Woman’s Hour presents the porn-for-children slot

Relevant article.

fitzfromdublin.substack.com/p/pride-vs-privacy

"The most obvious one was this Washington Post editorial about exposing children Kink during pride. This got lots of attention and mockery - mainly because of the grotesque and quasi-paedophilic idea that we should seek to expose children to adult horniness........Every liberal principle is followed to and past it’s logical conclusion and into black absurdity. You could call our current system Metastasized Liberalism."

"Entry-Level" porn? Can they hear themselves?

Anyway, why wait until they're teenagers? What about some reception-class porn: Thomas The Tonk Engine. Peppa Pig Meets David Cameron. That sort of thing?

(I'm just asking the question.)

Did anyone else here listen to the programme? Most of the discussion seems to be based on what people think might have been in the programme rather than what actually was. It is possible to listen to the programme to have an informed view:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ycvs

Porn made especially for teenagers: what do you think? In a now deleted but much discussed and decried tweet last week the journalist Flora Gill suggested "entry level" porn should be made available to teenagers as an antidote to the hard core material they’re already accessing online. Does she have a point? We talk to journalist and author Eleanor Mills, and Lucy Emmerson from the Sex Education Forum.

Its amazing how you will always find someone who wants to do the whole reasonable sounding request to please indulge them in holding a nice, leisurely intellectual wank over something that in all reality is not something that should ever be up for discussion.

It's almost always someone wholly unaffected by the issues and so can enjoy a theoretical debate from a very comfortable theoretical difference, and often uses shaming, scolding, reproach and hints of 'well behaved women' or 'sufficiently open minded women' or 'women who aren't prudes/bigots/other useful names' would dabble about in discussion with them without fussing.

No. This is an insane idea, it should never have been raised on women's hour and those who raised it have lost any grip on normal social boundaries, and no, 'raising the level of discussion' does not mean anyone is compelled to indulge intellectualising and theorising over something that is indefensible. Way too many women and children's boundaries are currently being trampled under this approach. No thank you.

I didn't call you names. I asked you to raise the level of debate.

I don't know if there are absolutes or not. I support the law on murder, sexual abuse, slavery etc. But I try to be open to rational argument about why things might need to be changed or done differently due to changing circumstances. I do know that whenever anyone in my life has said 'This isn't up for discussion' that there's been an awful lot to discuss.

In this particular case, we already know that a great many children are exposed to pornography, in some cases extreme pornography, and some of the children see it at a very early age. Having a debate about how to tackle this issue and discussing whether it might be appropriate to use some carefully chosen images as a teaching tool is perfectly legitimate.

You don't have to be a leftie to wonder whether the Conservatives, who favour defunding the BBC so that we're left with a largely unaccountable privately-owned media, might have a vested interest in getting people worked up into a lather about it. Just look again at the first line of Tesla's OP:

Saw this article from TCW site which shows that once again Auntie Beeb shows its hand in terms of corrupting children

That's hardly a neutral statement, is it? And when you look into it a bit further the BBC was only asking whether it's a good idea or not.

But you couldn't answer my question: are there no absolutes? Without resorting to name-calling.

No, I'm saying that we try to discuss things here without doing a Daily Mail-style knee-jerk reaction. Considered, cool analysis rather than emotive and impassioned ranting.

You've either worked yourself up into a frenzy, Tibtom, or you're being disingenuous and have taken the Daily Mail's shilling. We're better than the Mail here.

Is that another way of saying "evil right wing bigot"

A whole series of straw men there, Tibtom.

We should be able to talk about all those things. What is so dangerous as far as you're concerned about talking about them? Because if we're not talking about these things and exposing them to sunlight, they'll grow like fungus in the dark.

You've either worked yourself up into a frenzy, Tibtom, or you're being disingenuous and have taken the Daily Mail's shilling. We're better than the Mail here.

What's your position on sex education generally?

Are no things absolutes then? Is slavery sometimes a good thing? Should fathers be allowed to murder their children to get back at their mother? Should Saville's abuse be praised as being true to himself? Would it be a good idea to follow the Taliban's lead to say women must not see a male doctor and women must not be doctors? Should girls in care be pimped out?

Isn't it queer theory to say barriers and norms muat be dismantled so these things are ok?

If the BBC were indeed saying "Some nutter says...," that might be OK, but they aren't. They are posing the rhetorical question in faux innocence, and so aiding the normalisation of this bonkers discourse.

Me and you saying other people have said things we don't think or agree with, is just that. Stating factually what others think. It doesn't imply our thoughts on their statements at all.

Thr BBC say: What’s the best way to inform teenagers about porn? Should there be age-appropriate porn as has been suggested so they can learn about consent and what’s respectful and what’s not?

The way the BBC phrases it shows they are willing to at the very least host the debate about it, which leads you to the conclusion that they don't think that the idea is 'undebatable', in the same way that lowering the age of consent is 'undebatable.
They seem to feel unable to host discussions about women's rights vs trans rights, which they often refuse to air.

Even if the subsequent discussion agrees trafficking children for sex as a money spinner is to be condemned, the fact that the question was asked shifts the goal post. You are now saying 'there are arguments for and against but on balance we are against' and given space and legitimacy to those paedophiles who argue in support rather than saying child sex slavery is an absolute wrong and children should be protected in everyway possible from those paedophiles. Why do you think TRAs are so against women's rights being discussed?

Using the drugs example then:

1. Drugs are a problem
2. Society agrees we need to help children not ruin their lives with them
3. Some nutter suggests giving children drugs
4. BBC reports some nutter suggests giving children drugs
5. Morons on Mumsnet say "I CANT BELIEVE THE BBC IS SAYING WE SHOULD GIVE KIDS DRUGS OMG"

Age appropriate porn?

That’s the language of a pedophile. This person needs to be in jail.. or at least monitored so we can be sure they aren’t abhsing children.

There is no such thing as age appropriate porn. Porn isn’t even good for adults! It is bad for the brain of adults, so what do we think it will do to children?

All this is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at boundary breaking! Get us all to accept children being exposed to hardcore sexual things and that’s pretty much opening the gates to pedos being open. They are pretty much open as it is. But we all have to protect the feelings of men these days (most sexual predators and porn consumers are men). so all the cool kids are saying we need to listen to all sides.

We are online so I can’t give them my ass to kiss. But that’s pretty much my feeling on this.

Porn is not for children. No debate.

Sorry hit enter too soon.

Me and you saying other people have said things we don't think or agree with, is just that. Stating factually what others think. It doesn't imply our thoughts on their statements at all.

Porn is in the world, teenagers (and younger) will be exposed earlier and to more extreme things than our generations could ever have considered possible. Porn is affecting adult and teenagers in very dangerous and negative ways.

Street drugs are part of teenagers world. Which street drug might be age appropriate to hand out in class?

This saturation of sexual imagery, language and overt purient things being directed at children is an outright move to remove the “innocence” of children and childhood, and therefore the need to safeguard children.

You have to ask why that is. If we take away the belief that children are “innocent “ and that innocence needs to be protected, then those who have devious intentions are going to argue that there should be no age of consent, that children can consent to sex and have relationships with adults and that pedophilia is a valid sexual orientation.

You have to be aware that this is one piece of the puzzle for pushing more and more on the public to accept sexual predators attention on children as natural. That those of us are go fund this abhorrent are bigots.

If you are advocating this and wrapping it up in “debate” then you’re part of the problem.

This is one actual thing where there is “no debate”. In no way, shape or form is porn or sexual things that are for adults at all appropriate for children. You’re part of the problem. Children need to be protected and your intention of being super cool and open minded and “debating” children being exposed to sexual things makes you an idiot. You’re not actually open minded. You’re weak minded and a coward.

If you can’t stand up for children as an absolute, then you’re no better than pedophiles. You’re encouraging them. Protecting children is an absolute. There is no maybe or faltering over that issue.

I’ve never seen a more weak minded, easily swayed, dickmatized generation of women such as ours. These people are literally telling you they want unfettered, sexual access to children and all the “cool girls” are on here .. “well let’s debate and discuss. We need to hear both sides”.

Yeah well you debate pedophiles on your time. I’m not going to have a discussion with some weak minded, dickmatized, pandering woman about if porn is ok for kids. She should have lost her job for even writing such nonsense.

People are really insane these days. What’s next? Why your 8 yr old should date a 26 yr old in the news magazines? Why your 10 yr old should have an Only Fans? Give me a break.

Elsewhere, it has been suggested age appropriate porn could help.

It has also been suggested elsewhere that the age of consent could be lowered to 4 and there is good money to be made from trafficking children...

Porn is in the world, teenagers (and younger) will be exposed earlier and to more extreme things than our generations could ever have considered possible. Porn is affecting adult and teenagers in very dangerous and negative ways.

It seems to me the way the question is being posed by the BBC is about what solutions COULD there be for this very real danger. Elsewhere, it has been suggested age appropriate porn could help. Women's hour are posing the question to their listeners about their thoughts on that.

I really can't see the BBC have done anything wrong. Clearly age appropriate porn is bat shit crazy, women's hour are not saying otherwise.

Anyone saying women's hour are encouraging porn for children have poor reasoning and analytical skill.

Intended to stimulate sexual excitement - not to teach them about how babies are conceived.