Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

I'm from the UK. This can be taught from ages 12 and up.
Also, the video TomSka created was for his YouTube channel, not the usual audience for child line meaning it was clearly catered for the age range we are discussing. Plus it didn't have any material about openly searching for porn, but just giving information on what it is, what people use it for and what to be aware of.

Well yes.

But where the hell is the idea that the government has pushed abstinence come from? I mean I've not heard of it and I'm nearly 50. Religion has. But the government?

In the UK it's illegal to have sex with s child under 13.

Just to clarify it's illegal to have sex with a child under 16, 18 if the partner is in a position of authority such as doctor or teacher. Offence is "sexual activity with a child".

It's automatically rape if the child is under 13.

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.

Yes. As well as being very blunt about those statistics that show negative affects now and in the future.

Yes, as well as case studies on how addictive it can be.

Yes. As well as focusing on consent. Not being jocular about by passing age restrictions. If the message actually conveyed there that government restrictions shouldn’t be taken seriously, what other messages shouldn’t be taken seriously?

Oh. And one I discovered personally had effected my family, they should also be informed that passing on child sex abuse in any form is wrong and no joking matter. Even if it ‘just a jokey child sex abuse story’.

When are you talking about that abstinence was taught? I've heard about that in USA. I don't remember it being taught here generally. (Some religious schools maybe? But even my friends at an all girl's RC school with nuns got told about 'the rhythm method' 35 years ago.

This is what happens all the time isn't it.

'Since many of you think discussing pornography before being able to legally consume it is wrong, Then do you think the same about teaching those under the age of 16 about safe sex is the same? Do you consider it promoting have sex?'

No one has said that. Are you reading what people say? I don't get it.

Are you just arguing with what you think people say and think?

It's boring. Really boring.

No engagement. This weird suggestion that all the women on here are keen on some kind of bonkers chastity thing I saw on a prog about the USA once.

And you're still talking about older age groups. In the UK it's illegal to have sex with s child under 13. No excuses. So... No government campaign unless you're referring to the law?

ASugarr

I can't tell you the number of people who have come on here to tell everyone that 'it's just sex education for children'. The last time, I believe was all about how children could play a dice game to shove objects up eachother's rectums.

The time before that it was teen vogue calling 13 year olds girls non prostate owners and telling them that if anal hurts, use more lube. And completely forgetting girls have a clitoris.

The time before that it was paperchase jumping on the bandwagon selling valentine cards instructing girls to have anal sex to prove their love.

All because 'kids will do it anyway' and need instruction.

Telling kids to Google bdsm, bemoaning the fact you don't look like a porn star and offering some very dodgy confessional about how you used to treat women, ISN'T healthy sex education.

You must know that.

What part of the ‘fun and fine’ message do you think is not promoting porn?

What part of the humour used when discussing the age restriction is not encouraging a child to believe it isn’t important?

What part of the presenter jokingly referring to wanting porn star dimensions is not reinforcing the message that these bodies are not realistic and you shouldn’t compare yourself to them?

This is just a start. The questions have been asked before. As have many others specifically relating to this video’s content.

You keep stating that porn should be discussed and it is healthy to do so. We do not disagree that porn should be discussed. We are disagreeing with the lack of balance in this video and disagreeing with the use of ‘child pornography’.

Since many of you think discussing pornography before being able to legally consume it is wrong, Then do you think the same about teaching those under the age of 16 about safe sex is the same? Do you consider it promoting have sex?

We are not disputing discussing porn with children. We are very clearly disputing the use of this video as any kind of resource for explaining the negative affects of porn, on the individual and on society.

What parts of the many posts relating to the message conveyed by this very video are not clear?

Question: Since many of you think discussing pornography before being able to legally consume it is wrong, Then do you think the same about teaching those under the age of 16 about safe sex is the same? Do you consider it promoting have sex?

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.

That it was a very young child adds to the ‘fun and fine’ message. The message that even those very young shouldn’t take any notice of the age ratings. All a bit of ‘fun’. And totally fine in moderation.

Just like alcohol, which is also legal in certain circumstances to provide for under 18s. Yet, no video about alcohol would EVER be allowed to have a presenter treat the age restrictions in this way, or to use the words ‘fun’. Why? because would be seen as promoting alcohol. There are actually very strict guidelines in place about this for alcohol.

Why is it so lax for porn?

Helleofabore

Datun

Also what was theexactpoint of checking that everyone was over 18, and then making sure that it was clearly a very young child who responded?

And making it humorous?

That was vile.

The point that there are benefits to young people watching porn.

Please tell us what these benefits are for those under 18?

That's not what anyone is promoting. This video’s reinforced message is that it is ‘fun and fine’. This is promoting porn to children.

However there are benefits of young people knowing more information about pornography.

Yes. In a very balanced discussion. Not with a video that makes light of it, who spends 3/4 of the video in light hearted ‘bantering’ discussion that overwhelms any message about the negative issues. In a discussion that should focus very heavily on consent, on the fact that this is not reality (and not with the presenter stating how much they wished they had porn star appeal), the reality of the exploitive nature of porn not just the illegal porn, but how most porn available today exploits those producing it, and that it leads to many mental health issues now and in the future.

Also what was the exact point of checking that everyone was over 18, and then making sure that it was clearly a very young child who responded?

From the UKsaysnomore link posted.

WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?

We must call on the government to ensure that all children and young people receive a rounded, informative and empowering age-appropriate sex and relationship education (SRE) throughout their time at school and college.

What part of ‘rounded, infomative, empowering’, does this video fulfill? You are the expert here.

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

That video, ASugarr, was not an educational video on the dangers of porn and CSA aimed at children. It was the opposite. With a half arsed caveat.

No ASugar. You say you are not promoting it. Yet you have agreed here that the message this video is giving with the opening and closing minutes is that porn is ‘fun and fine’ and this is a great video to show children.

So, we can only assume that you believe that is the message children should have. In my view, and I am sure most logical thinkers would agree, that is promoting porn to children. You have been repeatedly been told the message being communicated by this video is confused and basically only superficially addresses negative issues and finishes up with the ‘fun and fine’ message.

So, again. This video reinforces the ‘fun and fine’ message. This is promoting porn to the viewer, children.

Again. 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?

Please start supporting your statements with evidence. Or explain why the message that porn is ‘fun and fine’ is NOT promoting porn.

[quote ASugarr]Sorry the last link here

uksaysnomore.org/talkingtoyoungpeopleaboutporn/[/quote]
www.uksaysnomore.org/talkingtoyoungpeopleaboutporn

Sorry the last link here

uksaysnomore.org/talkingtoyoungpeopleaboutporn/

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-porn-bad#society

www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/bb79a2ce-0de4-4965-98f0-9ebbcfcc2a60

uksaysnomore.org/talkingtoyoungpeopleaboutporn/

Show me the studies that prove underage children watching pornography is in any way beneficial.

I have asked twice. It has been ignored. Completely. I am going to keep asking though. Because if a person is teaching porn is ‘fun and fine’ to children, they better have some well documented and robust evidence to support that.

This is potentially our children this person is teaching. Or our children’s future partners? This is being taught to very vulnerable children too as well as children whose parents have already given a solid grounding in the negative affects of porn as it is consumed today.

I am glad that I have spoken with my teen’s school about the material they teach and the heavy focus on consent that the school takes. Seeing someone who professes to be a professional make these statements is a huge concern. Particularly, if they cannot provide evidence that porn has a positive benefit for teens...

Datum “Show me the studies that prove underage children watching pornography is in any way beneficial.”

Quite.

It either induces horror and upset or incites sexual feelings away from any natural context - grooming and abusive.

Oh and the other thing.

Whenever and wherever years ago.

Everyone knew about sex. Animals have sex and then have babies. People used to live in much more shared spaces. Whole families in one space or multiple families in a larger shared space.

Where did sex happen?

I mean history etc isn't my thing. But it just seems unlikely that the current view is how people have always been, everywhere.

In England we've had the puritans and then the whole Victorian thing.

And TBH when I was young and hedge porn was a thing, pubes were generally not shaved and anal was not at all a standard thing. The joy of sex was still on the shelves. Boys and men did NOT (unless they were bastards or dangerous weirdos) want, ask or just go ahead and throttle you, shove their dick up your arse, come on your face or hit you (a slap is a hit- it hurts).

These changes in what boys and men want and expect are driven by porn. And these things have changed fast.

But people deny it. Men and women. Why? Again, what is the psychology?

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.

You claim you're in a position of teaching children about sexual health, and you don't understand the use of the world child pornography?? It's not just trying to normalise the rape of children, it should obviously never be used in respect of talking to children.

There will be children in your group who have been abused. Children who have suffered from CSA. And you are blithely calling it pornography. In the same breath as talking about what children might 'disclose' to you??

And no, quickly googling the use of the term 'child porn' to justify your comments is transparent. Why would someone in a position of safeguarding and dealing with underage children be persuaded to use terminology, against all guidelines, because of a decade old article?

Show me the studies that prove underage children watching pornography is in any way beneficial.