To think that inviting primary children to witness erect penises, gang rape references and spikes up mens arses isn't artistic, it's pedophilia?

[ShouldIStayOrShouldIRun]

This art exhibition is being pushed by Gendered Intelligence, a group that works in schools:

www.transgendertrend.com/gendered-intelligence-training-teachers-kiss-my-genders/

The event is not age restricted, in fact children are being actively encouraged to go.

I have been informed by a very 'woke' friend that this is art and I am homophobic, kink shaming, and transphobic (because apparently even linking to the above website on my FB is, no matter what it says) and that maybe I should go with my own primary aged dc to 'broaden my mind'.

My mind has been broadened. That friend obviously shouldn't be let anywhere near my dc again.

AIBU?

• Opening post edited at OP's request

But nobody is saying that the exhibition is suitable for primary school children.

Apart from the Gallery itself.

Primary schools ages 4 – 11 : Due to the 13+ age recommendation, this exhibition may not be suitable for primary schools and some secondary school pupils. Teachers should visit the exhibition in advance to check the suitability for their students. Free (Free tutor tickets when bringing a group)
Lambeth & Southwark Schools ages 4 –16: Free (Free tutor tickets when bringing a group

www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/hayward-gallery-art/kiss-my-genders#484541

But nobody is saying that the exhibition is suitable for primary school children. Nor is it remotely likely that any primary school (or indeed secondary school), would organise a school trip there.

Well, the point is that they were and there is a teenage 'takeover' being held.

The genuine children and adults struggling with their identity. I'm just saying that, people would be right to be extremely worried if they received a letter from their headteacher saying that their child would be attending an exhibition like that. But that such a scenario would be extremely unlikely to say the least!

Well, the point is that this was flagged when primary and secondary teachers went to a briefing on how to use the exhibition with their pupils.

And they only changed the 'age' rating after massive pushback yesterday.

One side accusing others of being bigoted, the other of being perverts and paedos.

The problem is men. Who outnumber women paedos in the thousands. And who are using the new ideas that 'gender' brings about to access kids.

What worries me is that some people see nothing wrong with an exhibition that is targeting kids, that is full of porn. I mean you are either for porn for kids, or you are against it.

Porn has been heavily normalised in society.

Lots of people say children are being exposed to it at ever younger ages, and they are right.

In this context maybe a lot of people would say oh a man wanking is hardly a big deal, it's almost innocent compared to what's out there.

Men watch porn all over the place now. Cafes, trains. The fact this potentially exposes other people to it, transgressing their boundaries, is not a problem. It's really disturbing and looked at would be a success at queering something.

Anyway. Spikes up arses a little less mainstream probs.

I read one of the links upthread which said they had really fucked up the exhibition, putting pieces which are supposed to be seen together, in different rooms. Losing the message. It's safe to say then that the people who put it together didn't know what they were doing. Put the pics how they thought liked nice and are unaware of any depth. It's all about surface appearance, isn't it.

oldcrone that was added to the website yesterday afternoon after a lot of people on twitter etc pointed out that showing porn to children is abusive and illegal. The original webpage had no age restrictions. There are screenshots earlier in the thread
Anyone defending this is just seeing rainbows and glitter and failing to appreciate what these images and films actually depict and how disturbing this exhibition would be to any child exposed to it. It’s indefensible and as others have said is clearly grooming in plain sight

The original webpage had no age restrictions.

I know. I posted screenshots and archived web links earlier in the thread. I was pointing out that the website still doesn't have age restrictions, since it still gives ticket prices (free) for school groups aged four and upwards. So the gallery is still saying that the exhibition 'may' be suitable for primary school children.

It’s indefensible and as others have said is clearly grooming in plain sight

It certainly is.

Sorry oldcrone I misread your post!

Hell no
YANBU

@MenuPlant

Is anything in this exhibition really 'porn' though? As CorBlimeyGivener (I think) mentioned yesterday, something depicting a 'spike up a man's arse' might not be far removed from classic paintings of hell (for example). There's a few here: m.ranker.com/list/terrifying-paintings-of-hell/lea-rose-emery

I think the first and only place I specifically recall seeing a depiction of a man anally-impaled on a spike was at Edinburgh Dungeon (a family friendly attraction).

I wouldn't consider any of the images from this exhibition, that are available to view online, to be pornographic. I wouldn't want to make a judgment on the others without having seen them (although I guess the photo of an erect penis is the most explicit sounding and likely one of the exhibits that carries an age warning).

Is anything in this exhibition really 'porn' though? As CorBlimeyGivener (I think) mentioned yesterday, something depicting a 'spike up a man's arse' might not be far removed from classic paintings of hell (for example). There's a few here: m.ranker.com/list/terrifying-paintings-of-hell/lea-rose-emery

I think the first and only place I specifically recall seeing a depiction of a man anally-impaled on a spike was at Edinburgh Dungeon (a family friendly attraction).

OK.

But what has any of that got to do with helping children to become more 'open minded' about gender identity? Or whatever the reason is that they think kids should come to this exhibition?

(although I guess the photo of an erect penis is the most explicit sounding and likely one of the exhibits that carries an age warning).

A 13+ age warning.

I think if there are accusations that the gallery is showing children porn, particularly from people who haven't seen the images, it's worth questioning if that's what is actually happening.

Was the painting scene in Titanic pornographic? That was a 12A.

What if the image was an exhibition about race (I believe the artist/model is black); would people be calling it porn then?

What if the image was an exhibition about race (I believe the artist/model is black); would people be calling it porn then?

Yes they would as it's sexual content.

Was the painting scene in Titanic pornographic? That was a 12A.

Oh, I must have missed the part in the painting scene in Titanic where Jack was stroking his erect cock....

Also Titanic seems to be 12 not 12a
bbfc.co.uk/releases/titanic-1996.

bbfc.co.uk/releases/titanic-2005-7

The video release also seems to be 12

And the 3d release
bbfc.co.uk/releases/titanic-video-0

It's a 12A - bbfc.co.uk/releases/titanic-film-1

The link you posted was for a different tv mini series with the same name.

Blu-ray also seems to not be 12a

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Titanic-Blu-ray-2012-Leonardo-DiCaprio-/381491871079?nav=SEARCH

The link you posted was for a different tv mini series with the same name.

I've posted 3 other links.

You'll find the version you linked to runs shorter, as it was submitted with the scene trimmed.

Yes we cross-posted.

Looks like it was a 12 on initial release and was re-released in 3 forms in 2012, two of which are rated 12A and one rated 12.

I thought it was pretty famously known that erect penises are beyond the pale, for media and censors, in a way that breats, boobs and bums are not?

I've never seen a naked erect penis in a mainstream film I don't think. I think a man wanking his cock is firmly in porn territory according to pretty much any angle I can think of.

You're definitely not allowed to show an erect penis on telly.

And while I agree that art is full of all sorts of images that we don't even seem to notice, or for eg standard christ on cross is explicit depiction of torture which few people even see as that as its such an everyday image...

Yes I get that.

I'm just not sure it applies to this exhibition, these images, this context.

You'll find the version you linked to runs shorter, as it was submitted with the scene trimmed.

The 12A releases are longer than some of the 12s and a couple of second set shorter than others.

Must admit, I do not have a full working knowledge of all the various cuts of titanic: I just googled the age rating and 12A was the first result. I don't think whether it's 12 or 12A is salient to my point anyway - that it has nudity and sexual content but is suitable for 13 year olds.

Off topic but the reason is you see less in those rereleases, the shot is framed differently.

"The film's IMAX 3D & 3D Blu-ray release presents the film open-matte, at an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, meaning there was more picture information is visible in the 12 releases as it's framed differently.
"more of Rose's naked body is shown, including her full behind when she drops the robe and a clear view of both breasts when she begins to lay down on the couch."