better sexual refusal skills and more and more campaigns that teach women and girls to ‘just say no!’

Women are saying no. They are saying no once, twice, fifteen, fifty times. Saying ‘no’ is not the problem here. It’s the receipt of the ‘no’ by the man who cannot take it – that is the problem.

Telling women to ‘just say no’ better is victim blaming.

Just like the broadband-guy, who couldn’t take no for an answer, who persisted and made me feel embarrassed and harassed in the street – we have created a space where women can certainly try to say no, but it doesn’t mean anything. That’s why #metoo went viral. That’s why millions of women identified with it. That’s why hundreds of women have been sexually harassed in Hollywood.

‘It’s a compliment!’ – they’ve got us smiling and thanking guys that tell us we have great tits.

‘Sorry, but I’m not interested’ – they’ve got us apologising for not wanting sexual advances.

‘Sorry, but I’m married’ – they’ve got us apologising that we already belong to another man.

Men who do this, here is a handy cut-out-and-keep table for you to understand what women mean when they say no:

What women say What women mean
‘I’m not interested’ I’m not interested
‘No’ No
‘Uhh thanks’ Shit, that was awkward
‘I have a boyfriend/husband/partner’ I’m not interested, and I am hoping this new tactic makes you go away
‘I’m sorry but…’ Oh god, I hope he doesn’t get angry that I’m about to say no to him
‘Leave me alone’ Leave me alone
‘Stop touching me’ Stop touching me


Written by Jessica Eaton  @JessicaE13Eaton

My new book, ‘The Little Orange Book’ is being released on the 25th September, click here to register your interest in the book or the launch event


Former child abuse detective supports #nomoreCSEfilms campaign – read her letter here

Former child abuse detective supports #nomoreCSEfilms campaign – read her letter here

Today, I received another letter to support the #nomoreCSEfilms campaign – this time, from a woman who worked as a detective specialising in child abuse. I now have 72 accounts of harm, 6 letters and 5 verbal accounts of CSE (child sexual exploitation) films harming children. Accounts come from children, adults, parents, psychologists, police officers, psychotherapists, youth workers, social workers and teachers.

Please stop using CSE films with children. I will soon publish every letter, every signature and every account in an open-access document. The document will be the first collection of evidence ever collected on the harm and trauma caused by practice using CSE films with children and families.

Thank you to Tamara who has chosen to give her full name and role details for this campaign.

Dear Jessica,

I became aware of your ‘#NoMoreCSEFilms’ campaign through social media, and I want to add my opinion as a former professional in the child protection arena.

I previously worked as a Police Officer on a Child Abuse Investigation Unit, and later as a Police Trainer for Detectives specialising in child abuse investigation and rape investigation.  As part of my own training (and the training I later delivered) we used a selection of these films – the two most popular being ‘My Dangerous Loverboy’ and ‘Sick Party’.  These films are notably graphic, and would sometimes result in adults (yes, even supposedly unemotional, robotic Police officers!) turning away or walking out.  To have to watch a realistic film of a young girl being repeatedly raped in a dirty shed by numerous men isn’t easy viewing for anyone.  This was several years ago when these films were fairly new, given the content I would never have considered showing them to a child – to find out that they are I find, quite frankly, horrific.

I have worked with victims of rape and sexual abuse.  I have interviewed numerous children who have been subjected to horrific crimes and can say that the Criminal Justice process, the constant questioning, the things that we HAVE to ask to make it ‘clear’ for a jury that the child knows what they are talking about, the way we MAKE them spell out every little detail so that there can be no ambiguity is traumatic enough.  Add to that the inevitable questioning by parents, peers, associated victim-blaming…the thought that one of these films would be shown to a victim who has been through all of this on top of the original offence is beyond belief.  Then, I also found that these films are being shown to children in schools…some children who probably don’t even know what rape is, and some who are victims we don’t yet know about…for the sake of education?  These films are not encouraging reporting.  They are encouraging shame and embarrassment.  Yes, the obligatory disclaimer could be added before the film, but what child or teenager is going to leave the room and draw attention to themselves?  Of course they aren’t.  Even adults don’t.  If children are suffering in silence the point is that they are scared to come forward for fear of being blamed or not believed.  So they will sit through it. 

Traumatised if they do, traumatised if they don’t. 

I am a parent.  My 11 year-old daughter is aware of what sexual assault is.  However, I would never dream of thinking these films would be appropriate to show her, even in the safety of our living room.  In fact, If I did show her such a film and then she went to school and spoke about it, I wouldn’t be surprised to get a knock on the door from children’s services.  They are THAT graphic. 

Showing these films is not educational.  It is not therapeutic.  It goes against everything we know about the treatment of trauma.  So lets’ stop, think about it, and find another way.


Tamara Brabazon-Taylor

Former Child Abuse Investigation Detective


Please help me and hundreds of other professionals and parents to stop this practice in 2018. Here are some things you can do to help:

  • Stop buying, using or recommending CSE films
  • Boycott organisations and companies that sell and make CSE films – ask them for empirical evidence, proof of testing, proof of safety and proof that the films have been ethically and independently assessed by experts
  • Ask your local schools to stop using CSE films
  • Write to your local social services or police and crime commissioner
  • Meet with me or arrange a phone call to discuss how you can change your practice to remove all use of CSE films


Written by Jessica Eaton


Tweet: @JessicaE13Eaton



“My 11 year old daughter was shown a CSE film where a girl is raped and murdered…” #nomoreCSEfilms

“My 11 year old daughter was shown a CSE film where a girl is raped and murdered…” #nomoreCSEfilms

Another letter came in this weekend, this time from a mother. Her daughter had been shown a film about a sexual homicide at school and returned home very upset. This campaign started because I was very concerned about our practice as professionals, but I had no evidence that the films were harming children – I just thought that we were being highly unethical and it was probable that we were harming UK children by showing them these ‘CSE films’.

I now have a collection of letters, accounts, messages, signatures and a large following. I was tweeting about my #nomoreCSEfilms campaign recently when Marie*, a mother of two young daughters, read my tweets and realised that her eleven year old daughter had been shown a number of these films recently. She described what her daughter told her and I immediately recognised the plot and told her that the film was ‘Kayleigh’s Love Story’ – a film (amongst others) I have been campaigning against for months. However, the film has received awards, accolades and positive press coverage – leaving experts and academics struggling to voice concerns about the harm caused by showing children films of rape and murder.

Here is the letter from Marie:

My daughter has been shown several films in school. After one of them , which I now know was “Kayleigh’s Love story”, she came home visibly upset and anxious. I asked her what was wrong and she asked to talk to me in private (I have a younger daughter, and she didn’t want her to hear).

She asked me what rape meant.

I was a bit shocked, and explained. She said “I thought that was what it meant but I wasn’t sure”. I asked her how she’d heard the word.  She then told me that she’d been shown a film where a “Girl was raped and killed”. She said it was in assembly, and it was shown as a warning, to “keep us safe online”.

She was also worried as the film had stated at the beginning that it would have a 15 rating in the cinema. (I am pretty careful about ratings, and watch things through if in doubt about content). She was 11 at the time.

She’s gone up to school a year ahead, so her peers are a year older, but still well under 15 when they were shown the film. Other pupils commented to my daughter that they felt it was too harrowing. I don’t understand how schools can show children films rated 15 without consulting parents.

I don’t understand how anyone thinks that this is OK to show to a large group of children, some of whom will have surely experienced abuse, and I don’t understand how terrifying young girls is considered helpful. Surely there are other ways of teaching sensible behaviour online? If I’d been asked for my permission beforehand , and seen the film, there is absolutely no way I would have agreed to my sensitive, nightmare prone, deep thinking daughter being shown this film at 11 years old.

She has also seen other films. One of which she can’t remember much about, as she was so distressed she didn’t look at the screen and tried to zone out and not listen. She said it was about a woman considering suicide. Even talking about it now, a year later, she is still upset about the films. I showed her the beginning of Kayleigh’s Love Story, just the black screen with the opening text, to confirm that was what she’d seen, and she immediately confirmed it, and very much didn’t want to even glimpse any actual scenes (obviously I’d stopped the video anyway).

I am so glad that you are trying to get these films stopped. My younger daughter will be starting secondary in September and I don’t want her to see anything like this.

All good wishes, Marie

As I always say – despite the need for this campaign to be successful to protect children, letters like this hurt to read. This is a real child. A real parent. This is real harm. Harm we caused. An 11 year old child (which Leicestershire Police have admitted have been shown these films all over the Midlands despite the film being rated 15) went home to ask her mum what rape was – but was shown a film in which a girl was raped and killed. Why was this film shown to an audience that doesn’t even know what a rape is?

We keep being told that these films are used ethically and carefully with children, by experienced professionals who help the children understand what they are about to watch. But I have never seen any evidence of this type of practice.

Not only this, but who calls a film about the sexual homicide of a child ‘Kayleigh’s Love Story’? This is not a love story. This isn’t even CSE. This is the murder of a child. There is no evidence this case was CSE (child sexual exploitation) – but these films keep getting crammed into these definitions to ’cause impact’ and ‘raise awareness’.

I would like to remind Leicestershire Police (who made and market the film) and every local authority using these films with children that it is not ethical at all, and could even be classed as illegal to show these films to children. Parents and carers have had action taken against them for traumatising children with footage and films that are inappropriate for their age. Adults who show children films of children being sexually abused (real or fake) are committing an offence. Can someone explain to me how a member of the public showing films of sexual abuse to children are a sex offender and a risk to children – but professionals showing films of sexual abuse to children are ‘progressive’ and ‘innovative’?

If you are a parent, please watch my YouTube series to learn more:

You can withdraw your children from these sessions and you can write to your school Headteacher to request information on the films and resources used to ‘educate’ children about sexual abuse.

If you are a professional, please read my other blogs and watch the YouTube series too. We have gotten this practice very wrong. We are making huge assumptions about what these films can achieve and we are harming thousands of children in the process. This must stop now.

Please sign the petition here:

Written by Jessica Eaton

Tweet: @JessicaE13Eaton



‘I had my first ever panic attack watching a CSE film at school’ – another letter for #nomoreCSEfilms

‘I had my first ever panic attack watching a CSE film at school’ – another letter for #nomoreCSEfilms

Tonight, I received another letter from a young person harmed by CSE (child sexual exploitation) films and productions.

We have already heard from Faye* who was harmed by the unethical showing of CSE films after she was abused: 

And we have heard the story of Kate, who was harmed by the unethical and blaming use of CSE resources: 

I am compiling evidence from all over the UK that the showing of films containing rape and abuse of children, to children and adolescents in their thousands – is abusive and oppressive practice. The campaign is under #nomoreCSEfilms on twitter and google searches.

I have said before, that whilst this campaign is incredibly important to me, it always gives me a hollow, sinking feeling to read accounts like the one in this blog. Like the ones that have gone before it. Like the 90 I have already collected. Like the one I received this weekend from the mother of an 11 year old girl who was traumatised by a film showing the rape of a child in school.

I implore professionals, parents and policy makers to stop this practice immediately and to stop the making, selling and buying of these products with immediate effect.

Please read this letter from Josie* and think about the harm we are doing to thousands of children.


Dear Jessica, 

So when I was little, I was abused and trafficked. It started when I was 5, and continued until I was in my late teens. It was violent and systematic. I never told anyone, and that is partly due to the CSE resources I was shown growing up.


The first time I ever saw a CSE resource, I was eleven. It was a drama production performed by a travelling company that came into schools. A young teenage girl was depicted as being groomed and eventually raped by an older man. I was so confused. We had never had a lesson on sex education, much less consent, and while I knew what was happening to me was wrong,  I had no idea how to explain it.


The atmosphere in the school hall we were shoved into could’ve been cut with a knife. They hadn’t singled any of us out as being ‘at risk’, but it definitely felt like it. I don’t think I breathed the whole time I was sat there. My eyes didn’t move from my lap, and my hands were red raw from wringing them so tightly, trying anything I could to distract from the scene unfolding in front of me. And I wasn’t the only one. Across the hall were other girls having the same trauma response. From those staring at the ground wanting it to swallow them up to others glancing from door to door looking for the closest exit. I didn’t meet anyone’s eye for fear that my dirty secret was about to be uncovered in front of my whole year.

That was the first time I had a panic attack. I wasn’t sure why at the time but I felt the need to run as far and as fast as possible. Things that I’d tried so hard to forget were flashing in front of my eyes.


Towards the end of the assembly, a well meaning teacher stood up and told us we now knew the signs to look out for, and with that, we’d been officially ‘educated’. She sent us off to our respective classes with a smile , but it felt like she was looking right into my soul.


The girls story in the play was different to mine, she had been given gifts and money where I only knew threats and violence, yet somehow it still felt like through her acting she was telling my story, and revealing it in front of everyone.


No one picked up on it though. A group of terrified little girls in a middle school hall, the ones who ran to the bathrooms and threw up straight after, who didn’t look anyone in the eye for the rest of the day. The ones who showered in scalding hot water trying to wash away shame and the ones who covered their bodies at every opportunity, hiding away deep wounds and old scars reading ‘whore’ that littered their skin.


I was eleven and this was already my life. No support was offered then, or any year thereafter, when we were sat down and made to watch a film of the same ilk. Some protested that we already knew it, and some of us hung our heads in shame, believing more and more with each viewing that we did know the signs, and consequently everything we were living and breathing and surviving each day was all our own fault.


Everything those films and productions and other resources told me, was not that I was brave or strong or clever for protecting a tiny spark of light, but that I was dirty and tarnished, that every one would think badly of me, and that it was all my fault. Those films may seek to educate on warning signs, but for someone already stuck in a cycle, they only ensured that I would never find a way out.


To parents: This is happening in every local authority area in the country with children as young as eleven. You can withdraw your children for their own wellbeing. You can meet with the Headteacher to discuss this practice.

To professionals: This is not the impact we want on children, is it? When professionals told us to show these films, when companies and charities sold these films to us, when local authorities were told it would ‘help protect children’… was this the impact we wanted?

Please sign the petition, tell your colleagues, tell other parents, tell your children, write to your local schools and social care, write to your police and crime commissioners – please join the hundreds of people trying to stop this practice with me.

We cannot continue to show unethical, untested resources, films and drama productions to children. We are causing harm. This is no longer a matter of my professional opinion, this is a matter of real children, real harm, happening right now all over the country.

I have meetings with leading politicians in February and can confirm that three local authorities have already withdrawn ALL CSE FILMS from practice in their areas. We can do this if we work together.

Sign here: 

Watch my YouTube Series on #nomoreCSEfilms here: 

Written by Jessica Eaton

Tweet: @JessicaE13Eaton



“I was shown a CSE film after I was raped. I harmed myself that night.” Another letter supporting #nomoreCSEfilms

“I was shown a CSE film after I was raped. I harmed myself that night.” Another letter supporting #nomoreCSEfilms

In summer 2017, I started the #nomoreCSEfilms campaign, to stop the use of traumatic, untested and unethical practices with children who have been sexually abused. This campaign is against the showing of films that depict the rape, abuse, grooming and murder of children as false ‘preventative’ methods and as ‘interventions’ and so-called ‘direct work’.

I now have over 200 signatures and professional accounts and 8 accounts from children harmed by CSE films. This rises every day.

I first started receiving letters in Autumn 2017. Letters from young adults. Letters from parents. Letters from professionals. I then spoke to 5 children who had been harmed by CSE films.

Here is one from Kate, now 22 years old who wrote to me in November 2017: 

This latest letter was sent to me through my website on the 7th January 2018. Nothing has been edited, except for her name and her location.

Hello Jessica, I have recently seen your campaign on Twitter #nomoreCSEfilms and would like to share my personal experience of this.

As a child I worked with an organisation in XXXX and was shown the film ‘Sick Party.’ I remember the worker coming to my home, she brought her laptop and set it up on the dining room table.

We began to watch the DVD. I remember it being approx half an hour long, during this time I became very upset and panicky. She paused the film several times so I could ‘compose myself until we could continue.’ At the end of the film I was extremely upset and the worker seemed shocked how upset I was. She ended my visit earlier to ‘leave me to calm down’ and said she’d come see me next week, then she left.

I vividly remember feeling so confused, embarrassed and ashamed. At that time what I had just seen made me feel so angry at myself that I’d not kept myself ‘safe.’ I felt stupid that I hadn’t ‘seen the signs.’ I know I self harmed that night, the shame felt unbearable.

Obviously as an adult I now know I am not to blame and that film should never have been shown to me, in my own home and I certainly should not have been left so upset. I wondered if you knew about other ‘tools’ being used?

I specifically remember being told I would see a worker for 6 weeks and each week we would have a specific ‘topic’ to work on. This was set in stone with no negotiation. It was a set plan they worked from with children they supported. One week, she brought some cards. Each card had a ‘scenario’ on it, I then had to match up whether I thought this was ‘Okay’ ‘maybe Okay’ or ‘not okay’.

One scenario that I remember was along the lines of ‘I’m going to take and send a nude photograph’ another was ‘I am going to meet an older man after school.’ The point of the exercise was to look at ways of ‘keeping myself safe in the future’ – like it was my responsibility as a child that had already been abused to prevent it happening again.

This same organisation documented in my notes on discharge that I was ‘low risk’ of future CSE as I had ‘built resilience in sessions’… ‘I now understood the dangers and can make more informed choices in the future.’ It also states that because I came from a good family home, that my parents both had good jobs and that I didn’t present as ‘over sexualised’ I was low risk.

Unfortunately my abuse continued. When I was 18 I was diagnosed with ‘personality disorder’ by the NHS – I was also referred back to the same organisation who had shown me the film for more support. They wouldn’t accept me on the grounds the workers are not ‘mental health qualified.’ They refused to offer me any support as they weren’t a ‘mental health service.’ I find this completely wrong – as my mental health issues ie. low confidence/self esteem were a direct result of the CSE.

 If my experience can help with your campaign in anyway please let me know. I really hope no other child has to feel the upset I felt on the day I saw that film, it fills me with disgust this is allowed to happen.

It’s been refreshing to share it with you, many thanks.


I am sure that every practitioner, professional and policy maker in CSE would agree that the aim of direct work with children is not to make them feel silly, confused, embarrassed, ashamed, to blame – and then lead to self harming when you have left. These films are far too graphic, uninformed, based on anecdotal theory that showing children abuse will help them to understand what happened to them –  and finally, completely unethical.

I am disappointed to have to say that the film is still being used with children all over the UK. In fact, here is a photograph someone sent to me this week, to ask me whether this DVD is safe for children who have been sexually exploited. They had seen this poster and thought to contact me first, thankfully. I have highlighted in blue, the most concerning elements of the marketing.

sick party poster 2018aa



As you can see, the DVD is still being marketed as ‘essential viewing’ for children and young people. Essential viewing? For a child who has been raped and exploited? A ‘must have’ DVD if you work with young people?

The evidence is mounting. CSE films such as this one are unethical and untested. None of these films have an empirical basis and efficacy has never been tested. The films have never been evaluated and there is no data available to show us the impact of these films on children. Thousands of practitioners have been misled, and genuinely believe that showing a child a film of a child being abused and raped will help the child. I have set out advice and tips for those thinking of using or making a CSE film here:

I would like to take this space to thank Faye. Thank you for writing to me. I stand beside you and I completely agree that you should never have been shown this film, never have been assessed using completely untested CSE risk assessment toolkits on children to make decisions about their care and service provision (

I understand from talking to many people affected by CSE films, resources and risk assessment like this that the realisation that our professional practice harmed them, instead of helped them, is really difficult. They were told to trust us. They were told we were safe. They were told we wouldn’t blame or judge them.

I have said this before and I will say it again:

You can show these films to children now, and they might not protest. They might not understand. They might not have the power or strength to tell you to turn it off. They might not know they are having a panic attack. But one day, they will. Mark my words, one day, these children will be adults and they will look back on your practice. Please think about this.

Showing a DVD of a child being raped, after she/he has been raped – is child abuse.

This account from Faye is not unique or uncommon. Over 55,000 children were shown just one film in the Midlands in 2017 (Leicestershire Police) . Thousands of copies of Sick Party, My Dangerous Loverboy, Kayleighs Love Story and many others have been shown to tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of children across the UK.

This practice has to stop now. I’m not shutting up about this.

Dr Nina Burrowes, Professor Liz Kelly, Catherine Knibbs, Dr Alec Grant and 185 other professionals in the field of psychology, social care, psychotherapy and policing are ready to oppose this practice and reform the way we respond to victims of CSE.

Are you?

Sign the petition and watch my films here:


Written by Jessica Eaton, with special thanks to Faye for her experiences.



Stop asking me ‘what about men?’ 

Stop asking me ‘what about men?’ 

Everyone who follows my blog knows that my best work is written in rage, or port. But Christmas has gone now so no more port. 
Well, at least I still have rage. So back to that. 

Recently I have been getting increasingly frustrated with ‘whataboutery’ every single time I write or speak about women or girls. 
For those of you who don’t know what that word means, ‘whataboutery’ is when someone responds to a difficult issue or question with a counter issue or question that completely derails the conversation. 

Mai: My research focussed on the murder of women in Yemen 
Randomer: uh, this is a bit sexist. What about the murder of men in Yemen? Don’t you care about men? 

Example 2
Pam: I’m really upset with you for stealing from my purse 
Mel: What about that time you stole from the local shop? You’re not innocent either, you know! 
Pam: I was 9. 

Familiar with that? Yep? Thought you might be. Sometimes reminds me of gaslighting. 
Okay, so back to the rage. Rage that I need to put in context for this blog to make a jot of sense. 

Almost 5 years ago, my father in law died after we had tried everything to help him and begged every agency and service for help. We got the dreaded phone call from police to say they had found a body. It was his. We had to go and identify him. He was a very vulnerable adult struggling with addiction, homelessness and a very complicated trauma history. 

At his wake, my Husband and I decided to set up a charity for male mental health and well-being and we named it ‘The Eaton Foundation’ (TEF).

(Someone once laughed at me, ‘Bit narcissistic of you isn’t it, naming a foundation after yourself?’ and then went every shade of red whilst I told them it was my late Father in Law’s name.) 

So in 2013 we founded the charity, of which I am still the Chairperson. The charity only supports adult men. We grew exponentially. I mean – from like 10 men to 150 men in one year. In the second year of operation I managed to secure over £270k of funding and funded the renovation of a huge old derelict building which we turned into the first male mental health and well-being centre in the UK. 

My husband runs it on the day-to-day, along with his staff and volunteers. We now employ 6 people and have a further 9 volunteers. We see hundreds of men a year who benefit from completely free, lifelong support including counselling, benefits advice, food parcels, housing advocacy, legal advice, IT suite, music and band practice, employment clubs and training courses, fitness clubs, art therapy and so on. Some guys have been coming every day for years. Our clientele is between 18 and 85 years old from every walk of life you can imagine. 

Why am I telling you this? 

Because in those 5 years, I have NEVER received the amount of abuse and ‘whataboutery’ that I get for my work and research with women and girls. 
Most of you know me for my work with women and girls and my controversial tumble into CSE. My PhD focusses on the victim blaming of women and girls in society which includes one of the largest ever literature reviews of every factor in society that supports victim blaming of women and girls (I do mean every factor I could find evidence for – from porn to Hinduism). 

I have a career history in rape centre management and criminal justice management of vulnerable and intimidated witness programmes, which is where I built my experience and knowledge of sexual violence, homicides, trafficking and other serious crimes across my courts. 

I launched a study last year, exploring the many different forms of victim blaming women and girls can experience. Over 700 people responded. My other recent studies have included interviewing women who have been blamed for rape and abuse, interviewing therapists and support workers who work with women who blame themselves for being abused or attacked and a complex study in which I developed and validated a new psychometric measure of victim blaming of women. 
I honestly cannot express how much whataboutery I get. 

Here are some real examples: 

‘Don’t you think you’re being sexist by only writing about women in this article?’

‘This article is good but where are your studies on men?’ 

‘I don’t condone murder but don’t you think you are gender biased, only caring about the murders of women?’ 

‘You can tell the psychologist who wrote this study is a sexist bitch who hates men’

‘This study was ridiculous. All you care about is women! What about men?’

‘You should have your PhD removed. This is so sexist. None of your research is about men.’

‘By only caring about women, you basically say that all men are rapists.’

‘This is great Jessica! But I wonder if you can now build one of these for boys and men and why they aren’t included in the first place?’

‘Why do you only focus on women? Men can get abused as well, you know!’

‘What about men, cunt?’

Honestly, I could go on forever and ever. 

In fact, I did one study where there was a free text question at the end and a whopping 9% of respondents chose to use that box to criticise me for not researching men. I say whopping because the free text box didn’t even ask them a question about that and 63 people still managed to use the box to whack in some ‘whataboutery’. 
Not only that but a further 14% (over 90 people) left comments that were just plain nasty or abusive. One guy told me that my work was shit and he hopes I fail my PhD. And then left his full name and job title. He was an academic at a university. In my field. He even put some kisses on. 
And what perplexes me about all of this, is that I have no such experiences of running TEF. 

I can’t tell you about the hundreds of messages or tweets we get asking ‘what about women?’ – because it’s never happened. 

I don’t have any stories about the times we got sent a tonne of abuse when we conducted research with general public in the community about male mental health stigma – because it’s never happened. 
I can switch over to the TEF twitter account right now and write literally anything about men and nothing bad will ever happen. Our Facebook page has thousands of followers and we never get threats, abuse or whataboutery. 

Fair enough, my Twitter is currently at about 4.5k followers but my teeny tiny Facebook page is only on a few hundred followers and I get between 10-20 abusive messages and comments a week – almost exclusively comments about me focusing on women and girls – which usually results in me being called a ‘fat, ugly feminist cunt’ or something along those eloquent lines. 

Recently this has all caused me to reflect. 

Why don’t I get any abuse when I speak and write about men and boys? 
Why am I hailed? 

Why did we win 6 charity awards and over £300k in the first 18 months of operation? 

Why did I end up on every TV channel and radio in the UK? Why can I launch studies and campaigns and videos and appeals for TEF about male mental health and receive ZERO whataboutery comments?

And why do I get shouted down if I even dare post one tweet about violence against women or rape statistics or murders of women by partners? 

Why do I get hundreds of messages and tweets every week asking me:
‘But what about men?’ 

And actually, this isn’t rocket science. This is uncomfortable but it’s real talk:

Women are socialised into their gender roles (gender roles are harmful, narrow, stereotypical characteristics and expectations assigned to males and females to conform to a societal norm) to not even possess a shred of the sense of entitlement that men have. Women do not read a campaign about male mental health or male abuse or male cancers and furiously tweet back ‘what about women, you cunt?!’ because they didn’t think about themselves when they read it. They didn’t see the campaign as two fingers up to women.

Perfect example: Movember. 

Have you EVER in your life seen women kicking off that Movember is sexist? Or that the campaign should include women? Or that focusing on testicular cancer is exclusionary? No. Have you fuck. 

Second perfect example: Male suicide rates. 

We know that the leading cause of death in young men aged 18-35 is suicide. This is the strongest symptom of a patriarchal society where emotionless males struggle to cope with trauma and feelings, can’t open up, don’t feel safe to talk and become completely overwhelmed by emotions they are taught are ‘feminine’, which further induces shame and stigma. 
In all my years I have never seen women jump on those campaigns yelling ‘women commit suicide too, you know!!’ Or ‘what about women?’ 

Switch it over. Women’s marches. Pussy hats. IWD. Counting dead women. VAWG strategies. Women’s health screening. Women’s reproductive health. Women’s mental health. Rape campaigns. #metoo. 

There is ALWAYS someone saying ‘what about men though?’ under all of those issues. It’s as sure as taxes and death. 

Like a depressing new catchphrase nobody wants:

There’s only three things you can be certain of in life: taxes, death and some randomer yelling ‘what about men?’ every time you talk about women’s issues.’

‘Whataboutery’ comes from a place of misogyny. An arrogant, derailing technique used to respond to a campaign, video, research study, intervention, organisation or communication that screams ‘I don’t care about women, talk about men!!’ 
And the proof is in the pudding for me. Because when I do all those things with a focus on boys and men, I’m a fucking hero. But when I do all of those things and focus on girls and women, I’m a fat, ugly feminist cunt. 

So I need to explain something else. This is not about equality. ‘Whataboutery’ has nothing to do with equality. It’s not about reminding us that men suffer too. Social issues aren’t equal. 

When I write a tweet about women being murdered or raped, I didn’t forget men. I didn’t forget they could be murdered or raped. I didn’t accidentally miss them off my tweet. I simply CHOSE to talk about the experiences of females. It is not helpful, or clever, or promoting ‘equality’ to write to a researcher specialising in women’s studies and tell her in three paragraphs why she should focus on men. 

It is not useful to ‘send a gentle reminder than men can get raped too, you know’. 
If you’re reading this and you know you have done this to someone, please think twice before doing it again. It’s not helpful. It’s derailing. 
We do not need to centre men in every conversation we have. Women and girls are valid entities, independent from men.
We need to get to a point where we can talk about women’s issues and get the same level of respect we get when we talk about men’s issues. 
Until then, your ‘Whataboutery’ is unwelcome here. 

What about that? 

Written by Jessica Eaton 


My free videos at

My new book is out in September 2018 – go to for the teaser! 

How to protect children from chicken nugget related sex offences

How to protect children from chicken nugget related sex offences

I am often commissioned to give speeches or to teach about the ‘risks’ and ‘vulnerabilities’ of children who are sexually abused and exploited. Mainly because I oppose this approach and professionals are becoming increasingly curious as to what I can teach them about the fallacy that children have inherent vulnerabilities or take specific risks that would mean they are sexually abused by someone – otherwise known as ‘victim blaming’.

Professionals in the UK have been led to believe that hundreds of ‘indicators’ increase the chances of being sexually exploited and abused, which has led to children being positioned as both the problem and the solution in CSE and CSA. Interventions, campaigns and programmes of work focus on changing the child to make them less… ‘abusable’?

So whilst we are all sitting around tables discussing how we can make 13 year old Layla less ‘promiscuous’ and ‘take less risks’ – we ignore the fact that all of the risks and all of the danger comes from the sex offender, not Layla. Layla is a victim of serious crime. Layla doesn’t need to change.

So how does this argument link to chicken nuggets?


2017-12-08 (2)

Yep. You read that right. A forensic psychologist lifted the lid on new techniques being used by sex offenders to crawl children’s profiles by creating facebook pages of popular foods that children like, in the hope that they join the page.

So, here I am, reading this recent news story about sex offenders posing as chicken nuggets online to groom children. And it made me think about how ridiculous some of our responses to CSE truly are, when you consider how we try to place responsibility and blame children for being abused by adults that are so intent on abusing them, they will literally pretend to be chicken nuggets. I started to think about how the field of CSE had reacted in knee-jerk fashion to cases of sexual offences in the past – and had developed interventions, models, programmes and risk assessments based on anecdotal cases like this.

So lets apply this scenario to our beloved ‘models of CSE’ (which have thankfully been well and truly debunked this year).

The models of CSE, advocated by multiple national charities, statutory agencies and police forces in the UK – are used to categorise the type of CSE the child is being targeted through. However, I have recently written about the fact that the models are not held up by any evidence, science or data whatsoever – and the authors managed to ignore decades of brilliant research on sex offender theory, methodology, grooming techniques and typologies. But people continue to use the models of CSE in their risk assessments and CSE training all over the UK. So, I’ve made them a new one.

2017-12-08 (3)

I know, I know. Stupid right?

Well, I wish everyone thought that adding anecdotal evidence to incorrectly used venn diagrams was stupid but unfortunately, we have been working in CSE for over 8 years with these ‘models of CSE’ that make as much sense as the new ‘posing as chicken nuggets model’. Take the ‘boyfriend model’ for example. We are talking about adults who groom children to rape them and traffic them – and organisations named the model ‘boyfriend model’? A model which specifically positions a male offender, a female victim, a heteronormative stereotype of abuse that ignores female sex offenders, same sex abuse and male victims. A model that reframes the abuse as a relationship rather than a crime. Despite the model name being so problematic, no one changed it. And don’t even get me started on the ‘inappropriate relationship model’ of CSE –

“Aren’t they all inappropriate?” A social worker asked me once. I sighed and nodded.

The reality is, the models of CSE have as much evidence base as my ‘posing as chicken nuggets model’ – because the models of CSE have been based on anecdotes and general practice language as the field has tried to respond to the sexual exploitation of children. One of the major problems in CSE is that cases are being taken as the rule, generalised across all cases of sex offending and then all children (and all offenders) and being labelled and categorised and then responded to in the same way – ignoring the nuances of each case.

And what about the heavily-used ‘grooming line’? (Thankfully, another piece that has been debunked as oversimplified and not based in evidence).

How does posing as chicken nuggets online fit into the grooming line in which sex offenders are all homogeneous characters who target children, build a friendship with them, trick them into a relationship and then start sexually abusing them?

This maybe?

2017-12-08 (5)

Clearly, it would be stupid to teach this to professionals all over the UK, to tell them that all sex offenders pose as chicken nuggets and all chicken nuggets should be suspected to be possible sex offenders. But the real grooming line HAS been used in this uniform way. Thousands of practitioners in social care have been trained using a grooming line which is so oversimplified, some practitioners do not know that most sex offenders do not actually spend months carefully grooming children to meet with them in dingy bus stations to abuse them. Some practitioners show confusion when I show them real cases of child sexual offences where the offender didn’t even bother grooming the child – and quickly threatened them or blackmailed them instead. Some practitioners still do not know that most sex offenders do not pose as children online, they are actually much more likely to be themselves and tell the children that they are adults.

The grooming line, which is as evidence based as my chicken nugget grooming line above, has influenced the understanding (read: misunderstanding) of sex offending throughout all of social care and even some police forces.

Not only practitioners, but thousands of children have been taught the ‘grooming line’, too – resulting in children (and young adults) completely misunderstanding grooming and manipulation. This is our fault. We have taught children faulty concepts, oversimplified models of grooming and then built resources and interventions around them. Not all sex offenders pose as chicken nuggets online – and not all sex offenders will slowly and carefully groom children, make them feel special, trick them into thinking they are in a relationship and then start harming them. The grooming line assumes all sex offenders groom children in the same way, and that the ‘harm’ comes at the end of the process, rather than acknowledging that the whole process is harm.

Finally, how on earth do we protect children from chicken-nugget-paedophiles? 

With DVDs about chicken nuggety dangers, of course!

2017-12-08 (6)

If I have learned anything from the field of CSE, it’s that all sex offending can be solved by showing children graphic films of sex offending. Because as I said earlier – children are seen as the problem and the solution in CSE. (See my #nomoreCSEfilms campaign for more details – that’s real, the nugget DVD is not).

When I mock up a DVD cover like the one for ‘Layla’s Nugget Story’ – it seems ridiculous doesn’t it? The blurb says ‘A film to raise awareness and help children protect themselves from sex offenders posing as chicken’.

The film shows the ‘story’ of Layla, who loves chicken nuggets. She’s just a normal 14 year old white girl (because all of the CSE films are about them) – but she loves nuggets. All of her friends love nuggets. They go to places where they can eat nuggets. She loves nuggets so much that one day, she found a facebook page devoted to chicken nuggets. She ‘liked’ the page. But little did she know… the page was actually a sex offender, posing as chicken nuggets online to steal her profile info and her selfies – so he can blackmail her with them into performing sex acts on webcam.

Silly Layla, she should have known that the chicken nugget facebook page was actually a sex offender. If only she had watched this DVD.

The DVD is shown to thousands of children, who are all now deemed at risk from chicken nugget facebook pages because… kids love nuggets and kids love facebook. The children watch the DVD in which Layla is sexually exploited, distressed and harmed by the chicken nugget offender. Practitioners stand around saying things like ‘this will help the children recognise the signs of chicken nugget offenders and help them to protect themselves from abuse’ and ‘kids these days, they need to know the harsh reality about the risks of chicken nuggets’. Practitioners tell each other that this will help the children protect themselves from chicken nugget offenders and nominate each other for awards for their ingenuity.

After the DVD, the kids are asked questions about what they could do differently in the future to make sure they are never targeted by chicken nugget sex offenders. Boys and girls put their hands up, and are praised for the following correct answers:

“I will never eat chicken nuggets again”

“I will never like a facebook page about fast food again”

“I will become a vegan”

“If my friends like a page on facebook that has fast food on it, I will tell a teacher”

“Layla shouldn’t have added the nuggets page in the first place, then none of this would have happened to her.”

“Layla should have told someone that the chicken nuggets were exploiting her, then someone could have helped her.”

I know – they all seem really stupid answers. They all blame Layla for what happened. They place responsibility on her to have known that a chicken nugget facebook page could be a sex offender.

But these answers are the types of answers we are expecting and praising when the real CSE films are shown to children in our schools and services. Children are asked plenary questions like ‘what would you do in this situation?’ and ‘what should she have done differently?’ or ‘what could she have done to keep herself safe from the abusers?’

Children are reward-oriented and suffer from adult-pleasing because we bring them up in a culture where they are supposed to please us and satisfy us at all times; even when we are talking utter bubbles. So, despite the fact that we are teaching thousands of children to blame the victims in the videos and develop a new, emboldened victim blaming culture in our next generation – they give us the answers they think we want to hear.

They know that practitioners do not want them to put their hand up and hear them say:

“Being sexually abused is never the victim’s fault and you shouldn’t be advocating victims to change their lives and behaviours so they don’t get abused – you should be changing the behaviours and attitudes of sex offenders and you should be improving the criminal justice system!”

So what the chicken nugget has this got to do with anything? Why the chicken nugget satire article?

Because I will not stand for anymore of this palatable, careful, professional, implicit, subtle victim blaming of children – where we come up with more and more models, theories and CSE films that place responsibility on the children to protect themselves from sex offenders. When I saw that sex offenders were creating facebook pages to pose as chicken nuggets, my mind wandered to how the field of CSE would respond to that…

Would they teach the kids to be wary of all chicken nuggets?

Would they make films about chicken nuggets and show them to thousands of children?

Would they create websites and posters about chicken nuggets?

Would they create new models and theories about chicken nugget sex offenders?

Would they add ‘likes chicken nuggets’ to the CSE risk assessment toolkits?

Would they develop resources about staying safe from chicken nuggets online?

Or would they finally come to the realisation that sex offenders will try anything they can think of to groom children (even posing as chicken nuggets) – and that children can never be expected to predict, preempt and protect themselves from sex offenders?

It is time we realised that children cannot influence or stop a sex offender who is abusing them. 

 (Layla’s Nugget Story and the Chicken Nugget Handbook is £294, it will totally help protect children from nugget-related-offences. Honest.)

Written by Jessica Eaton – Doctoral Researcher in Forensic Psychology of Victim Blaming

Tweet: @JessicaE13Eaton