Why are ASDA normalising paedophilia and Child Abuse?

[Sunkisses]

Is it OK for ASDA to send parents emails linking to an organisation that normalises paedophilia with red flag phrases such as "love has no age", and recommending books for children that contain explicit descriptions of child sex abuse? Why are they doing this? Are ASDA experts in home schooling and safeguarding? More details in this excellent thread by Safe Schools Alliance: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1272638132589035520

Thread title:

'Why are ASDA normalising paedophilia and Child Abuse?'

Show me where Asda have directly done this. Because I think it's bollocks, to be frank.

Yes. I have read the original downloads from the website.

If you had not see the video or could not, it was problematic. It was all about the context. I ran it by a safeguarding person and they agreed the context was not made explicit enough.

The secondary pack contained a book on the book list that discussed sec abuse in an inappropriate way for the lower age group. The book list has been removed.

It also contains a link to a news paper article in the section on suggestions on what can be done. That article contained a suggestion to send in a submission to the Scottish GRA consultation as it was aimed at adults. No child should be encouraged to submit to a consultation on a law with wide repercussions on the basis on reading a few paragraphs of someone’s experience however valid that experience is. Talk about manipulating children for activism. ......

Sorry. I read them just before they were changed as I had sent an email to the school about the fact this was around and the changes had been made by the time the recipient read it.

I had included screenshots.

"Yes the phrase is super PIE.
in the context of the whole document, it is not out of line."

That's how PIE worked in the past: very gradually and subtly so there wasn't quite enough to catch hold of, but each step was designed to move that little bit nearer to their goal.

No paedophile is going to march up to a parent and say "Let me have your child."
They groom, gradually and carefully, over a long period of time.

Look at how far they've already got.
The packs are the same thing: lots of little things: the PIE slogan, the dubious book recommendation. They can open their eyes wide and bleat about it being taken out of context.
But not if you look at it as a whole and realise that so many "misunderstandings" is either gross incompetence or quite deliberate.

ASDA should stick to selling food. These kind of connections and issues never do commercial companies any good. You can be treading on a minefield. It is true that children love their parents and siblings (and indeed plenty of 15 year old girls will "fall in love") but the problem for ASDA is these kind of campaigns are risky from a PR point of view and best kept out of.

Isn't the point that ASDA or DRM, if they are going to prepare materials for parents and schools, should have had someone, somewhere in the process with enough safeguarding training and experience to have lightbulbs exploding when they saw the "love has no age" phrase and say 'No, that has too much history, let's use something else' and to point out the 6 year old's extract was CSA.

Which leaves two scenarios - 1. they saw it and knew exactly what it meant and wanted it there, or 2. They know nothing. Which was it?

ShinyFootball - Asda has removed their kink to the home learning packs. They were there before SSA posted on twitter.

The home learning packs are still on the DRM website but the phrase 'love has no age limit' has been removed, as has the recommendation for the book normalising CSA. They are free, not paid for, and they are aimed at parents to teach their children at home

www.diversityrolemodels.org/education-services/helping-you-with-home-learning

If there is nothing wrong, why do you think Asda removed the link? Why did DRM change the things they did?

I really think you need to read around CSA a bit more to understand why things like this are so pernicious. And perhaps read the link to Transgender Trend's investigation into DRM.

FWIW, I don't think DRM is full of paedophiles, I think they're probably just useful idiots. As are the D&I people at Asda. But idiots can be dangerous

I wonder if they will take a close look at who came up with this, who checked it and who approved it?

‘Whoopy’ doesn’t really cover it does it? It wasn’t a typo or the wrong photo of someone used. This was a project that quite a few people had their hands/eyes on. Will the actually take a step back and wonder why this was commissioned (by a good/clothes shop) and why this content was chosen to be pushed out unsolicited with the target being small kids.

A store taking upon itself to send out sex education packs to your kids? They are looking at kids in that way?

Asda has removed their kink to the home learning packs

most appropriate autocorrect ever

No, I just think it's about being realistic rather than idealistic.

At age 13 I, and those in my class, all knew about sex, including things like anal. Kids today are exposed to a damn sight more because it isn't about how you protect your child, it's about how every other parent protects theirs too, and you can't control that.

The dice thing should result in discussion about what is healthy and what isn't, with an emphasis on consent.

I don't see the point in denying to children that sex is enjoyable. I don't see the point in limiting education and conversation to the bare bones, because frankly it doesn't work. The rate of teenage pregnancy, abuse and STDs are a flying testament to that.

Ideally of course, this would all be home taught. But it isn't an ideal world, and parents are often way out of touch with what their children are already exposed to, or lack the rounded experience and knowledge to be able to lead those sorts of conversation.

Do I think any of this is the place of a supermarket? Of course not. But I do think it belongs in schools, in healthy, controlled environments. I'm not saying promote position of the week or anything, just be honest. People do have anal sex - and why do they do that? Well, it's a form of sex engaged in by gay men, and straight couples. And actually, a lot of people do it because they feel pressured to, which isn't OK.

What do you think ‘love’ refers to when you are talking about LGB (the Two makes no sense in this context)? They are taking about sexuality. Physical attraction.

The ‘T’ makes to sense being grouped with LGB

A lot of people feel pressure ...meaning a lot of women and girls.

Guess what discussion you can find in this ‘safe sex’ teaching resource (not the Asda one - the other one funded by the taxpayer) about the risks of physical damage or STDs or having your own boundaries. Oh that’s right. None. Just a menu of lovely options that reads strangely like it was written with men and boys in mind.

That dice game is horrendous. The ‘explanation’ that goes alongside mentions neither consent, female pleasure nor risks. Imagine if you were being abused at home and had to play that ‘game’ with your class??!!

Some people just cannot see grooming at work. They’d rather deny, deny, deny.

Asda know it was problematic, that’s why they edited it. Asda fucked up.

We need frank conversations with our kids before all these organisations get free access to them.

Normalising “anything goes and you should darn well enjoy it or else you’re a prude” through “educational” materials is repugnant. Anyone who writes this stuff is a pervert and anyone who writes it aiming it at children is a dangerous pervert.

@ShinyFootball people have already explained quite authoritatively why phrases like that are red flag phrases for children and why they do not pass safeguarding tests. The relevant extract from the book is horrendous from that perspective. How about you explain to us why any child should be subjected to a passage like that.

ASDA absolutely should be held directly responsible for sending this shit into people’s homes.

The government need to clamp down on what sex and relationship material is allowed in schools. Nothing should get in without being reviewed by safeguarding experts as age appropriate and suitable for all the kids in the class, including the ones who are yet to disclose prior abuse.

Maybe we should contact Harriet Harman? She knows how sneaky groomers are due to her PIE experience.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

She’s still MP for Camberwell and Peckham.

Unfortunately the sort of people who get onto such advisory panels etc are the very sort who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near important decisions of this kind.

I heartily agree that sex education material should be very closely examined, but we need to ensure that it is not being overseen by those with dubious motives.

In whose interest is it to gamify sex in the process of education? Where is the sensitivity in presenting this information in this way and forcing discussion, showing up who does and doesn’t know? I was very surprised to discover from my daughter at 12 that she seemed to be one of the only ones in her case to know the basics of sex and even the mechanics of menstruation. So no, I do think that 13 would be totally unsuitable to use such a blunt instrument to discuss things like anal sex, using objects etc.

And as others have pointed out, the lesson plan specified not discussion around consent, and potential harm and damage to bodies.

No these dice seem to be about building awareness of these sex acts. I do therefore ask a lot of questions about this. Starting with: Who benefits from children knowing about using objects in sex? Who benefits when the female sex organs are discussed as a ‘generic vulva’ and not a clitoris and vagina separately?

I'll head over to Twitter and see if anyone there has any screen grabs from before any changes.

If it was a mailshot to thousands of customers then one must exist somewhere.

I want to see this got myself.

And thanks for the suggestions I read up on things etc. I've been posting on this topic on here for years. The assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about is really interesting.

I don’t always read threads back in full - I flip the thread and usually post in reply to one of the last few comments, whichever happens to get me riled enough to do. I always assume that people don’t know much about the topic(s) being discussed if their style of questioning indicates that to be the case. I have now read back and do see that you obviously do have plenty of understanding.

I hope you find the evidence you need.

I firmly believe that any individual or any entity that colludes with, funds or otherwise perpetuates the creep (pun wholly intended) towards politicising and fetishising education for children about sex and consent, absolutely should be held directly responsible. Whether intended or not. It’s not good enough to just say, oops, we didn’t know or oops, we didn’t think about that, or oops, it wasn’t intended that way.

'. I always assume that people don’t know much about the topic(s) being discussed if their style of questioning indicates that to be the case.'