Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

[Sunkisses]

Jeez, just seen this from the Safe Schools Alliance UK on twitter. Six years ago Childline produced this pro-porn film which is basically an advert for PornHub masquerading as a child protection resource. It tells children that porn is "fun" & recommends genres like BDSM to google. It's had over 3 million views in the last 6 years, and goodness knows how much it has contributed to the rape culture we are now seeing in schools. It is illegal for under 18s to view porn, and children should be taught this and the harms of pornography, not encouraged to view it with a nod, nod, wink, wink attitude.

You can view the Safe Schools Alliance UK tweet here: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1379528765261381634

SSAUK are calling on Childline and the NSPCC (who run Childline) to take this film down.

The Government should bring in age-verification for online porn ASAP to prevent children having easy access to online porn. All the laws have been passed, and the regulatory framework is in place. The Government bottled it at the last minute in 2019 after facing pressure from the powerful porn industry. Our children deserve better.

@Helleofabore

The term 'child pornography' is only used to start the conversation as it is the most common social term. Meaning when it comes up we may ask "Oh so what is child porn?". Gather their ideas and explain to them what people mean by the term and that legally it's called child sexual abuse images and videos. We have to start by using the language they most likely use or know to then explain it further. Like nudes. Obviously the technical term is sexually explicit imagery (or if underage child sexual abuse images), however those terms might not make sense to them to begin with, sp we have to start with language like nudes to begin with to help them understand. Otherwise in social situations they may not recognize that the two mean the same thing. Hope that helps.

So why do you double down on using it here, on a feminist chat board where there are posters who are survivors of child sex abuse, when you know what the appropriate terminology is to use?

Because it is the most common term to discuss it socially. And it linked to the kind of terminology used in the video discussed. By no means were my intentions to hurt any survivors of child sexual abuse. As a survivor of child abuse myself I understand, however I'm just here to voice my opinion.

ASugarr

"moofolk"
"The point where he says that porn is like chicken nuggets; if you knew how it was made you wouldn't enjoy it..."

"That's a hell of a lot too gloss over."

Yes, however it isn't down to TomSka and child line to discuss all of this. That is what comes from parents and sexual health workers.

Childline is part of the NSPCC, a children's charity which specifically campaigns on keeping children safe re CSA. It is unique among charities in that it has statutory powers, which means it has the power to take a child into care.

And, if this video is genuine, it is endorsing telling children that what goes into porn is awful, but it's still fun and sexy.

How on earth can you, or anyone, square that circle?

Asugarr, do you serious see no connection between the prevalence of violent, degrading porn and the widespread sexual harassment and objectification of women and girls?

Do you think the boys currently being accused of sexual offences in schools are unaffected by what they are watching online?

Instead of chirpily telling youngsters how fun and cool porn is, don't you think RSE needs to concentrate 100% on how porn has taken such a wrong turn. And why.

Because it is the most common term to discuss it socially.

Well, it's not on this board, and once that had been pointed out - we know and use the correct term - wouldn't it have been much easier and more constructive to just say, great, you're already up to speed ?

As a survivor of child abuse myself I understand, however I'm just here to voice my opinion.

I'm very, very sorry to hear that you have been a victim and are a survivor.

I imagine that your intentions are good but I do wonder if your judgement around all being discussed here is being clouded in some way.

I would kindly suggest that you get help if you aren't already and that you step back from dealing with children, even those you seek to help who are also victims and survivors. You may be very good at what you do but your language around this leads me to believe that you, yourself are a safeguarding risk.

but your language around this leads me to believe that you, yourself are a safeguarding risk.

Absolutely. And we have previously seen a lack of understanding of the law aroubd issues such as equality.

Exactly Tibtom - from the NSPCC themselves!

From the change in their definition of child sex abuse to the James 'Rubberman' Makings scandal.

It makes it impossible for any rational person to take any of this with a pinch of salt and think of it as "well kids watch porn anyway".

The shown video is back to front. How about TomSka leads with "watching porn as a child is illegal" and talk about how it's unrealistic and linked to crime first.

I don't think they know much about the attention span of children who watch a lot of videos online and could have been relying on that 'boring and scary' bit being towards the end.

Opens with "porn is fun" and ends with "but it is actually it's illegal and dangerous" wasn't a deliberate format?

@ASugarr

Question: Since many of you think discussing pornography before being able to legally consume it is wrong, Then do you think the same about teaching those under the age of 16 about safe sex is the same? Do you consider it promoting have sex?

Because here's the thing, the government have already tried to run programs to telling young people "Don't have sex" and/or "Don't watch porn". And guess what? It didn't work. Pregnancy rates roses, porn consumption rised and even sexual assault cases rised. Because telling young people "Don't do this" without stating the facts as to why some people do and why it is and isn't okay is what they need to know to make a healthy choice for themselves.

We have answered this, I think.

Maybe you can discuss these questions more now.

Where are the studies that state there is a positive benefit in teens watching porn? Where is the evidence that shows it is ‘fun and fine’ for children to the consuming porn under 18?

Also, and this is directed at anyone who supports the use of this video in sex education not ASugarr in particular.

Please show us what we are missing that you are seeing in the messaging of this video?

So far we have raised (this is not an exhaustive list by any means). And also remember we are discussing under 18s:

-The opening and closing messages that your yourself interpreted as ‘porn is fun and fine’.

-The breezy fling back from serious negative issues to joking completely negates the seriousness of the issues.

-The age restrictions being treated as a joke. And one that included a very young voice.

-The reinforcement that it is not illegal to watch it under 18, but no qualification of the very negative and serious long term mental health effects.

• The negating of the message around body expectations. A very serious aspect where again the message is left with a joke about wanting to have a porn star body anyway. More mixed messaging.

Rather than broad statements, can someone please go through this video and tell us specifically why it is something you (general you) feel gets the message across to children and teens. Actual examples.

Because, I am not getting it. But then, my training is in communication and not in sex education, so I am looking at this from my decades in that field.

So, please tell me what I am missing?

Here's an outstanding, evidenced (and depressing) article by Stephanie Davies-Arai about the harm that porn, the relentless sexualisation of girls is doing to girls and how the use of gender neutral language cover this up:

Teachers report that the impact of degrading, humiliating and abusive pornography which is now easily accessible on children’s smart phones, is felt by girls as young as twelve who admit they are terrified of sex. The attempt to prevent the body from developing into that of a woman can be a protection against the role that girls see they are expected to play, a role that involves pain and humiliation they are supposed to accept and enjoy

www.transgendertrend.com/gender-neutral-culture-erases-girls/

A random example of how far it fails to be safeguarding or give information but instead pushes a pro-porn agenda can even be seen when he is saying that what is seen on porn isn’t real. The actual message being conveyed to the children watching will come from what they are being shown, for example the backdrop wallpaper of disembodied vaginas or ‘pussibities’ as the caption tells the viewer.

Well, when I opened this thread, I didn’t expect a live demonstration of how badly askew sex education has gone of late.

You don’t even understand where the limitations of your knowledge and experience are, asugarr, and it’s that that’s so troubling about your posts. Do you think that women here don’t have backgrounds in this stuff? Good educators are always open to learning, and understanding all the viewpoints that different people might bring. I don’t believe that you actually understood the issue with the term “child porn” at all, because the way you deployed it didn’t demonstrate that you do. This is a feminist board. I know you think we’re all hopeless old boomers, but rest assured the majority of the users are very comfortable with the terminology around this topic, and understand what is meant by images of child sexual abuse. This is the terminology feminists would use.

Anyway, the video is dire, but am hopeful that the presenter has subsequently understood where it went wrong and why.

‘Persistent women’
Thank you for that article by Stephanie Davies-Arab which is indeed outstanding (and very worrying).

My apologies: Davies-Arai

About 10 years ago, I worked with a boy who had been repeatedly exposed to pornography from a young age. At the time I knew him, he was around the age of 12. This exposure to porn was, at that time, classed as child abuse (I thought it still was but this thread has opened my eyes to how times have changed!). He was traumatised by what he'd seen, and his overall behaviour was very challenging. He was hypersexualised yet obviously too immature to really understand what he was saying/doing. He struggled to form attachments with peers. He was not allowed to be left alone with any members of staff (we always had to pair up) and nor could he be left unsupervised with peers (to the point we had to check loos were empty before he could go in). He struggled to manage his emotions. Far from de-sensitising him to sexual things, any hint/sign of anything "sexy" (a mention of human anatomy in science or a picture of girl wearing a crop top in a magazine, for exampe) sent him into an absolute tailspin, which sometimes included physical aggression, and he would really struggle to calm down. He was a very troubled child yet underneath it all he was an obviously bright, funny and sweet boy who I did really enjoy working with, and I felt so angry that his family, who should have been protecting him and nurturing him, abused him in such a way that he was actually struggling to function normally.

From this experience it seems very clear to me that what we should be doing is working towards making porn extremely difficult/impossible for children to access. We should be ensuring that no child sees anything they are not emotionally ready for. Instead of saying "hahaha what a laugh your mate sending you that porn clip!" we should be checking in with these children and making sure they are ok - that they can process what they've seen and deal with the emotions it provokes. Saying "well they will see it anyway" is pure laziness and actually quite horrifying. No wonder schools are reporting increasing sexual violence; no wonder young women are frequently encountering dangerous and painful sexual practices at the hands of their dates/boyfriends. Good grief. The answer is so obvious. 10 years ago exposing children to porn was enough for social services involvement and referrals to therapy. Now we should all be encouraging our 10 year olds onto PornHub as long as we let them know "it's not real"?!! I don't think so.

Hufflepuffsunite
“The answer is so obvious. 10 years ago exposing children to porn was enough for social services involvement and referrals to therapy. Now we should all be encouraging our 10 year olds onto PornHub as long as we let them know "it's not real"?!! I don't think so.“
Yes.
I thought it was against the law to incite a child to sexual acts.
Isn’t the whole point of porn to incite extremely strong sexual feelings which would not have been there without it and, therefore probably inevitably, the urge to act sexually?

Our present society is promoting child abuse.

The images accompanying the list of 'types' alone shocked me. So not suitable for children of any age. I'm another one that has been trained in safeguarding. Factual is always the key without being graphic. Good examples are the PANTS video which makes it explicit that privates are private. Simple message and no need to be graphic. This video fails on both those accounts. It's also misleading because it only lists three things wrong or illegal about porn and implies everything else is fine.
Agree with others more should be being done to control what is produced and accessible, not trying to be the cool adult who says 'yeah fine.' Those adults are massive red flags to me.

Great post, hufflepuffs. That poor child

it seems very clear to me that what we should be doing is working towards making porn extremely difficult/impossible for children to access.

Yes! This with bells on.

Instead of sending the message that porn is fun and sexy we should be focussing in making it impossible for children to access it.

Schools and children's charities have no business getting involved in telling kids about porn.

Childline's charity activity:

To provide a free confidential telephone counselling service for children and young people with the aim of comforting, advising and protecting children. ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC and further details can be found on the website nspcc.org.uk All monies raised by ChildLine are given to the NSPCC in a grant.

How is sponsoring a video like this in their remit?

@Hufflepuffsunite Excellent post. How awful for that child. I despair at what is happening to society.

@ASugarr I am completely unsurprised at your opinions on this matter but there seems to be no talking you round. You are young and I hope to God your opinions in general aren't typical of the majority of young people today.

Just seconding/ thirding etc all the great posts here.

There are so many things wrong with that video.

To provide a free confidential telephone counselling service for children and young people with the aim of comforting, advising and protecting children. ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC and further details can be found on the website nspcc.org.uk All monies raised by ChildLine are given to the NSPCC in a grant.

In the context of what’s been revealed on this thread, I can’t help but wonder what trying the phone operatives are given. What do they say if a child discloses that someone has shown them porn? Is it recognised as an abusive situation? Such mixed messaging coming from them and that won’t be of any benefit to confused and worried children who are being abused.

ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC

Hmm, and wasn't it the nspcc who had James Makings working for them, he was discovered uploading rubber porn of himself that he had created in work at the NSPCC. Seems to be an ongoing theme here.

Go on!
Every one is doing it!
It is fun
Those age limits are just old fashioned no body believes them any more.
This is the good type
Go on do it!

Please show us what we are missing that you are seeing in the messaging of this video?

So far we have raised (this is not an exhaustive list by any means). And also remember we are discussing under 18s:

-The opening and closing messages that your yourself interpreted as ‘porn is fun and fine’.

-The breezy fling back from serious negative issues to joking completely negates the seriousness of the issues.

-The age restrictions being treated as a joke. And one that included a very young voice. And if someone is being encouraged to treat an age restriction as a joke, not to be taken seriously, what other recommendations, or advice should also be treated as a joke? The bit about not strangling your sex partner, the bit about not coercing any aspect of sex?

-The reinforcement that it is not illegal to watch it under 18, but no qualification of the very negative and serious long term mental health effects.

- The negating of the message around body expectations. A very serious aspect where again the message is left with a joke about wanting to have a porn star body anyway. More mixed messaging.

Let's add some more points to our list to have directly answered as to where we are misinterpreting the elements of this video.

Again, this is an open invitation to anyone who supports this video being used by ChildLine in discussing the negative risks of watching porn under the age of 18,

• The 'fun' aspect reinforced by the 'fun' graphics. These styles of graphics only work if there is a consistent targeted message about risk. Such as . Clear, consistent message about risk despite the humour and the 'fun' graphics.

-The reinforcement of the dehumanising/detached use of hypersexualised words like ‘pussibities’ in a video aimed at people under 18 years of age while discussing topics like how desensitising and addictive the use of porn can be. What message does this convey?

@Erkrie

ChildLine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSPCC

Hmm, and wasn't it the nspcc who had James Makings working for them, he was discovered uploading rubber porn of himself that he had created in work at the NSPCC. Seems to be an ongoing theme here.

If I recall correctly the NSPCC initially accused those criticising this of homophobia. I don't recall that they ever apologised for this.

If I recall correctly the NSPCC initially accused those criticising this of homophobia. I don't recall that they ever apologised for this.

And they called on their followers to report any posts to twitter criticising his behaviour.