Audi drops not to subtle paedophile car advert!

[Knoxinbox]

There is no way this was just badly thought through....

I think this comment sums it up

“Let's add it up: Red=eroticism, sports car=substitute for potency, animal print mini-skirt=sex appeal, banana=phallic symbol. But sure this is all just accidental...”

Do you think this was someone testing the waters so to speak about how society might respond to something like this? I’ve read quite a few things on here about how the MRA has as its core aim to normalise paedophilia as just another sexual preference (eg minor attracted person) and this was what immediately jumped to my mind with this ad.

What do you think??

I’m flabbergasted that people can’t see the issue. I’m especially worried that sunrise works in education and would miss all these red flags despite training. Fuck!

I'm baffled how anyone can see that doll as anything other than creepy as fuck.

sunrise even thinks the doll is ok!

That doll is beyond belief! And just goes to show how far things can go!

The doll isn’t for children. It’s for adults. Someone in that company is pushing the boundaries. We know what is insinuates - a button on her genitalia. Might as well put a penis there that can be rubbed - same thing.

Wow. Just revisited this thread and found the troll doll vid.

The very fact that they don‘t describe the ‚between the legs‘ Button on the Box the doll is sold in says it all.
Clearly the company understood the button was too controverial to advertise. (Those boxes usually point out even the smallest of functions and gimmicks, as we all know).
Yet the Clearly controversial button stayed on the doll, fully functioning. Just not advertised as being there.

This is so absurd, I‘m almost inclined to revisit those deranged conservative youtubers‘ clips who get worked up over rainbow colors on children‘s toys. Crazy as they may be, this kind of toys would totally fall into their predictions.

Is the world going Crazy?

I’m flabbergasted that people can’t see the issue.

That's because a lot of people don't look at things in context and the bigger picture, rather than small elements that on their own would be ok. Bar the banana, not even because of what it symbolises, but because there's no need to be there. It adds nothing to the add , if all it is is just a piece of fruit.

Also, for years there has been a massive backlash against people speaking out against the sexualisation of children. Basically, if you see the problem then you are/have a problem. It's very prevalent on this thread as well. So a lot of people have been trained to either shut up, or pretend / tell themselves there's nothing wrong.

There's also this false belief that it would never happen, and if it does it's not as prevalent or it wouldn't be in public eye. A PP said something like this earlier. For anyone that thinks that , I suggest they head on to twitter and look at MAP accounts. Full discussions about porn(an images,dick pics etc) ,fantasies and ages they are attracted to , as low as 4. Discussions about lowering the age if consent to 8. Accounts that are very active , with fairly big followings and that are allowed to stand. It doesn't get more public than that.

I am genuinely interested in the reasons behind why people think it is sexual and why is it that those who have more training in spotting red flags are seemingly more likely to think it is not sexual.

Before becoming a SAHM I was a RGN and worked in HVing.... I’ve had extensive child protection and safeguarding training and I think the advert was designed to be dodgy AF on purpose like I said. So no, I disagree that those posters with more safeguarding training are more likely to think of it as less sexual.

Also, I honestly think that a lot of teachers don’t take safeguarding seriously. I’ve done lots of multidisciplinary training (with HCPs, prison/probation staff, Police, teachers, and social workers present). The educators seemed almost resentful that child protection was even part of their role “I didn’t go into teaching to be a social worker” was a common theme. I don’t hold educators up as the Beacons of safeguarding I’m afraid. I’m not saying all teachers feel this way, but it’s obviously a sizeable proportion because addressing that attitude formed a reasonable chunk of the training.

believe that more people would be commenting if they weren’t going to be labelled as pleasing the peados or having their training questioned

Oh behave

People are being called paedophiles cos they have an issue

I am not at all familiar with the guidlines/training teachers get regarding safeguarding. I think without a robust structure the issues can be daunting (I remember when I was a child my Dad, a teacher, had navigate the issue of a 12 year old who had confided in their classmates that her Considerably older cousin may have impregnated her. The classmates told the teacher... it was not easy for him to get her the support she needed. Everyone washed their hands. I doubt that cousin was ever removed from her orbit).
I would like to think teachers these days have better instruments and training to address these issues. That said, in my neck of the woods (continental Europe) teachers recently were brought before court, as they hadn‘t intervened in the rape of a girl by a group of boys in a shed on school grounds. This had been preceded by the boys blocking the girl in the toilet and other harrassment. When the girl had told those teachers they had dismissed it as ‚bad excuse for being late‘. I hope this type of failure is the exception, though.

(Sorry for the tangent).

I posed on the other thread and mentioned the science of marketing.

This quote is pertinent:

"“No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

As is this definition:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normality

Which came up in another context on another thread.

Keeping large populations in line requires very careful manipulation, a bigger scale implementation of getting someone to do something by making them think it's really their own idea and therefore perfectly acceptable.

Since the population of the modern (developed) world no longer has to worry so much about being eaten / starving to death / being wiped out by other tribes (yes, broad generalisations but applicable) status and economic security are big drivers in people's lives, and there is money to be made from manipulating people into aspiration. But not too much, hence the inherent difficulty of working hard and "making it big". If it doesn't happen, buy another book, do another course, it's your failing - even if external influences are genuine blocks to one's progress.

Advertising and marketing are sciences geared to the psychological nudging of the masses, and have codes and formulas that are proven to work.

It's fascinating and chilling.

Where a pushback occurs, there may be a retraction of a contentious idea for a time - while the drawing board is re-visited and the formula tweaked - but the challenge of getting that idea accepted can be a powerful driver in the minds of those tasked with getting it out there - both on an egotistical level and if one's own livelihood / stability depends on it. Hence the fear of going public when disagreeing with things that one might privately think / feel / believe are incorrect or even harmful. If one's very survival appears to depend on "right think" one can rationalise that until a big enough group also voice their displeasure / concern. When it becomes "something one can't quite puts one finger one" as the concern, it becomes even more tricky.

It's just a banana, right?

And you do?

It hardly matters what my job is or where my safeguarding knowledge comes from, at least I see the issues you are completely missing.
And you are missing the very obvious clues that this advert is wrong on many levels.
And you keep on at this, despite being so wrong. Then you add that you teach and many of us despair for children if this is the quality of safeguarding in teaching.
Poor bloody kids forever being let down cos a teacher either cba to listen about safeguarding or completely minimises the whole thing. Thinks they know better than years of research tells us.

FWIW I was in a role that required safeguarding training a few years ago, everything I learned then chimed with me, probably because of my history of CSA and grooming gangs.

Let’s hypothetically say the button on the poppy doll is ok because its activated by her sitting down

Why isn’t it advertised on the box?
Why is she in different colours?
What child do you know that giggles and gasps when they sit down?

Seriously, no wonder people get away with this sort of thing when people do not call it out and fall over themselves to find excuses for it

That‘s the thing Sourbiquet. If the bottom button is nothing to get worked up about, why isn‘t it advertised on the box...

@NotDonna

sunrise even thinks the doll is ok!

Are you kidding?! Where have I put that I think the doll is ok?

The only thing I said was that I don’t believe they would have purposely designed it with peadophiles in mind!!

For anyone that thinks that , I suggest they head on to twitter and look at MAP accounts. Full discussions about porn(an images,dick pics etc) ,fantasies and ages they are attracted to , as low as 4. Discussions about lowering the age if consent to 8. Accounts that are very active , with fairly big followings and that are allowed to stand. It doesn't get more public than that.

Agreed, (Minor Attracted Person) is common on Twitter. To the point where I often see young people deliberately saying "Unfollow me if you're a TERF, Nazi, MAP"

Read up on Lolicon anime. Popular culture is worming its way towards paedophilia acceptance. www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pharrell-williamss-lolicon-girl

The only thing I said was that I don’t believe they would have purposely designed it with peadophiles in mind!!

Okay. So on that basis, do you think it's an okay addition to have on that doll?

I don’t hold educators up as the Beacons of safeguarding I’m afraid.

Do you think this about the safeguarding teams in school?

Okay. So on that basis, do you think it's an okay addition to have on that doll?

Why don’t you read my post on the doll. I said I disagree with it and it should be removed from the shelves.

@Sunrise234

Okay. So on that basis, do you think it's an okay addition to have on that doll?

Why don’t you read my post on the doll. I said I disagree with it and it should be removed from the shelves.

Oh yes, you're right. You think it's dodgy and should be removed, but it's not deliberately dodgy.

It’s a shite ad which makes no sense.

Who the hell was it supposed to be appealing to?

WTF is the point?!?

@Sunrise234

I don’t hold educators up as the Beacons of safeguarding I’m afraid.

Do you think this about the safeguarding teams in school?

There are literally thousands of schools in the uk. I’m sure some of the safeguarding teams/leads are very committed to their jobs and take the role very seriously (just like some SENCOs do for example). I’m sure there are some who are crap at it (just like I know personally there are crap SENCOs). In addition, if the general teachers don’t recognise or take safeguarding seriously then they won’t refer their concerns to the safeguarding lead in the first place.

What I meant was, at the multidisciplinary safeguarding training I went to, the trainers spent a sizeable portion of time specifically addressing the teachers in the room trying to change the mindset of “I’m here to teach, not to be a social worker. Not my problem to deal with”. They wouldn’t have done that if there wasn’t a reason to?

I am genuinely interested in the reasons behind why people think it is sexual and why is it that those who have more training in spotting red flags are seemingly more likely to think it is not sexual.

This is a false statement. Those who have more training, and even conduct training for educators, law enforcement, and care givers, are not "more likely to think it not sexual".

The fact that your training has been inadequate is unfortunate. You could have learned something from this discussion had you not been so determinedly committed to maintaining your willful ignorance.

Knoxinbox

With every school I’ve worked at there is a team of people working together so there is less chance anything is missed. Unlike some social worker cases where things are missed because only one person is responsible for seeing red flags. In my school everything and anything is flagged even a slightly messy shirt or I brushed hair, a small scratch or bruise, or slight inappropriate banter. This is to build a picture of what’s going on and if it adds up. Those concerns go straight to the entire safeguarding team who all have to decide if it needs to be looked into. If any staff report a certain amount it will go straight to social services and the police. My school is hotter on these things because of the area we are but I would have thought that most schools do this. I can see some teachers not wanting to meet with SS and police and saying this isn’t my job but they should be still flagging things up on the system.

TehBewilderness

The fact that your training has been inadequate is unfortunate. You could have learned something from this discussion had you not been so determinedly committed to maintaining your willful ignorance.

As I’ve said it is not just me who thinks like this. My colleagues and SM happen to be mainly people who work and care for children in various settings and would have had safeguarding training.

The fact that I’ve stuck around even though most posters are directly aiming their posts at me and have said very rude things to me is testament that this is a topic I take very seriously.
I could have came on here saying these are my views and everyone with a different view can fuck off and then leave the thread but I haven’t.