To draw your attention to this thread?

I saw it too; so did my 7 year old. Totally unnecessary.

I can cope with the tiny little picture above. But my children seeing that on a huge HD TV...

you're right it's weird and grim and you shouldn't be made to feel in the wrong for feeling like that

Surely it is flashing, an offence? It wasn't pixilated for the camera operator, or the editor. It is perverse to flash your dick around. Using your dick as a comedy prop is distasteful amongst adults. It is perverse amongst families.

I would be uncomfortable if it happened in person so not ok on a programme of that sort.

The results of the poll support the poster. I think part of the problem was the poster's writing style ("fun family entertainment" and unnecessary exclamation marks)

Many of the replies support the poster although the posts against her are a full bingo card of trite, hackneyed, mindless phrases posted by posters thinking they're being so original and witty. And the usual crew who can't distinguish between a beach and every other situation which isn't a beach. They are embarrassing.

I remember many years ago, when my dd was twelve, there was a Tom Cruise film on telly advertised as family viewing and it was about young Tom turning his house into a brothel and using his teenage female friends as prostitutes. That was not the idea of sex that I wanted my twelve year old to have, funnily enough. It is not about prudery, it is wanting them to grow up with a healthy idea of sex

There is nothing wrong with nudity.

But there is a time and a place and I would no more want to see someone posing like that on television than I would want to see someone sitting like than on the bus. I am certain I wouldn’t want that in front of my young relatives.

And I’ve no pearls to clutch.
But whatever that programme is, they want to think on.

Any loophole in a storm by the look of it. Turn off and a turn off for that show.

I see it as the media trying to normalise and legitimise flashing.
That as far as I am concerned, is a very slippery slope to be going down.

Yep, read the thread earlier & found some of the responses so grim. Bit jaw dropping how utterly naive and shortsighted some of the posters are about the pushing of boundaries & erosion of safeguarding generally.
And throw in the usual claims of being a 'prude' etc etc if you don't clap your hands and say it's all good, harmless fun that, according to a couple of posters, actually educates kids!? WTF?
You made some really excellent comments on it OP.

It feels to me like attention seeking and a dominance display, forcing themself on our notice. It's the equivalent of that threatening head jerk when you walk past someone and they try and make you jump.

Someone waggling their genitals, pixilated or not, has no place on a TV show that's aimed at children
I can't believe I have to say that.

I understand and have considered whether perversion is the right word. It could be taken to mean that he was doing it for a sexual thrill. I'm not saying that that was the case.

I think maybe people think of the word 'pervert' or 'perversion' as an old-fashioned word and feel uncomfortable with its overtone of moral judgment. They perhaps associate it, for example, with previous generations' attitudes to homosexuality.

But the point is that some men absolutely do do this for a sexual thrill. So why would people be surprised when people suspect that is a motive?

It's perversion. We shouldn't shy away from the word.

I don't know that I would call it perversion but it crossed a line.

It's grooming & I do regard it as a perversion.
Getting your bits out for a 'family' tv show is not & never should be normal.
What decent adult would even feel comfortable exposing themselves like that for an audience they know will include children?

This is just another attempt to normalise what should be adult behaviour in the presence of children which just makes them vulnerable to the next steps on the grooming ladder.
Parents & teachers (hopefully) teach young boys not to wave their genitals in peoples faces or expose themselves to the general public, then tv shows like that teach them that it's okay for adult men to do so.

The fact that so many people think it's 'not that bad' just shows how effective this sort of grooming is.

I do think it's a deliberate attempt to shock and to trample boundaries. It's like the transparent trousers, or the thin white stretchy cloth trousers over a hard on that some bloke is displaying around the supermarkets.

It's done deliberately to dominate.

I saw that thread and didn't comment as I'd not seen the show, but seeing the screen shot I understand the issue. That is not family viewing.

It concerns me how many women are quick to brand women who don't want sexualised content around children as pearl clutching prudes. There's a worrying push to normalise sexualised content and sexual behaviour that is largely based around male sexuality and male fantasy being imposed on women and children.

I agree op. There is a concerted effort to break down barriers so males can have free access to women and children
Women are there to carry babies and fulfil men's wishes.

I think we have such a high tolerance for kink now that anything lower than hard-core is seen as normal. Porn is ubiquitous.

It should and would have been considered perverted not so long ago.

I will stick with inappropriate before the watershed, as my experience of seeing perversion is higher than I'd like it to be.

Also, @Makeupyourmind, there was an alarming amount of posters who took exception to you referring to a 12 year old as a 'little girl'. I have seen so many other posts referring to children that age (and older) as little girls but on your thread, it seemed not be acceptable. I found the hand waving quite sinister.