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

Does titanic involve Leonardo de caprio maturbating with all on show?

I've not seen it.

(I honestly haven't seen it! But I'm guessing the answer is a firm no.)

it has nudity and sexual content but is suitable for 13 year olds.

Does it have hardcore sexual scenes?

No?

Thought not.

Who cares about bloody Titanic?! We are not talking about a bit of naked boob, we are talking about erect penises and blokes with spikes up their arse, and how this allegedly helps kids get in touch with their 'gender identity'.

Captain kirk is Leo so well endowed that if you get the wrong screen ratio it won't fit?

I'm thinking that's the only explanation as to why titanic has been dragged into this...

I believe this is what one calls a false equivalence.

How about.

Nature progs show animals fucking is real life! So why shouldn't kids look at a photo of a man maturbating? Hmmmmmmmmm? Gotcha.

You're definitely not allowed to show an erect penis on telly.
That might be changing (sorry for the Sun link)

www.thesun.co.uk/news/6281785/tv-ban-on-showing-erect-willies-set-to-be-dropped-under-new-guidelines/

Apparently they can be shown in 15-rated movies.

Captain kirk is Leo so well endowed that if you get the wrong screen ratio it won't fit?

Let's put it this way, openmatte would have allowed rose to hold on to a lot more than the normal version.

Brianni that article is speculating about something that may or may not happen this year.
Have the revised guidelines actually been published?

I'd be amazed if they say wanking cocks it's 15 up.

Over to you.

Thanks for the info captain

Film classification guidelines.

bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/BBFC%20Guidelines_2019.pdf

A lot of what has been mentioned about this exhibition would be 18 rated, or R18 rated.

The R18 category is a special and legally-restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex or strong fetish material involving adults

Some of it might even be described as "obscene pornography", and therefore illegal (p37 of the document).

This is what it says about sex for 15 rated films.

Sexual activity may be portrayed, but usually without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour. Repeated very strong references, particularly those using pornographic language, are unlikely to be acceptable. Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal are unacceptable.

@MenuPlant

Yes, I think it was changed.

highimpactclassification.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/analyzing-the-new-bbfc-guidelines/

Looks like you can briefly or 'comically' display are erection on a 15 cert now.

Must say I didn't expect at the start of the day to be looking at GIFS of a handjob on Big Little Lies...

Haven’t RTWT but can I add some balance here, before all complete hysteria sets in...

The Hayward is a national arts institution. Plenty of galleries, curators and artists and responding to, and exploring gender, sex and identity. That’s nothing new, though there is a definite dialogue about it currently.

The Hayward is a paying gallery and they will have blanket policies about school access, especially London schools. They have a remit and an education dept that will seek to include education as part of their programming.

This is obviously a show aimed at adults/young adults. Schools, teachers and educators will need to use their common sense and discretion to decide if any or all of it is appropriate, and if so, what and for what age range.

I’ve looked through what online images I can, and I’ve certainly seen no porn. Maybe I’ve missed something...?

It’s an exhibition showing 30+ artists, it’s not been made with school children in mind — any claims that it is so are wildly out of place.

If a left field organisation is pushing this toward to a young audience that should be addressed, but let’s not pretend that there are whole galleries out there trying to corrupt 6 year olds with porn or whatever. It’s a misrepresentation.

That should have said "extreme pornography" in my earlier post (not 'obscene').

I’ve looked through what online images I can, and I’ve certainly seen no porn. Maybe I’ve missed something...?

Is everything available to view online?

LauraPalmersBodyBag
Thats an interesting name.
Anyway. As has already been meticulously (as opposed to hysterically) explained, the gallery are marketing this exhibit to primary and secondary age children and their teachers. There are is also an agenda to use the exhibition to help teachers approach gender issues with children. (Why is this even nessecary?)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a gallery is purposely trying to corrupt 6 year olds but art doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a whole ideological machine, with money behind it, pushing for the blurring of boundaries, and the twisting of language, all protected under the banner of "opressed" and "misunderstood".
If you think it ends here, in a gallery only a few will ever go to, you are naive.

Haven’t RTWT but can I add some balance here, before all complete hysteria sets in

But you haven’t, you really haven’t! You haven’t bothered your ass to read the thread or the links, but you think you know so much more than the rest of us. Then you just throw in the usual misogynistic ‘hysteria’ crap and then think you’re more intellectual than the many many intelligent women here. Go away. Read the thread and links provided, then come back when you know what you’re talking about.

It's not "art" appropriate for under 18.

Sometimes I wonder if these "artists" who promote this are trying to subtly groom young children?

How about some nude Greek statues? I think it would be ok for young kids to see some of those. They are just nude depicting form and anatomy. So plain nudes ok but sex acts and violence like that, not ok.

I’ve looked through what online images I can, and I’ve certainly seen no porn. Maybe I’ve missed something...?

I've seen this remark a couple of times, that there's nothing pornographic on the online images. Unless and until you visit the exhibition you can't state that these online images are truly and fully representative of the entire exhibition - in fact they clearly aren't as the erect penis being masturbated image shows.

@LauraPalmersBodybag

I'm have an arts background and am a teacher.

I've studied the arts. A long while ago I probably would have thought the same as you, pre my own children and pre teaching. Although, even pre teaching I'd have raised eyebrows at some of that work being for below university level.

I had to be part of an art workshop that at university still affects me to this day, we all walked out but felt we should have stayed and developed our grit in the name of art.

The art world is a bubble that does normalise violence and misogyny in oil paint.

At best Galleries are extremely sexist in how they represent women in art.

At worst potentially complicit in normalising abuse.

We breeze past the beautifully painted Reubens without really thinking about the content.

twitter.com/barbiereports/status/1104740581081792512?s=21

Most of art is littered with dead or dying women, that's completely normalised, as, as ifnot points out, is your user name.

I appreciate art greatly.

I do not appreciate claims that because something is “art” that it can’t be pornography. Not sure on that side of the pond but over here people joke about pornography being “art” as is. The lines are already blurred and I don’t trust anyone who wants to keep them that way or who condones further blurring them.

I am appalled there are people - including parents - defending exposing children to pornographic images and even saying they themselves would show their children photos of adult men masturbating. It is not just exposing them to “nudity”, it is normalizing sexual themes and acts involving children. This is grooming behaviour. It is child sexual abuse. See: Desmond is Amazing. His parents also like to claim that his “act” is “art” while having him dance provocatively on stage in adult clubs for money, while letting him associate with a known murderer, where we can see Desmond mimicking the taking of ketamine on camera. Desmond and that other kid -
Lactatia - are regularly being exposed to adult themed “kinks”. Being taught to trust adults unquestionably, respect their kinks, that having boundaries is “vanilla” and “prejudiced”. This is absolutely grooming.

And those who say, well, I can’t find any bad images online so it must be okay. Huh? So because the truly pornographic images aren’t reprinted online eyewitness accounts must be false? The reviews in The Guardian and by other arts critics of the show that describe the images must be false? What does that say about how you also trust accounts of victims of child abuse (or any other abuse or assault) - if it is not on camera and published for the world to see it does not exist?