Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

The threads I linked to upthread about other sex education programmes have lots of examples of this rush to be "inclusive" and down with the kids at the expense of providing age appropriate content.

I used to imagine that I was very enlightened and libertarian by approving of porn, now that I'm older and perhaps a bit wiser I see porn for what it is and that is hugely damaging to how boys and men view women and sex. Porn in its portrayal of sex involving men and women is all about using the female body for the mans own gratification and nothing more, sadly this now shapes how boys and girls view sex with girls in particular feeling pressured into acts which they neither want to do or indeed should do at the behest of young men who care not a jot for the girl or her feelings and wellbeing.

It's really a really neat trick. Making women actually feel guilty for not wanting to perform sexual practices that make them uncomfortable. Or give them pain. Or are potentially fucking fatal.

Sex positivity.

I understand it was initially a way to help women feel positive about sex. Now it's trying to make them feel coerced into sex they don't want.

So presumably it was to make women feel that sex was fine, outside of monogamy or marriage, which is a patriarchal institution. And now it's to make women feel fine about being subjected to sexual acts that they loathe.

I'm detecting a theme.

I question how often red flags are clearly ignored with the aim to seem to be inclusive or sex positive. I have seen it repeated time and time again across multiple platforms.

It's so frustrating seeing people who work with children that have no concept of safeguarding or appropriate boundaries

It's bizzare how they even get these jobs in the first place.

It's so frustrating seeing people who work with children that have no concept of safeguarding or appropriate boundaries. As a volunteer with children, I have to regularly do safeguarding training and would never consider it appropriate to tell children that watching porn is not only fine for them to do but also lots of fun. If a child ever told me that an adult said this to them then I would be immediately reporting that to our local safeguarding team as it's a massive red flag.

To be honest I consider nspcc out of touch anyway. The last trainer we had in announced to the whole school that child abuse was 'An adult asking you to do something you don't want to do'. They failed to clarify what they meant so you can imagine the hilarity that afternoon.
'Now write down the date children'
'Naw, Ms, CHIlD ABoosee, snort, snigger'.

I don't think they are and I'd they're too liberal parents like mine would remove their child entirely. Sometimes going to complain either way

Bottom line is, this isn't America and we don't have abstinence only. I learnt about abortion in my Catholic secondary, albeit in an RE lesson. It didn't tell us how to get one, but it was hardly ignored completely or demonised

Absolutely, encouraging a child to watch pornography is child abuse. I am also regularly trained in safeguarding and that point has been made on every single safeguarding course I have ever attended.

Who the hell are these perverts trying to convince us otherwise??

I think that are enough points for anyone to come back with reasonable and educated discussion about how I have missed the point of the video, and my analysis of the communication devices used are wrong and that I have completely misunderstood.

I will wait.

Don't rape women... because it's illegal.

Just watch them being raped instead as that's fun and cool and it's only those things with pussibilities that are being hurt and degraded and they don't count.

Adding to this list as I forgot the Chicken nuggets point.

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.....

And he basically admits that porn is why he committed sexual assaults, so don't do that... because it's illegal.

Don't look at really dodgy porn ... because it's illegal.

Don't rape women... because it's illegal.

Any ethics in here maybe?

It is completely within the remit of a video educating young people about porn to talk about the distasteful side of it.

Especially if it is acknowledged within the video that it's nasty.

Otherwise what is the point? It is just promoting porn to children.

FWIW I do think that a non-lecturing way to discuss porn with young people is a god idea.

The point would be to acknowledge that teenagers die example may have seen it and not to shame them for this, but to help them to see the damage or dies and give them a way to discuss it b

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

If it's not to Tom or childline then why the fuck has Tom made the video with backing by childline. Maybe both should rethink this. Tom anyway is no kind of specialist child worker so why he got involved is beyond me, also childline should vet possible co partners better.
Ive watched the whole 6 minutes of it, it's not good for any age range of children. 18/19 year old will be utterly uninterested, 14/15/16 years will see it as childish .
11/12/13 year olds will see it as too adult for them.
So what use is it?
And then asugarr says its perfect to use in the classroom. What bloody qualifications does asugarr have to know this. Cos asugarr is very wrong.

I imagine abstinence itself isn't taught explicitly rather than it's your choice when and if and never being ok too. You can teach what different religions do without promoting any one path. Schools are meant to be objective and unbiased.

They don't even see it.

Abstinance absolutely should be taught as a legitimate option to choose. To do otherwise would be to ignore the PSED towards religions.

Yes pussibilities simply oozes respectfulness.

Were any women at the charity involved in commissioning/approving this? Are they happy with this still being up there with Childline approval? Pussybilities - ffs. It's so reductive. What does this say to teenage girls about their own worth?

I can only hope that a person that has the responsibility for teaching sex education would have the expertise to answer the points with insightful and clear counter points.

I am going to keep adding to it so it is easy to answer them at the same time.

Because, I simply must be missing something. So now is a great opportunity to explain where my thinking is wrong.

My post was aimed at NiceGerbil 's comment:
I'm really interested to understand when the government was pushing an abstinence message

To the best of my extensive experience in teaching SRE there have never been published materials from the government that focussed on abstinence. Unless the poster is misrepresenting discussions / materials about the law, age and consent. There have been various lobby groups promoting abstinence at different times - just as we find various lobby groups celebrating porn for children and boundary breaching behaviours. Schools tended to steer well clear of the former. I'm not so sure about the latter these days