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

Thank you 👍

@Tomorrowsanewday your Dsis might find the link in the OP helpful for further general information (Safe schools alliance).

When asked about the incident Asda was keen to stress that it has a partnership with the charity which produced the materials, the chain was not directly responsible for the content of the pack.

Of course they are responsible for any group they choose to partner with.

@GilbertMarkham, why thank you

just channelling my rage!

"Gilbert Markham" ?

Of ----- ?

That's two years of my life I never got back. Dreadful book.

So I texted my Dsis asking if she’d heard about Asda selling education packs normalising paedophillia and chid abuse.
Her reply, ‘Oh, I haven’t bought anything out of Asda for ages’
This is what we’re up against.

How frustrating tomorrow

This is the kinda stuff that makes me angry too. No ones interested if it doesnt affect them then somehow its everyone elses fault that they were never warned about it when what you were talking about suddenly affects them.

From what I could tell, the age has no limit was a slogan amongst a narrative where children were encouraged to find their own slogans? Which seems to demonstrate what a poster upthread was saying about the subtle and pervasive nature of it. Why use that one particular one as an example? It's such a well-known paedophile phrase.

And reminded me of some NSPCC material which was noted at the time of rubber wanking man.

The material said something like if an adult is doing such and such to you, it's wrong.

And was then changed to if an adult is doing such and such to you and it's making you uncomfortable, it's wrong.

Instantly changing the entire focus on to whether or not you are enjoying the illegal sex abuse, being the deciding factor into whether it's wrong. Which is a classic MAP trope.

After the women here highlighted it in the same way as that ASDA is being highlighted, they swiftly changed it. Without comment.

Without a damn word.

(They fired rubber wanking man without comment, too. After having told everyone they were homophobic for objecting to him wanking in their toilets.)

The dice game is appalling. No breasts, no nipples, no clitoris. Just holes and things to put in them.

Tell me if I’m getting too cynical in my old age but is anyone else beginning to wonder WHO are these people at the top of these organisations and what is their real agenda?
Making trite statements knowing something else will be the big news of tomorrow, meanwhile they’ll continue on their merry way.

I’m glad someone else has mentioned the NSPCC changing their wording. I thought I’d dreamt it.
Isn’t this just the same as the woman saying children can’t be damaged by sexual abuse if they don’t know it’s wrong?

Didn’t they also minimise abuse of the child wasn’t scared?

@ProfessorSlocombe

Oh dear, I love it

Datun
And reminded me of some NSPCC material which was noted at the time of rubber wanking man.*

The NSPCC Speak Out, Stay Safe assemblies, which are delivered to many primary school children, use and teach to the children the definition of sexual abuse which is "when a child is being made, asked or rewarded for doing anything with their body, that frightens or worries them - or is being made to do this to someone else." (my bold). This way of wording abuse, to define it by a child's response to it, does not happen for the other types of abuse such as physical abuse. The wording may well fundamentally change a child's understanding of sexual abuse and it may confuse and shame them about why they did not recognise and respond to abuse with the apparently normal reaction or fear or worry. The NSPCC have not changed this wording, it is still what they teach in their school assemblies. They use the more accepted definition on their website.

Other worrying phrases that I have seen being taught to primary children and displayed on posters around the school include "Age is only a number. Everyone can what they feel they are able to do, no matter what age they are." which is displayed alongside "We are all free to choose who we love and to chose the right person for us when we are ready for a relationship.

And of course young children are now taught in class about maintaining confidentiality - which is essentially teaching them to keep secrets from their parents and others.

These are generally subtle things being taught to children which, at if you look at them in one way, could be argued to be reasonable. However if you look at them through the eyes of a child, perhaps a child who is already being groomed or abused and told that the abuse they are experiencing is a special sort of love, then these subtle things become quite dangerous.

The NSPCC definition

So technically a very small child/baby can’t actually be abused because they aren’t necessarily scared?

Technically according to one very questionable line of thinking.

For anyone confused about the "love has no age limit" and similar slogans being used in SRE, this is what the conductor Charles Hazlewood said about the abuse he suffered as a child.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jfnv

"you see all the paedophiles I knew as a child - they sold it to me as a form of love. Now that is the most confusing and corrupting thing to get a child to invest in and believe in. It fundamentally messes up your internal wiring."

He is very compelling, but does seem to hope that, by listening to his story, abusers will not abuse which is probably not going to happen.

Unfortunately there has been a lot of abuse in the music industry as such people migrate to areas where they find opportunities.

So - say a nursery nurse - lets say it’s a woman - decides to abuse a load of babies and small children at the nursery she works in, to video it for another deprived shitbag.

The babies don’t understand what is happening, and the small children trust her - they may even like her and their ‘special secret games’.

So that’s not abuse according to the NSPCC?

The NSPCC have not changed this wording, it is still what they teach in their school assemblies. They use the more accepted definition on their website.

Good lord, chicken, that's my mistake then. I felt absolutely certain they had changed it.

Maybe I'm mixing it up with them firing rubber wanker.

And yes. It's all subtle messages. Loads of things you can do to a child that won't scare them, but is 100% grooming them.

Why does age need to be a prevalent part of sex education, unless it is talking about legality and inappropriate relationships?

Children don't need to be taught about old people who love each other, for fuck's sake. Grannies, grandpas, aunts, uncles, people in the street. It's not exactly hidden or strange.

I would be very suspicious about someone who was saying well we are only mentioning age because of old people.

The definition of sexual abuse has not actually changed, it is just that children are being misinformed about what the definition is.

As someone who was groomed, sexually abused and raped by an adult male relative for many years of my childhood I find this definition of sexual abuse taught to children to be harmful and dangerous. Not only does it mean that a child may not realise that sexual abuse is happening to her (or him) as she has never felt frightened by the abuse due to grooming but also the definition has the potential to make an abused child feel ashamed that she did not react to the sexual abuse with the expected fear or worry. It risks a child concluding that either her abuser is right and and she wanted the abuse to happen and that she liked and consented to it. Alternatively it risks the abused child feeling that she is stupid or abnormal as clearly other children would have recognised the abuse enough to have responded appropriately with fear or worry. A child who feels ashamed is much less likely to disclose what is happening to herself. It is a very harmful definition to give children and it is a definition which predators can use to their advantage.

So a subtle change in wording can have a profound and damaging impact on some, maybe even many, children.

It’s very important to remember that charities are not in any way automatically moral arbiters or morally superior to the rest of us. A charity status is a financial designation, nothing more.

They’re not hallowed entities across the board, by any means, as has been proven time and again.

There was a thread about the NSPCC thing when it came out with links to the decent definition and then their other version where the child has to be confused etc

If anyone wants to search

I'm going to the shops now (not Asda).

The thing about 'Love Has No Age Limit' is why does that message need to be given to kids anyway, really? Like, what has pensioners being in love got to do with kids, why is that an important message? The absolute worst they are going to say at primary age is 'Ew, granny and grandad are kissing lol' it's hardly hate crime of the century is it? And people don't generally care about the elderly and what they get up to anyway! Like, people don't end up hating old people for being in love, there hasn't been a spate of hate crimes against elderly pensioners on the basis that they were holding hands on the bus?

I don't know if I am articulating myself very well here, it just doesn't seem like a priority message to be giving kids? And the misinterpretation by both adults and children of what it could mean doesn't bear thinking about.

That dice game is abhorrent, as Datun said, just a list of holes and things you can put in those holes. Urgh.

@ChickenonaMug

I'm very sorry to hear about your experience. Thank you for explaining so plainly why the NSPCC message is so flawed. Of course, it is important that a child understands that it is wrong for an adult to behave in a way that makes them frightened or worried. But it does not follow that if they are not frightened or worried, then there is no abuse.

I'm actually getting more and more angry about this lack of critical thinking and understanding of formal logic in organisations that should know better. As it happens, the danger here comes from a classic case of 'denying the antecedent', otherwise known as the fallacy of the inverse. It goes like this:

If P, then Q.
Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

i.e.
If a child is frightened, then they are being abused.
Therefore, if a child is not frightened, then they are not being abused.

Arguments of this form are of course invalid, but you can see how they could be used so easily to exploit vulnerable children. Organisations dealing with this shit should be well aware of this, and make sure that their messaging is absolutely unambiguous.

Another way of looking at this is to say that

If P, then Q

it does not follow that

If R, then not Q

ie. just because the statement "if a child is frightened, then they are being abused" is true, this does NOT imply that this is the only indicator of abuse.

Similar shitty non-logic is being thrown around in the whole woman/menstruators crap that is going on right now.

The age thing is really bugging me.

How much of those materials are talking about age in the context of legality? Or power dynamics?

And why a dice game that talks about inserting things in the anus, when that's completely illegal for most of the children it's targeting?

They should be talking about boundaries, how girls can say no, and boys, how boys might be influenced by online porn, anal prolapse, how it's not intrinsically enjoyable for a girl, etc.

Not, let's see how many objects we can think of to shove up your arse, under age child.

Fuming.