M&S/furries/school kids

the Internet does not have to be on 24/7 you do not have to let your child have access to it or there phone all the time

'Their' phone?

You might not have noticed this, but in many ways a phone is similar to a 'book' and can be carried around and shown to other people. Quite clever really.

the Internet does not have to be on 24/7 you do not have to let your child have access to it or there phone all the time. I know that you can not protect them from everything and educating them about the dangers is far better than provention. At some point they are going to see it and they need to know what to do.

Bespin, do you have children?

and the children that have a parent or guardian who will not take on that role are being let down by them and by the rest of society if we are not supporting them.

In the real world there are no easy answers, parents cannot be with their children 24 hours a day, the internet is usually accessed on small portable devices, and a struggling parent who loves their child is still usually a better parent than the state.

Therefore we have safeguarding procedures and rules that are designed to protect all children and we don't just assume that they are somebody else's responsibility.

the state apoints a legal parent who as that perental responcability, and more should be done to educate parents around how to minimise the dangers of the Internet for young people. how to set stuff up like filters, or control the router or password protect it.

and not parents’ fault for not supervising their children’s internet use.

Again, if you give all responsibility for child protection to parents, what happens to the children who don't have a responsible parent on hand 24/7?

many children do not have a parent or guardian who can or will take that responsibility, and those children matter too.

All children should have a responsible parent or guardian who does take on that role, and the children that have a parent or guardian who will not take on that role are being let down by them and by the rest of society if we are not supporting them.

the Internet is not a place to allow young children to just wonder around in without supervision, just like the real world but I suppose it keeps them quite for a while so it's ok. At least get some content filters or something and maybe think about limiting usage so that young people can go out into the real world once in a while.

I do not think that this campaign has anything to do with furries.

However, you cannot give all responsibility for safeguarding to parents because for many reasons many children do not have a parent or guardian who can or will take that responsibility, and those children matter too.

remember when the Internet first came out and people had the main computer in the living room so they could supervise there children's use of it, that they could only use it under supervision. Well that all appears to have gone out the window.

the Internet is not a place to allow young children to just wonder around in without supervision, just like the real world but I suppose it keeps them quite for a while so it's ok. At least get some content filters or something and maybe think about limiting usage so that young people can go out into the real world once in a while.

The M&S adverts interest me because of the use of the word "wild", a word that is used by the cults that I research, usually when promoting your inner "wild woman" or "wild self", a self connected to the laws of nature rather than the boring old laws of the land.

However I would not jump to the conclusion that these M&S ads are luring kids into cults any more than the summer clothes rage for kids at a local supermarket (which this year featured mermaids and unicorns) is luring kids into transgenderism and polyamory.

I think it is important to notice how the themes, symbols and terms used by cults and fringe subcultural groups turn up in advertisements and children’s clothing ranges and to wonder why, but not to jump to conclusions as these things are complex.

Undoubtably some PR and advertising creatives are involved with cults. The extent to which they influence the imagery and narratives that appear in advertisements is difficult to determine. It could be that they simply make use of memes, symbols and narratives that are part of the zeitgeist in both advertising and in cult recruitment.

Why, for example, did Gillette Venus, for many years produce adverts inviting women to awaken / discover there "inner goddess" through using their products when this narrative was also used by cults involved in the sexual exploitation of women and children?

Adverts like this one for example

In fact Gillette Venus really ran with the whole "reveal your inner goddess" narrative beloved of abusive cults. For example, this Venus Goddess Ambassador initiative

Fairly recently the official Gillette Venus youtube channel removed all of the "goddess" themed adverts from their youtube channel. Gillette then embarked upon a commercially disastrous campaign about toxic masculinity.

If you want to find the Venus Goddess themed averts you have to find them on the youtube channels unrelated to Gillette. I have a load of them saved and downloaded in case they get them taken down via cease and desist notices.

Back to the furry issue

I do not believe that the M&S adverts are anything to do with furries.

These Orangina adverts are not only blatantly furry focussed but are also very obviously fetish orientated and quite WTF is going on with the creatives who ran with this I can only imagine

The above advert is also helpful in understanding the concept of the “transformational object” and how it works in advertising. In the advert Orangina is a magic substance that not only refreshes and hydrates but that cleans floors, works as a deodorant, clears up bad skin and generally does everything a transformational object is meant to, it clears blockages, gets rid of the bad and strengthens the good. or something

I'm not having a go at anyone but curious to know how would a kid even know what to do with things from ann summers. I mean to get to things like that you have to have a Id that says your over 18, why would a kid go on there anyways

I could say the exact same thing about puppy fetish sites. But apparently having the word “puppy” in the title makes them irresistibly enticing to young children and impossible to distinguish from cute baby animals, despite looking like this (link is SFW, most images that come up on google aren’t):

www.google.ca/amp/s/www.queerty.com/growing-trend-puppy-play-proof-men-can-dogs-20160523/amp

I don’t know, I look at the stuff that comes up if you do a google image search and it is clearly not stuff aimed at children. But apparently people’s five year olds are finding it on the internet and watching it, and that is puppy fetishists’ fault for existing, or maybe the internet’s fault for existing, and not parents’ fault for not supervising their children’s internet use.

And there we have it, children deserve it if they find it / see it / do it.

No, you are a shit parent if you put your primary aged child in a position where they can access porn (which is presumably what we are talking about if we are talking about children being groomed by fluffy animal cartoons, no fifteen year old is going to be searching the Internet for that).

You need to supervise what your kids are browsing, and if they find a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog having sex with Mario, that is YOUR fault as a parent, not the Internet’s fault.

The similarity with Momo was the mass panic about young children accessing inappropriate material, with a complete disavowal of any parental responsibility for that having happened.

If you let your children search for cartoons online with no restrictions or supervision, you deserve all you get frankly. How the fuck are you letting your children find puppy porn online? You are surely not letting a child browse Deviantart unsupervised, forget furries there is plenty of normal porn on there.

And there we have it, children deserve it if they find it / see it / do it.

no it has nothing to do with ann summers at all, and second no Its not like momo. On the subject of that, there two different things and if anybody did research into "momo" it's an art piece called "mother of birds". There not connected at all.

I'm not having a go at anyone but curious to know how would a kid even know what to do with things from ann summers. I mean to get to things like that you have to have a Id that says your over 18, why would a kid go on there anyways?

Children wouldn’t differentiate between puppy cartoons and furry cartoons they saw online

If you let your children search for cartoons online with no restrictions or supervision, you deserve all you get frankly. How the fuck are you letting your children find puppy porn online? You are surely not letting a child browse Deviantart unsupervised, forget furries there is plenty of normal porn on there.

Are the fluffy handcuffs on sale in Ann Summers ok, or are they evilly luring unsuspecting children into S&M too? Some things are just not meant for children. It’s your job as a parent to keep them away from porn, not to expect them to know it on sight and avoid it themselves and then complain when they can’t tell the difference.

This is like Momo all over again isn’t it?

I’m still pretty unclear about what furries are.

Are they people who like to dress up as strangely muscular furry animals?

I can’t see that it has anything at all to do with gay puppies.

OP i just saw this campaign on Facebook and wow people really hate it!
Tonnes of comments saying how creepy it is, and a much smaller number saying "Eh?".

https://www.facebook.com/67341283611/posts/10156999662558612?s=666630373&sfns=mo

@PancakeAndKeith, it's okay dont worry. It's more of the puppy stuff which is alot worse but the main sort of art. I know what you mean, there is a difference but it is hard to tell it part at times.

Theres much worse out there than furries, I can tell you that 100%

Well that’s ok then.

Sorry for confusing furries and puppies. It hard to tell all this stuff apart.

what kind of people let there kids lose on that in the first place, just wondering?

The issue is using cartoon characters, obviously known to children, in child like styles depicting sexual stuff.
It can be found in image searches.

@CaptainKirksSpookyghost I didn't find that one, I did have safe search on. I'm not sure if that's why it didn't show up for me.

@CaptainKirksSpookyghist Ok, I will admit I forgot about devintart but what kind of people let there kids lose on that in the first place, just wondering?

Thank you for seeing where I come from with the advertising side of this.

www.ecosia.org/images?q=Bugs+bunny+lola

5th image down.