Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

A random example of how far it fails to be safeguarding or give information but instead pushes a pro-porn agenda can even be seen when he is saying that what is seen on porn isn’t real. The actual message being conveyed to the children watching will come from what they are being shown, for example the backdrop wallpaper of disembodied vaginas or ‘pussibities’ as the caption tells the viewer.

Here's an outstanding, evidenced (and depressing) article by Stephanie Davies-Arai about the harm that porn, the relentless sexualisation of girls is doing to girls and how the use of gender neutral language cover this up:

Teachers report that the impact of degrading, humiliating and abusive pornography which is now easily accessible on children’s smart phones, is felt by girls as young as twelve who admit they are terrified of sex. The attempt to prevent the body from developing into that of a woman can be a protection against the role that girls see they are expected to play, a role that involves pain and humiliation they are supposed to accept and enjoy

www.transgendertrend.com/gender-neutral-culture-erases-girls/

Maybe you can discuss these questions more now.

Where are the studies that state there is a positive benefit in teens watching porn? Where is the evidence that shows it is ‘fun and fine’ for children to the consuming porn under 18?

Also, and this is directed at anyone who supports the use of this video in sex education not ASugarr in particular.

Please show us what we are missing that you are seeing in the messaging of this video?

So far we have raised (this is not an exhaustive list by any means). And also remember we are discussing under 18s:

-The opening and closing messages that your yourself interpreted as ‘porn is fun and fine’.

-The breezy fling back from serious negative issues to joking completely negates the seriousness of the issues.

-The age restrictions being treated as a joke. And one that included a very young voice.

-The reinforcement that it is not illegal to watch it under 18, but no qualification of the very negative and serious long term mental health effects.

• The negating of the message around body expectations. A very serious aspect where again the message is left with a joke about wanting to have a porn star body anyway. More mixed messaging.

Rather than broad statements, can someone please go through this video and tell us specifically why it is something you (general you) feel gets the message across to children and teens. Actual examples.

Because, I am not getting it. But then, my training is in communication and not in sex education, so I am looking at this from my decades in that field.

So, please tell me what I am missing?

Exactly Tibtom - from the NSPCC themselves!

From the change in their definition of child sex abuse to the James 'Rubberman' Makings scandal.

It makes it impossible for any rational person to take any of this with a pinch of salt and think of it as "well kids watch porn anyway".

The shown video is back to front. How about TomSka leads with "watching porn as a child is illegal" and talk about how it's unrealistic and linked to crime first.

I don't think they know much about the attention span of children who watch a lot of videos online and could have been relying on that 'boring and scary' bit being towards the end.

Opens with "porn is fun" and ends with "but it is actually it's illegal and dangerous" wasn't a deliberate format?

but your language around this leads me to believe that you, yourself are a safeguarding risk.

Absolutely. And we have previously seen a lack of understanding of the law aroubd issues such as equality.

As a survivor of child abuse myself I understand, however I'm just here to voice my opinion.

I'm very, very sorry to hear that you have been a victim and are a survivor.

I imagine that your intentions are good but I do wonder if your judgement around all being discussed here is being clouded in some way.

I would kindly suggest that you get help if you aren't already and that you step back from dealing with children, even those you seek to help who are also victims and survivors. You may be very good at what you do but your language around this leads me to believe that you, yourself are a safeguarding risk.

Because it is the most common term to discuss it socially.

Well, it's not on this board, and once that had been pointed out - we know and use the correct term - wouldn't it have been much easier and more constructive to just say, great, you're already up to speed ?

ASugarr

"moofolk"
"The point where he says that porn is like chicken nuggets; if you knew how it was made you wouldn't enjoy it..."

"That's a hell of a lot too gloss over."

Yes, however it isn't down to TomSka and child line to discuss all of this. That is what comes from parents and sexual health workers.

Childline is part of the NSPCC, a children's charity which specifically campaigns on keeping children safe re CSA. It is unique among charities in that it has statutory powers, which means it has the power to take a child into care.

And, if this video is genuine, it is endorsing telling children that what goes into porn is awful, but it's still fun and sexy.

How on earth can you, or anyone, square that circle?

Asugarr, do you serious see no connection between the prevalence of violent, degrading porn and the widespread sexual harassment and objectification of women and girls?

Do you think the boys currently being accused of sexual offences in schools are unaffected by what they are watching online?

Instead of chirpily telling youngsters how fun and cool porn is, don't you think RSE needs to concentrate 100% on how porn has taken such a wrong turn. And why.

The term 'child pornography' is only used to start the conversation as it is the most common social term. Meaning when it comes up we may ask "Oh so what is child porn?". Gather their ideas and explain to them what people mean by the term and that legally it's called child sexual abuse images and videos. We have to start by using the language they most likely use or know to then explain it further. Like nudes. Obviously the technical term is sexually explicit imagery (or if underage child sexual abuse images), however those terms might not make sense to them to begin with, sp we have to start with language like nudes to begin with to help them understand. Otherwise in social situations they may not recognize that the two mean the same thing. Hope that helps.

So why do you double down on using it here, on a feminist chat board where there are posters who are survivors of child sex abuse, when you know what the appropriate terminology is to use?

I just watched the video ‘Sunkisses’ posted and am lost for words.

It absolutely encourages a child to start looking up porn.

The colours and the flashing cartoon images are in a CBBCs style.

And the images of swans? A cat? - what are they for?

There is not one mention about the difference between sex in a relationship with another human, and porn induced, random scratch-the-itch sexual feelings which the porn images will cause artificially. The only vague relationship allusion entails the mention that you can’t have sex with someone black-out drunk or passed out, a child, or an animal.

It mentions you can get addicted but as long as you don’t watch too much you will be fine.....,.

He says porn us made for our entertainment ...... what about mentioning it is so people can make huge amounts of money from you watching it.

He does not mention the abuse of trafficked people to make it.

No doubt the idea behind it is that being too prohibitive is counter productive, but there is no balanced view here. It is sickening, societal grooming.

Even without the content the actual delivery (fast as possible, slangy) is just of the lowest common denominator.

This is effectively an ad pushing a corrupted adult agenda on children.

It is the most commonly used term. That's why I mentioned it here. Never said it is the exact term used in classes.

This is inconsistent. You keep doubling down on your use of the term, then you say it is not necessarily used in classes.

Last night you said this:

ASugarr
Child pornography' is the term most commonly used with the media which is why many of those who work with young people use it as its the most common term to them. I understand that porn isn't "made for children" and that any porn with a minor is sexual abuse and illegal. However it is just the most commonly used term.

Do you or do you not use the term in sessions when you discuss this subject with people under 18?

Who told YOU, specifically, that you should use it in discussions with people under 18? Obviously not names, but for instance, you could tell us this is recommended by x organisation or x safeguarding recommendations?

Or a particular psychologist who recommends it?

Ie. has anyone told you it is appropriate to use in discussions with young people?

Because here's the thing, the government have already tried to run programs to telling young people "Don't have sex" and/or "Don't watch porn". And guess what? It didn't work. Pregnancy rates roses, porn consumption rised and even sexual assault cases rised. Because telling young people "Don't do this" without stating the facts as to why some people do and why it is and isn't okay is what they need to know to make a healthy choice for themselves.

Please can you direct us to the government campaign that promoted abstinence to children?

Teenage pregnancy is down actually by about half. I would expect a professional in the field to know this, or is it just porn you are concerned with when giving 'sexual health advice' to children?

U.K.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120422/

Launched by the Labour govt it was designed to reduce teenage pregnancy through teaching safe sex, not abstinence.

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/teenage-pregnancy

In the US teenage pregnancy is also down, some say that MTV's popular programme Teen Mom has an effect

www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/health/16-pregnant-teens-childbirth/index.html

The Study
www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm

Perhaps instead of asking questions of your own you could answer the questions that have been asked of you repeatedly.

So to confirm, we await:

1. The study that shows the benefits of children watching porn (I would anticipate that it would tell us what those benefits were)

and

1. Details of the government programme that promoted and encouraged abstinence to children.

It's a nice attempt at a derail and I agree that teenage pregnancy is connected due to the fact that we are talking about sex, specifically children having sex and watching porn, but I'm glad to see we are sticking to the subject.

Even if you don't use 'child porn' in class, the very use of that language from a self-identified expert in the field is deeply disturbing. I think even thinking of it that way in your own head suggests you have a warped view of sex and porn yourself.

A Freudian slip perhaps that belies much, much more.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that a charity whose first response to a member of stuff posting a video of themselves on social media talking about wanking whilst wearing a rubber suit in the loos at work was to call everyone who reported it homophobic

(and then very quietly sack the employee 2 months later and not tell anyone because inconveniently it turned out that people weren't being homophobic but pointing out that wearing your fetish gear to work in a children's charity and then posting about it on social media was actually a very bad thing to do. They never apologised to anyone though)

think that this kind of video is fine and totes down with the kidz

That's why it is actually important to talk about because it usually will spark a conversation where we can help those who are vulnerable
This is not a good way to find out if a child is suffering sexual abuse.
For many many reasons.

Quite crass to use such a dismissive, flippant analogy to allude to rape, trafficking, coercion and exploitation of women and girls. But I suppose that's A OK with some people.

Ugh.

The point where he says that porn is like chicken nuggets; if you knew how it was made you wouldn't enjoy it...

That's a hell of a lot too gloss over.

Question: Since many of you think discussing pornography before being able to legally consume it is wrong,

This is NOT what posters here are saying. In fact many are saying they discuss it with their kids.

Where on earth have you had safeguarding training from if you think "child porn" is an acceptable term to use when you are providing education to children and young people?

Are you unable to connect the dots between telling young people "porn can be fun and normal" and then using the term "porn" to refer to imagery which is inherently illegal and abusive in nature?

What message does that send to victims of CSA who are listening?

Obviously you can explain that some people (especially those who produce or consume it, and are therefore apologists for it) may use the clearly outdated term "child porn" (which is being increasingly replaced in MSM), but solely to clarify that what's under discussion is actually illegal and abusive and should never, ever be normalised.

Who wants to try to keep outdated, inaccurate terminology like that in circulation?

Reposting Stampyfeet's post from yesterday:

yeahbut I don't know why you are saying the video doesn't tell children to watch porn. The video says "If you want to see more than straight white people getting it on, you might have to be a little more specific. There are plenty of types of porn including but not limited to softcore, hardcore, lesbian, thespian, interracial, facial, alternative, conservative, hentai, Far Cry, BDSM, NEDM, amateur, mature and swan disco. However, if none of that stuff floats your boat then fear not because if the internet has taught us anything, it's that if it exists, there is porn of it."

What is that if not suggesting to children different porn terms to google?