Soft porn included in "recommended resources" for secondary school kids in Wales

[2fallsagain]

I have seen it all. The Women's Equality Network in Wales and produced a "toolkit" to celebrate international women's day which links to resources from Gal Dem which includes a soft porn video where the actress says "how do you want to f**k tonight Daddy". Also on the site are tips for "kinky zoom orgies"

Have they actually lost their minds? More information here:

twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1360320342141653006?s=20

AIBU to think this is just out and out grooming?

Have attached a screenshot for those who don't like to click on links

@MerchedCymru

WEN Wales are part of the UK-wide Women's Equality Network. They are funded by Welsh Government - at least in part. Welsh Government are Stonewall Diversity Champions which probably explains the 'key terms' listed on the Toolkit's opening page: cisgender gender equality gender identity intersectional (leaves out 'sex' in the relevant characteristics) non-binary privilege sex ('assigned to a person at birth based on genitals and reproductive organs) transgender and finally... woman/girl - a female person. This includes transwomen and girls, as well as ciswomen and girls.'

So an International Women's Day toolkit for schools that relegates women and girls to the bottom of the gender heap and provides a link to a pornographic web site. Nothing to worry about here.

So the women’s equality network doesn’t know what a woman is and the sad thing is I’m not surprised

I look forward to internal women’s day where organisations everywhere will include TW in their lists of who is womaning best

I don’t even know what to say about the toolkit other than does no one understand safeguarding anymore? 🤦🏻‍♀️

Of course stonewall have their nasty little fingers in there.

Oh yes stonewall are likely to be all
Over this. There is so much wrong with this toolkit and they appear to have only negative things to say.

And so the safeguarding boundaries continue to be dismantled ...
No surprise to see Stonewall linked to this . I feel sick tbh

Alert your DDs school so they don't use it.

Have teacher's unions had any input in this?
I'm not a teacher but isn't sharing pornograpic material with children a criminal offence?
How are they going to teach when they're on the sex offenders register?

This all just seems so sinister to me, not for the benefit of students or teachers so who does benefit?

Thank you for highlighting this OP. I will be keeping a very close eye on my DDs school.

Many of the teaching unions have no concept of safeguarding judging by some of the resources they endorse. The NEU is particularly bad.

I look forward to internal women’s day where organisations everywhere will include TW in their lists of who is womaning best

A theatre in Belfast is kicking off International Women’s Day with a high profile person who is neither Irish nor a woman (but claims to be even they seem to hate women with a passion).

This person (Munroe Bergdorf) previously sent out an edict banning feminists on a feminist march from ‘centring reproductive issues, because not all women have vaginas’.

This person has previously been sacked from another high profile role with the NSPCC for safeguarding issues (encouraging children to private message them) and has posed for Playboy.

This person has also famously made nasty homophobic and sexist remarks against women and was instrumental in getting the amazing Baroness Emma Nicholson sacked from the Booker Prize board that her late husband founded.

So bizarre that they couldn’t find any actual women in Ireland to kick off IWD (let alone a woman without that totally questionable history).

Lots of discussion about the effects of Stonewall and their pals here. I think all concerned parents should contact their schools and find out exactly what content they are teaching children as anything from Stonewall (and similar organisations) deliberately lies about the law on single sex spaces (safeguarding issue) and promotes gender ideology against government guidelines.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4156137--to-think-Stonewall-should-not-be-involved-with-schools

Maybe NI is short of women garden?

Oh no it would seem that just over half it’s population is made up of women (around 950,000) how strange! Looks like there are plenty of women they could have asked instead! Maybe they are all womaning wrongly 🤔🤔🤔

@HermitsLife

Have teacher's unions had any input in this? I'm not a teacher but isn't sharing pornograpic material with children a criminal offence? How are they going to teach when they're on the sex offenders register?

This all just seems so sinister to me, not for the benefit of students or teachers so who does benefit?

It is not pornogaphic.

The use of questionable language does not make something pornographic. The objectionable line has been posted frequently on this thread but that does not make this thread pornographic.

Not everything with sexual or explicit language is porn.

@Lockheart this is the definition of porn

NOUN

1. writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement
2. the production of such material

Sometimes (informal) shortened to: porn, porno
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

You would argue the video was not designed to stimulate sexual excitement would you? What was it designed for?

A site being recommended for children for international women's Day that contains a video on the first page referring to a woman as a 'nasty bitch' ?
That's ok?
It's not acceptable for my daughter.

It is illegal to show a person under 18 or allow them to watch it.

I am deeply suspicious of anyone who not only thinks it is ok for children (and 15 year olds are still children) to watch this. I'm also deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to gaslight society into thinking this is ok.

@Buzzinwithbez

A site being recommended for children for international women's Day that contains a video on the first page referring to a woman as a 'nasty bitch' ? That's ok? It's not acceptable for my daughter.

Yes. But according to lockheart it's not porn and therefore it's ok.

[quote 2fallsagain]@Lockheart this is the definition of porn

NOUN

1. writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement
2. the production of such material

Sometimes (informal) shortened to: porn, porno
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

You would argue the video was not designed to stimulate sexual excitement would you? What was it designed for?

[/quote]
It obviously was not designed to arouse sexual excitement, and you know it.

It is a short 6 minute film about two people finding connections in the digital age of coronavirus. They talk about post modern art and films.

The inclusion in that 6 minute film of sexual language does not make it pornography.

Game of Thrones is not pornogaphic, despite some pretty explicit sex scenes. 100 Years of Solitude, Death and the Maiden, Shakespeare, and many more pieces of writing all have very sexual language in them and they're often on the English Literature curriculum as mandatory.

You object to it as inappropriate for young children? Absolutely right and I agree with you.

But you are being completely disingenuous and wrong to call it pornography and to then try and portray the entire gal-dem website as pornographic, which is what your thread is about.

Of course it was designed to stimulate sexual excitement. The people in the video are adult actors. It's deeply disingenuous to try and paint this about people meeting in the age of Covid.

Ok so I've watched it.

It isn't soft porn 🙄. I really can't see the issue here.

I'm glad it's there and would be happy if it was shown to my age appropriate teenager.

I think people forget that resources like this are not there to sell themselves to children, but for teachers to then discuss them with children and have open ended conversations about whether they feel it was right or wrong, what about the situation made them feel uncomfortable, why they would or wouldn't want to be in that situation, when to talk to a trusted adult and what the repercussions of this particular situation might be.

In the context of a lesson and this kind of discussion I think it's a great resource. Actually useful to our teens.

I think these kinds of posts are just reactive and hyped up.

@2fallsagain

Of course it was designed to stimulate sexual excitement. The people in the video are adult actors. It's deeply disingenuous to try and paint this about people meeting in the age of Covid.

Have you actually watched the entire video? Listened to the conversation to actors have? It is in no way designed to elicit sexual arousal.

Let's try another analogy. WAP was an atrocious song with frankly some awful things in it. But it was not porn because it was not designed for sexual excitement.

You are confusing sexual language with porn and you are quite clearly incorrect in both dictionary definitions and in law.

@flobberdobberrr please don't tell me you have anything to do with children.

This pack is for pupils as well as teachers. I'm shocked anyone thinks it's ok for 11 year old kids to be watching this and linking to the very adult site. The actors aren't teenagers in a difficult situations. The video has not been designed to educate kids ffs.

The blurb says this: This new Shorties film is giving us chemistry, it's giving us spark, it's giving us... an image of Tilda Swinton sandwiched between two black millennials

So the women's equality network thinks this is suitable viewing material for 11 years olds and people on here agree with them.

No words.

I have watched it all. It shows a sex worker being referred to in derogatory terms by a punter, then setting up a date with him after he mentions wanting to 'beat the ass off' Tilda Swinton. I wonder how Tilda Swinton feels about being referred to like that....
Setting up a date with a random man who pays to watch cam girls doesn't seem like something I'd want to normalise either.
How is any of that progressive or something we'd be glad for our daughters to see?

[quote 2fallsagain]@flobberdobberrr please don't tell me you have anything to do with children.

This pack is for pupils as well as teachers. I'm shocked anyone thinks it's ok for 11 year old kids to be watching this and linking to the very adult site. The actors aren't teenagers in a difficult situations. The video has not been designed to educate kids ffs.

The blurb says this: This new Shorties film is giving us chemistry, it's giving us spark, it's giving us... an image of Tilda Swinton sandwiched between two black millennials

So the women's equality network thinks this is suitable viewing material for 11 years olds and people on here agree with them.

No words.
[/quote]
Could you please quote me where I have said it's ok for 11 year olds?

I have said no such thing.

I will repeat (again) - it is inappropriate for young children but is not so for yound adults and older teens.

You do have quite the tendency to extrapolate and hyperbolise don't you?

That film is so clearly inappropriate for young teens/children. It’s a recent upload but I assume this is a bit of a cockup (for want of a better word) and this was listed as a resource before this was uploaded. The ‘shortie’ series from what I can gather seem to be short artsy films with some kind of message. The galdem website does have some useful stuff. And let’s face it there’s not exactly a plethora of websites dedicated specifically to POC from ‘marginalised genders’ (assume being female comes under that). I can see how this happened. But I would like to think teachers would vet this stuff before recommending it to their students.

You are defending the inclusion of the website in a pack that is designed for 11 year olds.