Audi drops not to subtle paedophile car advert!

The only thing I said was that I don’t believe they would have purposely designed it with peadophiles in mind!!

Okay. So on that basis, do you think it's an okay addition to have on that doll?

For anyone that thinks that , I suggest they head on to twitter and look at MAP accounts. Full discussions about porn(an images,dick pics etc) ,fantasies and ages they are attracted to , as low as 4. Discussions about lowering the age if consent to 8. Accounts that are very active , with fairly big followings and that are allowed to stand. It doesn't get more public than that.

Agreed, (Minor Attracted Person) is common on Twitter. To the point where I often see young people deliberately saying "Unfollow me if you're a TERF, Nazi, MAP"

Read up on Lolicon anime. Popular culture is worming its way towards paedophilia acceptance. www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pharrell-williamss-lolicon-girl

@NotDonna

sunrise even thinks the doll is ok!

Are you kidding?! Where have I put that I think the doll is ok?

The only thing I said was that I don’t believe they would have purposely designed it with peadophiles in mind!!

That‘s the thing Sourbiquet. If the bottom button is nothing to get worked up about, why isn‘t it advertised on the box...

Let’s hypothetically say the button on the poppy doll is ok because its activated by her sitting down

Why isn’t it advertised on the box?
Why is she in different colours?
What child do you know that giggles and gasps when they sit down?

Seriously, no wonder people get away with this sort of thing when people do not call it out and fall over themselves to find excuses for it

And you do?

It hardly matters what my job is or where my safeguarding knowledge comes from, at least I see the issues you are completely missing.
And you are missing the very obvious clues that this advert is wrong on many levels.
And you keep on at this, despite being so wrong. Then you add that you teach and many of us despair for children if this is the quality of safeguarding in teaching.
Poor bloody kids forever being let down cos a teacher either cba to listen about safeguarding or completely minimises the whole thing. Thinks they know better than years of research tells us.

FWIW I was in a role that required safeguarding training a few years ago, everything I learned then chimed with me, probably because of my history of CSA and grooming gangs.

I posed on the other thread and mentioned the science of marketing.

This quote is pertinent:

"“No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

As is this definition:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normality

Which came up in another context on another thread.

Keeping large populations in line requires very careful manipulation, a bigger scale implementation of getting someone to do something by making them think it's really their own idea and therefore perfectly acceptable.

Since the population of the modern (developed) world no longer has to worry so much about being eaten / starving to death / being wiped out by other tribes (yes, broad generalisations but applicable) status and economic security are big drivers in people's lives, and there is money to be made from manipulating people into aspiration. But not too much, hence the inherent difficulty of working hard and "making it big". If it doesn't happen, buy another book, do another course, it's your failing - even if external influences are genuine blocks to one's progress.

Advertising and marketing are sciences geared to the psychological nudging of the masses, and have codes and formulas that are proven to work.

It's fascinating and chilling.

Where a pushback occurs, there may be a retraction of a contentious idea for a time - while the drawing board is re-visited and the formula tweaked - but the challenge of getting that idea accepted can be a powerful driver in the minds of those tasked with getting it out there - both on an egotistical level and if one's own livelihood / stability depends on it. Hence the fear of going public when disagreeing with things that one might privately think / feel / believe are incorrect or even harmful. If one's very survival appears to depend on "right think" one can rationalise that until a big enough group also voice their displeasure / concern. When it becomes "something one can't quite puts one finger one" as the concern, it becomes even more tricky.

It's just a banana, right?

I am not at all familiar with the guidlines/training teachers get regarding safeguarding. I think without a robust structure the issues can be daunting (I remember when I was a child my Dad, a teacher, had navigate the issue of a 12 year old who had confided in their classmates that her Considerably older cousin may have impregnated her. The classmates told the teacher... it was not easy for him to get her the support she needed. Everyone washed their hands. I doubt that cousin was ever removed from her orbit).
I would like to think teachers these days have better instruments and training to address these issues. That said, in my neck of the woods (continental Europe) teachers recently were brought before court, as they hadn‘t intervened in the rape of a girl by a group of boys in a shed on school grounds. This had been preceded by the boys blocking the girl in the toilet and other harrassment. When the girl had told those teachers they had dismissed it as ‚bad excuse for being late‘. I hope this type of failure is the exception, though.

(Sorry for the tangent).

believe that more people would be commenting if they weren’t going to be labelled as pleasing the peados or having their training questioned

Oh behave

People are being called paedophiles cos they have an issue

I’m flabbergasted that people can’t see the issue.

That's because a lot of people don't look at things in context and the bigger picture, rather than small elements that on their own would be ok. Bar the banana, not even because of what it symbolises, but because there's no need to be there. It adds nothing to the add , if all it is is just a piece of fruit.

Also, for years there has been a massive backlash against people speaking out against the sexualisation of children. Basically, if you see the problem then you are/have a problem. It's very prevalent on this thread as well. So a lot of people have been trained to either shut up, or pretend / tell themselves there's nothing wrong.

There's also this false belief that it would never happen, and if it does it's not as prevalent or it wouldn't be in public eye. A PP said something like this earlier. For anyone that thinks that , I suggest they head on to twitter and look at MAP accounts. Full discussions about porn(an images,dick pics etc) ,fantasies and ages they are attracted to , as low as 4. Discussions about lowering the age if consent to 8. Accounts that are very active , with fairly big followings and that are allowed to stand. It doesn't get more public than that.

Wow. Just revisited this thread and found the troll doll vid.

The very fact that they don‘t describe the ‚between the legs‘ Button on the Box the doll is sold in says it all.
Clearly the company understood the button was too controverial to advertise. (Those boxes usually point out even the smallest of functions and gimmicks, as we all know).
Yet the Clearly controversial button stayed on the doll, fully functioning. Just not advertised as being there.

This is so absurd, I‘m almost inclined to revisit those deranged conservative youtubers‘ clips who get worked up over rainbow colors on children‘s toys. Crazy as they may be, this kind of toys would totally fall into their predictions.

Is the world going Crazy?

The doll isn’t for children. It’s for adults. Someone in that company is pushing the boundaries. We know what is insinuates - a button on her genitalia. Might as well put a penis there that can be rubbed - same thing.

That doll is beyond belief! And just goes to show how far things can go!

sunrise even thinks the doll is ok!

I'm baffled how anyone can see that doll as anything other than creepy as fuck.

I’m flabbergasted that people can’t see the issue. I’m especially worried that sunrise works in education and would miss all these red flags despite training. Fuck!

twitter.com/SamParkerSenate/status/1290986237315039232?s=09

There is something very odd going on with that doll because she is official merchandise for a film, with different hair and clothing from the star character. Normally, that just does not happen. Toys are exact replicas of film characters. That's the point of official merchandise.

Which is why I would be against her provocatively leaning on the bonnet staring at the camera in inappropriate clothing or make up as this IS what car companies have done with women to sell cars.

Perhaps you should read that paedophile manual. That's certainly not something they would ever suggest. As it is far too obvious and does nothing to normalise the insidious creep of sexualising children.

The point about all of this is that there is plausible deniability. So trying to nail down accountability will often be completely futile.

Something which that paedophile instruction manual explains at length.

The whole reason they talk about desensitisation is so that you don't just jump up and down in outrage, and get someone arrested. It's so that these images, and discussion around them, happen more often, and more comments like, I think that's wrong, or I don't see that, or you're just being a prude, become commonplace to the point of banality.

Personally, I couldn't care less if people are disagreeing that it's sexual. As long as enough people see it as the moving of the Overton window it is, and the process is stopped.

I think she's dreaming of driving the car. The banana is a red herring, so to speak.

Shame its such a lame people mover and not the sports car she deserves.

A child shouldn't be posed or styled in a way that could even suggest a hint of sexualisation for an adult gaze and it’s evident from the general response that many, many people can see that is what has been done when considering the wider context of society and accepted imagery.

I 100% agree that a child shouldn’t be posed or styled in a way that suggests a hint of sexualisation. Which is why I would be against her provocatively leaning on the bonnet staring at the camera in inappropriate clothing or make up as this IS what car companies have done with women to sell cars.

But just as many people either don’t find it sexually offensive OR want it banned because it is dangerous at she’s standing in front of the car.
A few people have said on this thread that they don’t agree it is sexual and I believe that more people would be commenting if they weren’t going to be labelled as pleasing the peados or having their training questioned. If you look on SM you can see that it is quite an even 1/3 split.

I am genuinely interested in the reasons behind why people think it is sexual and why is it that those who have more training in spotting red flags are seemingly more likely to think it is not sexual.

I worked in a school a few years ago, and I had training in this - and a small girl eating a banana, posing in that pose, even in a school playground, would have rung bells in my mind

So were bananas banned on your school then or the playground?
My school allows bananas still and I’ve not heard any other school banning them. Are they allowed to hold them? As the girl wasn’t eating the banana in any of the photos?

Your life might revolve around children, but your safeguarding skills are way off

If it was just me then i may agree with you but as I’ve said and as you can see other people also do not see a sexual element to it including those working in safeguarding.

It doesn't work like that. Look at the doll situation. A button on her genitals which makes sexy sounds.

The troll doll is ridiculous and I’m in agreement it should be pulled from the shelves. It is hard enough to teach little ones about private areas without things like that.
But the button is not designed to be touched it is designed that the doll makes noises when it sits down.

It was a very bad judgement on their part and god knows how it got to the shelves but I do not believe for one second it was done with peados in mind or to sexualise children as again their target audience are parents, their entire brand is aimed at parents with young children so they’re not going to purposely do anything that will stop them getting money.

The same as the mermaid t-shirt. Do I think it should be pulled off shelves? Absolutely!
Do I think Tesco did it purposely just to offend or start a race war? Absolutely not!

I’m annoyed that there are people questioning my training when my entire life revolves around children. My colleagues who have a more hands on safe guarding role also don’t see an issue but it is not because they are peado pleasers. - your training should have included how to spot sexualisation in children.

I worked in a school a few years ago, and I had training in this - and a small girl eating a banana, posing in that pose, even in a school playground, would have rung bells in my mind. If a child is sexualised to the extent that she is doing this, then she is most likely being abused, or at least exposed to abuse (which is the same thing).

Your life might revolve around children, but your safeguarding skills are way off. You are potentially missing all sorts of red flags. You need more training to be able to spot these and protect them, not just teach them.