to think that there has been an over reaction to the Dr Pepper incident?

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

Not my opinion but that of Chiabom amongst others who can hopefully continue the debate here instead.

Further to what gorionine posted - there is also evidence that teenagers have an increasingly warped sense of what 'real' sex is about because they are exposed to porn at such a young age. Gang rape is on the increase. It's a rite of passage in some parts of our cities and the young women accept it as such. I think there's a connection there.

My arms are falling!

I really do not understand you, you think it is wrong but then think it is no big deal?

www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx

This, is an excellent unbiased article of teen viewing of pornography.

I can think something is wrong, without having to go insane about it, can I not? Morally, I don't think it's wrong, but legally it is and they shouldn't have done it because of that. I just feel the OP of the previous thread overreacted in a horrendous manner. And I'm wondering the following: "Why react in such a manner" and "Why is it such a big deal?"

"Honestly, if I'm wrong, I would like to understand how you're right, is all. I can't prove my standpoint as valid, and nor can you, so what does that give us?"

Well, my starting point is that if you care about something, you fight for it. If you don't care about something, why tell others that they shouldn't either? The difference is that my standpoint doesn't affect you in any way, whereas you felt it necessary to come on here and accuse us of being incapable of dealing with the real world with all the attendant insult of that position. If MrsR's complaint had affected you in some way, I'd understand your motivation. As it doesn't, I am baffled as to why you think that your opinion - "I don't think this is a big deal" - constitutes a valid contribution.

Secondly, the issue here is whether exposure to hard core pornography is harmful to children. As gorionine says, exposure to pornography comes under the remit of child abuse. I can dig up studies about the deleterious affect of pornography on children, if you'd like, but perhaps you'll accept the fact that this is enshrined into law as an indication that those studies exist. I mean, this is hardly an area where one needs to call an expert witness; it's widely accepted that it's harmful for children to be exposed to pornography, and the laws of your country, mine, and MrsR's all reflect that.

So why react in such a manner? Because a 14 year old child was exposed to humiliation (she said so herself, to her mother) and introduced to the concept of hardcore, revolting, scat porn, by a company which markets itself as a family friendly brand and who deliberately targeted children in its campaign. You understand this. You have said that you don't believe Coke should have done what it did. So your disconnect is, what? Not understanding why someone else who disagrees with Coke actually took it up with them, when you didn't?

And I'm wondering the following: "Why react in such a manner" and "Why is it such a big deal?"

Mmm, let me think, maybe she reacted that way because she knows her own child and that they are not yet mature enough to "deal with it"? Maybe because the thought of an adult writting that on the status of her 14 yo girl is repulsive for a parent?

tortoiseonthehalfshell , great post.

I say I don't care anymore because I've been at this all day and it's getting tiring now. I'm tired of the discussion, I'd continue this tomorrow as I'm exhausted from this for the time being, so if you will allow me some time to re-gather my thoughts to continue this, I will do so tomorrow.

Court adjourned.

Well for me the point is that it was a gratuitous reference to an offensive film with no prior indication/warning that such material might be referenced.

great post tortoise

FYI CEOP are running an 'online surgery' for parents concerned about Facebook - www.facebook.com/ceop 7-8pm on Wednesday 21 July UK time

Great post indeed tortoise

The original thread was too big to bother with by the time I noticed it, but it does seem to me to be a bit of an almighty fuss about nothing. Teens generally like grossing each other out with shocking stories/images/films - when I was in my teens there were certain books and certain urban myths that went round and round the gang etc. This Coke promotion seems to have been spectacularly naff (scat porn is kind of, erm, illegal for ADULTS to look at) and misguided, but hardly the end of the world and hardly as bad as some of Coca Cola's other business practices.

no over-reaction at all.
Beyond disgusting, should never have been allowed. Coca Cola are irresponsibly stupid to have allowed it to happen and should be making much more of an effort to distance themselves from such a situation instead of trying to shrug it off.

"normalising" this kind of stuff for young teens is Wrong.

Agreed it isn't as bad as many other coke practices SGB. But it is still BAD. If my son said to me 'Can I sign up for such-and-such on Facebook?' I would be likely to say 'What company is running it?' If he said 'Coke', I would (unitl now) have been likely to say 'Oh yes, sure,' on the assumption that a company of its size, stature, and projected self-image would be concerned to ensure that its promotions to children would not expose them to anything that was even a tenth as bad as this thrusting of extreme and abusive porn at them.

And it hasn't been an almighty fuss. It has been a successful bit of attention drawing by an MNer, plus a rather lukewarm and ill-though coverage in press.

I went away and thought about this overnight, and have a few more points to make.

Firstly, with regards to 'keeping children in ignorance' - Chiabom - do you really believe that pornography is the best vehicle to educate children about sex - either the basics or the wider world of fetishes etc? Because I emphatically do not believe it is the best educational material available. If someone I knew wanted information about a particular fetish, I would direct them towards the reputable support sites on the internet, and the books that are available, so that they could get sensible support and information.

For example, the doctrine of 'Safe, Sane and Consensual' is central to the fetish community - a person has to consent knowlegeably to what they are going to do, and can withdraw their consent at any point. I haven't seen 2g1c, but doubt that it explains this to the viewer. I also doubt that it examines the risks inherent in the activity portrayed, so that anyone seeking information on scat play can make an informed decision on whether or not to proceed.

There is also the issue of childrens' safety, and how this particular video could have damaged children. Firstly, I do agree with those here who believe that most children are not emotionally ready for such information/sights, and that it will give them a very skewed view of sex that could damage them. I do also believe that viewing that video could be very upsetting for a child and could cause lasting harm.

I think it is also very important to consider that this is a very unsafe area for a child to be in. A child who is looking at this video is not going to have found it in the 'Fluffy Bunnies' section of YouTube - they are going to be delving into a section of the internet where there is a lot of scary stuff - serious hardcore pornography involving bestiality, sadomasochism, rape etc - and importantly it is also an area where the adults who enjoy such things are likely to be.

I would not send a child into a cinema where a group of adults were watching hardcore pornography - I would think that would be an extremely unsafe place for a child to be - and I do not think that the corner of the internet where such things are enjoyed is a safe place for a child either. Sending a child searching for 2g1c is sending them into a virtual world full of extreme images and the people who enjoy them, and is most definitely not a thing any loving parent would do or be happy about. When you are a parent, you may understand this better, and I'd be very surprised if you were this blase about your own darling daughter being exposed to this world.

I know people in the fetish community - some are very close friends - and none of them would endorse children being exposed to the fetish world and its practices. Their websites are very vigilant for any hint that someone underage has joined, or for any mention of underage people, even in someone's account of their own development of a fetish. The fetish community is aware of the risks posed to young people, and are vigilant against their presence there, and I think that you, Chiabom, should consider that fact.

I am not surprised that you find it hard to understand why parents are so emotional about this issue - you haven't experienced the surge of protective impulses that fill you when you become a parent. We know we have to allow our children to take risks - even learning to walk involves letting your child risk falling and hurting themselves - and throughout their childhood we are constantly adjusting the balance between wanting to protect them from harm, and allowing them to take the risks that they must in order to grow and develop. A parent will understand the mum who stands at the window watching down the road for her child coming home, the first time they've been allowed to walk back from school on their own, or who has their heart in their mouth the first time their child tries to ride a bike unaided.

We get pretty good at judging what is and is not a neccessary risk for our children to take, and making ourselves let the child take those neccessary risks - and importantly, we are also pretty good at deciding what risks we don't think our children need to take, where the dangers are too great and outweigh the negligible possible benefits to the child. As I have already said, I don't believe that 2g1c has any educational benefits for anyone wishing to find out about scat fetishes so I do not think that there is any benefit that outweighs the risks to a child of being drawn into that dark world.

Absolutely right, STDG.

Eleison - I agree, I think it's difficult to describe this as an overreaction. A bunch of poeple who spend time waffling on about stuff on the internet talked about this instead of something else. Some media picked up on it. The original poster has been talking to the guilty company. Some media has picked up on it a bit. I don't think many people have put a huge amount of effort into this - but despite this are getting some reasonable results.

I rather suspect that whoever at Cocacola okayed this didn't think of 2g1c as porn. Not that many people are sexually aroused by this sort of thing (scat is a very minority fetish even among fetishists).
I haven't, actually, viewed the clip myself but I suspect there is no actual genital touching involved, and that people who, perhaps, don't spend much of their time thinking either posivitely or negatively about porn would consider this and similar infamous shocking clips/stills as gross-out stuff along the lines of all those 101 uses for a dead baby jokes that were popular when I was a teen.

Isn´t the fact that many people would be offended by the reference enough?

I find the implication from the status that having watched the film the "status holder" then wants to do the same thing offensive tbh.

It's set up as standard girl on girl porn SGB with kissing, touching etc I believe although I have such a well-developed gag reflex I haven't watched it either

'Please don't mistake my words for saying it's okay to disregard the minority, I disagree with that, but that's how observed it is.'

Chiabom, if you're still there, I should reply. This is just not true. There are masses of laws (not to mention moral imperatives) forcing us not to disregard or mistreat people, simply because they are not part of a larger, stronger, or more intimidating group. I think your argument is just a weak way of excusing your own failure to care, I'm afraid.

Ladybiscuit: But my point is, to the majority of viewers (and people who have heard about it but not viewed it) they are not thinking of it as sexually arousing, masturbatory material, but thinking of it as a shock/horror/gross-out/practical joke (ie getting someone else to look at the YUCKIEST THING EVER). So to many people, this would not fit their definition of porn.

But a girl seeing it for the first time is seeing two women kissing, touching, engaging in sexual activity for the viewer's pleasure - and then eating faeces. So I agree that many think of it as gross-out stuff, but the effect on a 14 year old girl who's still absorbing lessons about sexuality and what's normal is, potentially, to think "gosh do people get turned on by this? Do people do this? Should I want to do this, then? Will a boyfriend want me to?".

And I agree with everything SDTG said.

OK I did go and find it and watch it - given how many of the alleged links to it were clips of people running shrieking from their computers I began to wonder if the clip actually existed.
Yes, yuck, gross, etc, though TBH it looks pretty staged, as though the poo is chocolate mousse and the vom chocolate milk. But you would have to have grown up in an absolute vaccuum to think that this is How People Do Sex, and for watching this to frame your entire view of sexual behaviour. Most young people are aware that sex doesn't tend to involve poo. Most people viewing this are not thinking about the sexual aspect of it, the point of viewing it or showing it to friends is 'how shockable are you? Eek yuk arrgh!' NOT ooh let's go and have a try of it ourselves.