Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

As Fred West is in the papers again, I think this is a sobering reminder that porn can warp minds and 'kinks' can hide a darker purpose.
Childline and society in general should not be promoting BDSM is fun, kids, don't be so vanilla.
When Fred's victims were discovered buried alongside sexual paraphernalia it was a clear indication to the public that he was twisted and the crimes were sexually motivated.

I can't help but think that the things he did (tying up, choking etc) are the exact things that are so mainstream now to criticize them risks the accusation of 'kink shaming'.
They used to be red flags. We should be confronting the acceptance of rough sex etc. as normal not celebrating it.

Engage with the content. Nahhh.

And now look at this Polyamory, shagging hyenas and 3 biological sexes: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4225794-AIBU-to-think-school-children-should-not-be-taught-that-there-are-3-biological-sexes-and-be-shown-cartoons-of-shagging-hyenas?watched=1

They work with children, they're allegedly role models yet when something like this gets through (and I accept it originated with Childline) they can never say "we'll try to take this down" or "we regret this was associated with our name".

It’s disingenuous of them though to say it originated with Childline, the NSPCC owns and operates Childline, they have full management control and the publicity and communications teams are NSPCC teams. They have absolute control over what is shown on the Childline website and could have it taken down in seconds - they don’t need to “try”, the whole service belongs to them.

Yet, we even had a sexual health educator of young people telling us they would use it in their sessions.

Though the worst bit of that is that that individual has been allowed to have that position as they seem devoid of any safeguarding knowledge and not only lack knowledge of equalities legislation but promote activities that are in direct opposition to it. Their view of appropriate boundaries seems to have been distorted by childhood abuse. They should be nowhere near children or young people.

MissBarbary

I think some posters ‘glossed’ over the bad aspects too. It is clear that they have no coherent points to defend this video. Yet, we even had a sexual health educator of young people telling us they would use it in their sessions.

Because I can't otherwise think how you came to this conclusion. It started off on the assumption porn was fine and normal and ended up with the suggestion that you'll be just fine , just don't overdo.

It glossed over the bad aspects. It made no mention of trafficking, the risk of physical injury and the impossibility of knowing whether participants were truly consenting

Rabbit thank you for sharing there thread. I'd just come on to post it. It's truly horrendous to see it all written down. And I know there is worse to come when the review of their education materials is published.

Thank you Rabbit.
Fascinating how yet again, where porn is involved (thinking of the NSPCC's wanking rubber man) they can never acknowledge responsibility. They work with children, they're allegedly role models yet when something like this gets through (and I accept it originated with Childline) they can never say "we'll try to take this down" or "we regret this was associated with our name".
So depressing.

I'm adding this excellent Twitter thread 2falls - in which SSA details the interactions they've had with Childline/NSPCC over the video. I'd say it's incredibly lax of them as an organisation protecting children to fall back on the defence that it was posted some time ago - without being clear that it should not be associated with them any more and stating that organisations shouldn't be using it claiming it has their endorsement:

twitter.com/safeschools_uk/status/1384234109019463690?s=21

Great guidance 2falls, thank you.

Just adding this there in case this has raised any issues where people feel they need to complain to their school: : safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/04/16/how-to-complain-to-your-childs-school/

So, a failure against curriculum too really.

Not to provide material to others that they would not want shared further and not to share personal material which is sent to them

"Is it covered? No it is directly in opposition by saying porn can be shared as a joke."

This is one of the (many) things that stood out. It could be hugely compromising.

Oh and this is assuming that the video is aimed at the oldest children in secondary, which the video does not make clear.

It's obviously grossly inappropriate to teach ks4 content to KS2 for example.

Here's the learning that should be achieved by the end of ks4. Let's see which ones are met by this video-
Pupils should know:

Their rights, responsibilities and opportunities online, including that the same expectations of behaviour apply in all contexts, including online

Does it address this point? Not really. It focuses on positive possibilities without any discussion of the negative (for example, looking at porn on a work computer could get you sacked.) This is very relevant as this sre is for school leavers. Expectations of behaviour isn't really covered at all.

about online risks, including that any material someone provides to another has the potential to be shared online and the difficulty of removing potentially compromising material placed online

Is it covered? Other than to say you can share porn as a joke. No it doesn't. This would be a good opportunity to discuss digital creation of images of themselves and why it should be discouraged.

Not to provide material to others that they would not want shared further and not to share personal material which is sent to them

Is it covered? No it is directly in opposition by saying porn can be shared as a joke.

what to do and where to get support to report material or manage issues online
This is not adequately covered at all.

the impact of viewing harmful content
that specifically sexually explicit material, for example pornography, presents a distorted picture of sexual behaviours, can damage the way people see themselves in relation to others and negatively affect how they behave towards sexual partners

Is it covered? No. Other than an aside about porn star bodies it doesn't engage with the points above at all and the porn is fun message directly contradicts it.

That sharing and viewing indecent images of children (including those created by children) is a criminal offence which carries severe penalties including jail
how information and data is generated, collected, shared and used online

Is it covered? Not adequately. A throwaway comment about pedaphila doesn't cut it. This section clearly points out that children need to be aware that anything they create themselves or share with their peer group is against the law.

So in conclusion. Not a good resource. Not ethical. Doesn't meet the national curriculum expectations and actively comes up against them in places.

For those like @ASugarr who work with children please note this needs to be in place by law in education settings by July 2021. I suggest you look at your materials to ensure they meet current DfE and NC guidelines.

Just thought people might be interested in what the actual national curriculum 2021 says and how this measures up.

^^Internet safety should also be addressed. Pupils should be taught the rules and principles for keeping safe online. This will include how to recognise risks, harmful content and contact, and how and to whom to report issues. Pupils should have a strong understanding of how data is generated, collected, shared and used online, for example, how personal data is captured on social media or understanding the way that businesses may exploit the data available to them.

Some pupils are also exposed to harmful behaviours online, and via other forms of media, which may normalise violent sexual behaviours. A focus on healthy relationships and broader Relationships Education can help young people understand acceptable behaviours in relationships.^^

So internet dangers aren't really recognised in this video. The only adherence to the NC is the jokey warnings about googling animals or children. Misses the mark by a mile.

InsanityOf2020
“The types of Porn are not "google this" statements.”

Though he does not actually say, “Here is a list of types of porn to Google.”, the list, its delivery, the graphics to go along with the list, the words “porn is fun” would mean a child/teen would be extremely likely to google every variation mentioned.

There is no guarantee that the child/teen would first discuss everything with their parents first.

If you know anything about pedagogy, you'd be aware that children need clear, no nonsense messages with images and audio that enhance understanding. This video does neither. The visuals and tone say one message and the script is patchy at best. Would you honestly, honestly expect someone working with children in a professional capacity not to find a better way to convey the ideas about porn needed to navigate teen years? Your standards must be very low.
Thankfully, the teachers delivering these messages understand this more than the 'cool' people advocating for this video. We'll, most of them anyway. Like I said, reviewing material is the way to go.

I would rather my son be exposed to this and have open and frank discussions about these issues than try and work it out for himself and get drawn into it, addicted by it and grow up to objectify women and have unrealistic standards about sex and interactions with women.

If you have read the thread, you will see no one disagrees that porn should not be discussed in an open and balanced way by teachers who have a depth of experience in teaching and safeguarding the age group they are discussing this with.

So.... your son should be getting a balanced and sensitive education around porn suitable for their age.

Our complaint is that this video when analysed against the aim of raising awareness of the negative aspects of porn, delivers conflicting messaging.

I disagree that it does not lead to googling porn types. It is a communication hook used by marketers to increase interest to mention things that lead people to go looking further, and to keep listening.

What point is there to mention rare porn types if it is a video to discuss the negative aspects of porn?

Hellofabore it often seems that the rookery cannot cope with the concept of people being mums and experts on here. Scientists, psychologist, teachers, safeguarding professionals, geneticists, pharmacists, health researchers, GPs, developmental biologists, lawyers, judges, professors, political researchers, politicians... And many more walk the hallowed halls of FWR. I remember once the number of PhDs went on for pages.

Ok just watched it all the way through and yes it starts out light and could be seen as promoting porn but it does also highlight the the legalities and the ethics, addiciton etc

The types of Porn are not "google this" statements. It is designed to demystify porn and warn of the dangers aimed at teens/young adults.

I would rather my son be exposed to this and have open and frank discussions about these issues than try and work it out for himself and get drawn into it, addicted by it and grow up to objectify women and have unrealistic standards about sex and interactions with women.