100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

Lobbying takes years and years and often ends up achieving nothing

Well let's all give up and go home then. FML

Lobbying takes years and years and often ends up achieving nothing. You still need to mitigate harms in the meantime.

what else can you do?

Lobby for regulation. Which, ironically, I'd have thought some of the signatories such as the Internet Watch Foundation would know and would do. But now we know we can't trust them in their core role - which is detection and takedown of CSAM

No, because that wasn't the point I was discussing on this post.

Yes, you've misunderstood.

I think quite a lot of primary age children are exposed to porn, they need support from schools on how to deal with it. Banning teaching below y7 as per guidelines would stop this happening and therefore be damaging to those children.

Separately, I know teen boys are strangely obsessed with drawing pictures of erections. Therefore I don't think the methods of vulva play doh and felt tip drawings of elections for 15/16 year olds are harmful.

You seem to have got muddled up in your mind and think I'm saying primary age children should be doing felt tip erections. Hopefully it's just confusion rather than a direct attempt to misrepresent me.

They sounded pretty happy about it all. Any answer on content you’re after?

Nothing in that post suggests she was laughing about it.

They need to be supported in how to deal with it

No, the internet should be regulated to protect children from sexual harm. It's not the responsibility of children to protect themselves from adults. I doubt you'll ever get it though.

No thanks. You were laughing about your teens drawing dick pics etc in response to the age question.

And you are making a case to lower to primary age

If it’s now not laughing at dick pics then what? What content do you feel primary age should see?

No thanks. You were laughing about your teens drawing dick pics etc in response to the age question.

And you are making a case to lower to primary age

If it’s now not laughing at dick pics then what? What content do you feel primary age should see?

What content do you feel primary age should see?

There won't be an answer.

I think you have misunderstood my posts. Maybe read again.

I think a sizeable number of men get off on sending women dick pics. Online dating apparently is rife with it.

Personally I think boys are getting bots, girls are getting actual online abuse from nasty predatory men. They need to be supported in how to deal with it.

What Sexplain et al are saying is that the teenaged boys they spoke with were by and large wise to the fact that unsolicited messages they recieved from "hot Russian girl" or whatever are actually from "digital group organised activities" (their phrase) i.e. port sites hoping to make money out of the boys.
This is what they say about the girls:
"Girls, however, had a much harder time across our groups clearly identifying a motive or understanding these as digital group-organised activities; rather they positioned the senders as “paedos,” “desperate old men.” and “flashers”."
So, the girls mistakenly think they're being preyed upon by abusive men. In actual fact this is content generated by, well, I guess they think porn sites to lure the girls in?
That's of a piece with current Queer Theory ideas about female people being just as turned on by pornographic content as male poeple, and it's only our repressive socialisation that stops us enjoying all the full empowerful pleasures of getting our rocks off watching strangers doing cruel and painful things to each other. (And where what I've written here would be dismissed as "kink shaming.") Which would lead them to believe that porn sites would be as motivated to send sexual content to female teenagers as male, in order to draw them into spending money, by pretending to be sexy (male) strangers.
In my experience, anecdotal of course and I don't work for reputable institutions like Sexplain, every dic pic anyone I know has been sent has been from an individual. Most of them are paedos, desperate old men, and flashers. Not a single one has been a "digital group organised activity." The teenaged girls are absolutely rightr, they don't need educating out of their instincts.

I don't think anyone on this thread wants schools to show pornography to children, if that was what you're implying.

Actually pp is advocating primary age so earlier than 12

What exposure do they want? Their response earlier was to laugh about dick pics from their teens

So is it that? They are pushing for exposure in class?

We do the PANTs rule which is good and online safety which can include a broad remit of how to be safe. What exposure are they arguing for exactly

Thanks for sharing the paper. It's really interesting to read how this came about and what the educators were trying to do. Here's a bit about "dick pics"

^Across our research, there was a pattern of boys receiving messages of porn-style images of women saying they would exchange images, information, or money. Consistent with a pornified logic of male consumption, the boys almost universally said that responding to this would be “stupid” and they knew they were “bots” (robots) or organised groups seeking to exploit them via what they identified
as “sexualised” content (here we directly meet posthuman techno-sex and its wide-ranging spread and capacities).^

There was also a clear pattern of girls being sent unsolicited genital images from menthey did not know. This was often through message requests or group chats, where the girls clicked onto the image and saw a dick pic or a video of a man masturbating.

Girls, however, had a much harder time across our groups clearly identifying a motive or understanding these as digital group-organised activities; rather they positioned the senders as “paedos,” “desperate old men.” and “flashers”.
^We felt that the dynamics facing girls - of receiving and navigating such messages - was significantly different. For the girls, receipt of these images was almost always perceived as shocking, less expected, and individualized. We found that the majority of girls had received dick pics or masturbation videos from unknown senders, and by age 14, it had become “ubiquitous” (Ricciardelli & Adorjan, 2017). The focus group was, in all cases, the first time that girls had been asked to share their experiences of receiving “unsolicited content”. In nearly
every group, stories emerged about how girls were sent many images from “randoms” (unknown anonymous senders) on Instagram and Snapchat. These were old men (in their twenties!) from America, a range of people they didn’t know, but who sent messages that the girls clicked on and opened up to a dick pic.^

A good friend of mine has an email from Mumsnet HQ suspending her account for saying this exact same thing back in 2018. I don't think she ever came back.

What specifically do you want to show primary age children?

Imagery, such as?