Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

Actually from my knowledge TomSka is a child abuse survivor so he does a lot if work with charities like childline to help young people.

Also, hate to derail, but wondering how you teach gender to fall within the DfE government guidelines.

^^Schools should “not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear”, the guidance states.

They should also not use resources which “suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity”, and that schools “should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material”.

However, the guidance goes on to say that teachers “should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support”.

The DfE’s statutory guidance states that sexual orientation and gender identity “should be explored at a timely point and in a clear, sensitive and respectful manner”.^^

As it's a derail I can obviously wait until you address the previous points. It's just that knowing your previously stated views on the topic I can't square this circle.

If you, personally, can see issues with it and we can essentially decimate the messages it is conveying and those that will stay with the person while they process it, don’t simply assume that there were experts in safeguarding and education involved. The fast pace this is delivered, means a great deal of information had been given, and it needs time to unpack. However, the constant reinforcement of the ‘fun and fine’ message over rides the other messages which were weak or weakened in any case.

Don’t even assume the team approving this had decades of experience or even bachelor level marketing qualifications.

If you can see some of the issues we have pointed out, then maybe the video is simply not fit for educational purposes. Even edutainment.

Oh, did I say that out loud......

However as someone to delivers sexual health advice this kind of information is important to at least ages 13 and up. Would I word everything in the same way? No.

Can you address the points please? You are a sex educator and should be able to address these points easily since you have stated up thread that you feel it is a good video and you would be inclined to use it. You see, my speciality is communications. I have said it is a fail as far as clear messaging. Others have pointed to safeguarding issues. I assume you are also a safeguarding expert so should be able to address these issues.

However he is sponsored by child line and as professionals they deemed his language to be appropriate.

And who is Childline? Who was in charge of approving this? If you cannot see the problems here, I cannot help you. As an ex marketing manager, I have my suspicions as to how this was approved. I have seen it done time and time again. Hence, why I do not feel compelled by appeals to ‘authority’ such as this.

I think from the ages of 13 to 18 it is very important to discuss these kinds of topics like pornography, no matter what you may think as a parent because by the age of 12/13 it would be most likely that they either know what porn is or have watched it themselves.

And again. I have not seen anyone on this thread state that porn should not be discussed. I notice this has been stated, however, by every poster who has posted in support of the video. Almost like it is their fall back position.

We are not coming at analyzing this video from that aspect at all. Anyone reading this thread will certainly see that.

We have dissected this video and analysed it for its purpose of communicating risks and negative aspects of porn. To UNDER 18 year olds!!!

Not one poster who has supported this video has addressed the issues raised. Why?

And you have now stated you would make changes, which bits would you change. What wording?

Instead we have been denigrated by one poster, had points of view wrongly attributed by you, and no one has taken the time to address the points of concern.

It just gets handwaved away. No critical thinking applied.

You have just stated that you don’t actually agree wholly with the wording too. Why would you then continue to support it? Knowing also that it is being viewed outside a discussion group or lesson format.

Tom Ska rose to Youtube fame by doing skits and funny animations. What is he doing this for?

Okay that's your opinion. However as someone to delivers sexual health advice this kind of information is important to at least ages 13 and up. Would I word everything in the same way? No. However he is sponsored by child line and as professionals they deemed his language to be appropriate. I think from the ages of 13 to 18 it is very important to discuss these kinds of topics like pornography, no matter what you may think as a parent because by the age of 12/13 it would be most likely that they either know what porn is or have watched it themselves.

Yeah, I mean by 12 young girls can definitely cope with cute, jaunty cartoons implying women having their entire face covered in semen.....

[quote persistentwoman]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/[/quote]
Just want to highlight this article posted up thread.

Let’s not forget the widespread consequences of porn on people under 18.

Let us get our messages very very clear when porn in discussed in sex education, let’s get our messages clear on videos aimed at explaining risk.

However if this is in collaboration with child line then they would have approved this meaning it is okay to post.

Kids shouldn't be on YouTube. They should be using YouTube kids until they are 11 years old.

Um,you do realise that people don't become adults at 11 years old dont you? That they are still 'kids' until they are 18?

And we are taking about under 18s in general. As you say, the limit is 11 for youtube.

My points are relevant for any person under the age of 18.

Maybe you’d like to address some since you are here.

I would like to point out, as I'm unsure if others understand this or not. Kids shouldn't be on YouTube. They should be using YouTube kids until they are 11 years old. This video wouldn't be allowed to appear in YouTube kids (obviously). So if a child sees this at a younger age then 11 then that's not on the YouTubers fault. That is a parenting fault. Additionally, this is for TomSkas target audience of young teenagers and up. Meaning it should only be shown to those ages. You can agree ore disagree if that's still not appropriate however I thought it was an important point to make.

I don't think it's "encouraging kids to watch porn" or "Google BDSM". IMO from what he says and his vibe I think what he's trying to do is encourage a discussion regarding porn (a healthy discussion is good).

I don’t think I have seen any posters have disagreed that balanced discussion around porn is necessary. I think it is vital. But it has to be done in a sensitive, balanced way.

My major concern is that I feel lessons like this need to be delivered only by someone with a teaching degree and experience teaching the age group they deliver the session to or a child psychologist. I have NO confidence after interactions across the past year that I have had that people claiming to be specialist educators for sex education have enough education, enough experience with the age groups they are responsible for.

However, we are obviously disagreeing on whether this video, when you analyze it and the messages it delivers in reality vs the intention to deliver, is suitable to be promoted by Childline.

I have added to the list as those supporting use of the video seem to feel that it doesn’t encourage children to search for the porn types and other information on line. I would like to know why posters think this.

Why do they think bringing attention to unusual and strange sounding porn types would NOT be sticking in any persons mind compelling them to find out what it was?

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

Again, this is an open invitation to anyone who supports this video being used by ChildLine in discussing the negative risks of watching porn under the age of 18

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. And if someone is being encouraged to treat an age restriction as a joke, not to be taken seriously, what other recommendations, or advice should also be treated as a joke? The bit about not strangling your sex partner, the bit about not coercing any aspect of sex?

-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.

- The 'fun' aspect reinforced by the 'fun' graphics. (These styles of graphics only work if there is a consistent targeted message about risk. Such as youtu.be/IJNR2EpS0jw .) Clear, consistent message about risk despite the humour and the 'fun' graphics.

-The reinforcement of the dehumanising/detached use of hypersexualised words like ‘pussibities’ in a video aimed at people under 18 years of age while discussing topics like how desensitising and addictive the use of porn can be. What message does this convey?

-How does reducing porn to 'chicken nuggets' support the seriousness of the negative aspects of porn for under 18s. Is this not trivialising those negative aspects of how porn is produced? Like, ew.... fun to eat/watch but you really don't want to know how it is made.....

-The mention of very uncommon types of porn has the effect of increasing curiosity. This is a very deliberate tactic used by marketing to hook people’s interest. It had been used here and will have the effect of children googling the terms, if not immediately, then eventually. Anyone watching will be both curious and, maybe, embarrassed that they didn’t know what it was.

This is pertinent:

Pornography causing backward step in boys' respect for girls, say victims and teachers

<a class="break-all" href="https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjsuZD4iIh3gOVaxFKmAOTL52FtUa703B5sGBXFROvzilXxZf6Mq83_DMl0TXYgZwiSZhXLQZsdruwxBCDDd_Omyeb4qEOBhEbXEYbV8a9fWAX3Pq7s9LKtJXhG9qHhWT8TC_j1vQ8pCNFTjgCSl7OHr65mZcRb3L46RJkT6GqtC841SeJek1-vhV_3LcHAzU-pC72eudAN68qSl8l1YCFJUjJ0x8Sfbki82XViLvjahlXdgIUwX3JOfjpSW4T6L5v_lJCTpiCJpjTPr8fGbXeGe3u-iTyKQ76zb5PpAVmZSd_igbreU7F8kq&sai=AMfl-YSkYY-6s6aFCxJP_V1H3P30_KUxPfphwIx5wYffmr07e9LQskvJMR_AvMDzcI0CLOqMpUjQZ6NUCwNnbkacqUBuu5HMzTmFEr_TGpjDo2icFrHfZ1hSfSN0YGCEb6Gz&sig=Cg0ArKJSzHrUdEco2jMY&adurl=www.sky.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

"It's not inappropriate to talk to a 10-year-old about sex, it's inappropriate for a 10-year-old to be watching fake sex online and thinking that that's what's normal."

news.sky.com/story/pornography-causing-backward-step-in-boys-respect-for-girls-say-victims-and-teachers-12269732

One post shows a boy asking a girl for sex. When she says no, he replies 'Even better, no consent'

Chilling, utterly chilling. Porn is fun yay!!

The above videos only occur in straight porn, and are numerous on pornhub.
Hatred, sexual violence, humiliation, degradation, torture and destruction only happen to women. Of all the hate crimes, misogyny is sanctioned, legal entertainment and masturbation fodder for millions of boys and men, all over the world.

This violence is only inflicted onto teenage girls and women, not to gay men or trans-women.

Mainstream pornography clearly demonstrates that straight males hate, and want to destroy women. If men could legally kill women on film..then they would.

Cut to MSM reporting this week of numerous girls and women frightened to be in school because of the terrifying, highly charged, rape culture.

The DM reports:

One post shows a boy asking a girl for sex. When she says no, he replies 'Even better, no consent'.

MargaritaPie if you think that then perhaps you could answer the questions Helleofabore posted on the previous page.

I watched the video.

I don't think it's "encouraging kids to watch porn" or "Google BDSM". IMO from what he says and his vibe I think what he's trying to do is encourage a discussion regarding porn (a healthy discussion is good). Porn is a very complex matter that could be discussed in detail for hours and hours but what he has done is make a short video that very briefly touches on some aspects of it- what it is, why people watch it, the good, the bad etc. I think the video could be useful for young people to watch with their parents or as part of a sex-ed class to lead to a discussion.

IMO I don't think porn should be banned (enforcing this can be tricky anyway since most people know now about VPNs) but something I would like to see (which can be easily enforced) is stricter rules (on streaming-video websites where people can upload videos) regarding what the videos can be called, and also restrictions regarding what people can search for. For example words and phrases like "barely legal" or "violent" or "extreme" etc could be banned from the website for naming and searching for videos. That would be at least one step. What videos are titled IMO matters.

For both of these links, not post.

I think some other posters might have also been referring to this post or something like it? Tenderness, kissing, humanity, mutually enjoyable sex in gay porn compared with violence, humiliation and tears in straight porn. Poor girls today don't stand a chance. theviolenceofpornography.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-comparison-between-straight-and-gay.html?m=1

Also, massive trigger warning for post of these links. Do not click if you've already decided you think porn is violent and degrading and bad for kids and you find it upsetting

Porn is fun and fine!

Maybe softcore porn from decades ago. But not now.
I want anyone who agrees with the bolded sentence to read this post, or any other post of your choosing from this blog, and tell me they're happy with preteens and young teenagers seeing this stuff as their introduction to sex. If you don't have time for the whole thing, scroll down to the end and read the last paragraph and view the images. This is all readily available for any 10 year old who gets curious and finds pornhub. Will they think this is sexy? That this is what sex is? That this is how women should be treated? This is not ok. theviolenceofpornography.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-comparison-between-straight-and-trans.html?m=1&zx=af170829d00b1f0d

Note: I'm not making a point about gender identity in any way with linking to a transgender porn comparison blog post, it's this one simply because it has some images and types of video that really stuck with me in a really bad way.