Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

Yes pussibilities simply oozes respectfulness. Can imagine popping that one in pshe with parental support.

That being the content the op posted.

Youtube won't let me look at footage of the liberation of concentration camps, because it's age restricted content, but I can view that?

RedToothBrush has a very powerful analysis about how so many charities represent the niche views of their staff, often to the detriment of the communities that they are meant to serve. The NSPCC and Childline tragically seem to demonstrate this.

Sorry not a great resource but respectful and resourceful which seems even worse.

There seem to be no limits to the damage and degradation of women and girls and the removal of boundaries from children.

I'm really interested to understand when the government was pushing an abstinence message.

You are never going to get an answer Helleofabore, the person you are direction those questions at has described the video as a great resource on the SSAUK twitter thread.

The country's leading children's charity, with statutory powers, not wanting to answer questions from the county's leading parenting website.

Interesting how the made up word pussibilities is acceptable but I bet cocktastic or dicktriffic would be considered way out of line.

Porn slang for women is acceptable because the objectification of women and girls is so normal, it goes unnoticed.

If I recall correctly the NSPCC initially accused those criticising this of homophobia. I don't recall that they ever apologised for this.

And they called on their followers to report any posts to twitter criticising his behaviour.

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. 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.

Let's add some more points to our list to have directly answered as to where we are misinterpreting the elements 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,

• 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 . 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?

Go on!
Every one is doing it!
It is fun
Those age limits are just old fashioned no body believes them any more.
This is the good type
Go on do it!

ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC

Hmm, and wasn't it the nspcc who had James Makings working for them, he was discovered uploading rubber porn of himself that he had created in work at the NSPCC. Seems to be an ongoing theme here.

To provide a free confidential telephone counselling service for children and young people with the aim of comforting, advising and protecting children. ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC and further details can be found on the website nspcc.org.uk All monies raised by ChildLine are given to the NSPCC in a grant.

In the context of what’s been revealed on this thread, I can’t help but wonder what trying the phone operatives are given. What do they say if a child discloses that someone has shown them porn? Is it recognised as an abusive situation? Such mixed messaging coming from them and that won’t be of any benefit to confused and worried children who are being abused.

Just seconding/ thirding etc all the great posts here.

There are so many things wrong with that video.

@Hufflepuffsunite Excellent post. How awful for that child. I despair at what is happening to society.

@ASugarr I am completely unsurprised at your opinions on this matter but there seems to be no talking you round. You are young and I hope to God your opinions in general aren't typical of the majority of young people today.

it seems very clear to me that what we should be doing is working towards making porn extremely difficult/impossible for children to access.

Yes! This with bells on.

Instead of sending the message that porn is fun and sexy we should be focussing in making it impossible for children to access it.

Schools and children's charities have no business getting involved in telling kids about porn.

Childline's charity activity:

To provide a free confidential telephone counselling service for children and young people with the aim of comforting, advising and protecting children. ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC and further details can be found on the website nspcc.org.uk All monies raised by ChildLine are given to the NSPCC in a grant.

How is sponsoring a video like this in their remit?

Great post, hufflepuffs. That poor child

The images accompanying the list of 'types' alone shocked me. So not suitable for children of any age. I'm another one that has been trained in safeguarding. Factual is always the key without being graphic. Good examples are the PANTS video which makes it explicit that privates are private. Simple message and no need to be graphic. This video fails on both those accounts. It's also misleading because it only lists three things wrong or illegal about porn and implies everything else is fine.
Agree with others more should be being done to control what is produced and accessible, not trying to be the cool adult who says 'yeah fine.' Those adults are massive red flags to me.

Hufflepuffsunite
“The answer is so obvious. 10 years ago exposing children to porn was enough for social services involvement and referrals to therapy. Now we should all be encouraging our 10 year olds onto PornHub as long as we let them know "it's not real"?!! I don't think so.“
Yes.
I thought it was against the law to incite a child to sexual acts.
Isn’t the whole point of porn to incite extremely strong sexual feelings which would not have been there without it and, therefore probably inevitably, the urge to act sexually?

Our present society is promoting child abuse.

About 10 years ago, I worked with a boy who had been repeatedly exposed to pornography from a young age. At the time I knew him, he was around the age of 12. This exposure to porn was, at that time, classed as child abuse (I thought it still was but this thread has opened my eyes to how times have changed!). He was traumatised by what he'd seen, and his overall behaviour was very challenging. He was hypersexualised yet obviously too immature to really understand what he was saying/doing. He struggled to form attachments with peers. He was not allowed to be left alone with any members of staff (we always had to pair up) and nor could he be left unsupervised with peers (to the point we had to check loos were empty before he could go in). He struggled to manage his emotions. Far from de-sensitising him to sexual things, any hint/sign of anything "sexy" (a mention of human anatomy in science or a picture of girl wearing a crop top in a magazine, for exampe) sent him into an absolute tailspin, which sometimes included physical aggression, and he would really struggle to calm down. He was a very troubled child yet underneath it all he was an obviously bright, funny and sweet boy who I did really enjoy working with, and I felt so angry that his family, who should have been protecting him and nurturing him, abused him in such a way that he was actually struggling to function normally.

From this experience it seems very clear to me that what we should be doing is working towards making porn extremely difficult/impossible for children to access. We should be ensuring that no child sees anything they are not emotionally ready for. Instead of saying "hahaha what a laugh your mate sending you that porn clip!" we should be checking in with these children and making sure they are ok - that they can process what they've seen and deal with the emotions it provokes. Saying "well they will see it anyway" is pure laziness and actually quite horrifying. No wonder schools are reporting increasing sexual violence; no wonder young women are frequently encountering dangerous and painful sexual practices at the hands of their dates/boyfriends. Good grief. The answer is so obvious. 10 years ago exposing children to porn was enough for social services involvement and referrals to therapy. Now we should all be encouraging our 10 year olds onto PornHub as long as we let them know "it's not real"?!! I don't think so.

My apologies: Davies-Arai

‘Persistent women’
Thank you for that article by Stephanie Davies-Arab which is indeed outstanding (and very worrying).

Well, when I opened this thread, I didn’t expect a live demonstration of how badly askew sex education has gone of late.

You don’t even understand where the limitations of your knowledge and experience are, asugarr, and it’s that that’s so troubling about your posts. Do you think that women here don’t have backgrounds in this stuff? Good educators are always open to learning, and understanding all the viewpoints that different people might bring. I don’t believe that you actually understood the issue with the term “child porn” at all, because the way you deployed it didn’t demonstrate that you do. This is a feminist board. I know you think we’re all hopeless old boomers, but rest assured the majority of the users are very comfortable with the terminology around this topic, and understand what is meant by images of child sexual abuse. This is the terminology feminists would use.

Anyway, the video is dire, but am hopeful that the presenter has subsequently understood where it went wrong and why.