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.

Interesting how the made up word pussibilities is acceptable but I bet cocktastic or dicktriffic would be considered way out of line.

Porn slang for women is acceptable because the objectification of women and girls is so normal, it goes unnoticed.

@Tibtom

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.

And didn't they pull out of a web chat on here because they were not willing, or not prepared, to answer any questions about the entire sorry incident?

The country's leading children's charity, with statutory powers, not wanting to answer questions from the county's leading parenting website.

You are never going to get an answer Helleofabore, the person you are direction those questions at has described the video as a great resource on the SSAUK twitter thread.

I'm really interested to understand when the government was pushing an abstinence message.

Sorry not a great resource but respectful and resourceful which seems even worse.

There seem to be no limits to the damage and degradation of women and girls and the removal of boundaries from children.

RedToothBrush has a very powerful analysis about how so many charities represent the niche views of their staff, often to the detriment of the communities that they are meant to serve. The NSPCC and Childline tragically seem to demonstrate this.

Youtube won't let me look at footage of the liberation of concentration camps, because it's age restricted content, but I can view that?

That being the content the op posted.

Yes pussibilities simply oozes respectfulness. Can imagine popping that one in pshe with parental support.

To the best of my extensive experience in teaching SRE there have never been published materials from the government that focussed on abstinence. Unless the poster is misrepresenting discussions / materials about the law, age and consent. There have been various lobby groups promoting abstinence at different times - just as we find various lobby groups celebrating porn for children and boundary breaching behaviours. Schools tended to steer well clear of the former. I'm not so sure about the latter these days

My post was aimed at NiceGerbil 's comment:
I'm really interested to understand when the government was pushing an abstinence message

I can only hope that a person that has the responsibility for teaching sex education would have the expertise to answer the points with insightful and clear counter points.

I am going to keep adding to it so it is easy to answer them at the same time.

Because, I simply must be missing something. So now is a great opportunity to explain where my thinking is wrong.

Yes pussibilities simply oozes respectfulness.

Were any women at the charity involved in commissioning/approving this? Are they happy with this still being up there with Childline approval? Pussybilities - ffs. It's so reductive. What does this say to teenage girls about their own worth?

Abstinance absolutely should be taught as a legitimate option to choose. To do otherwise would be to ignore the PSED towards religions.

@RabbitOfCaerbannog

Yes pussibilities simply oozes respectfulness.

Were any women at the charity involved in commissioning/approving this? Are they happy with this still being up there with Childline approval? Pussybilities - ffs. It's so reductive. What does this say to teenage girls about their own worth?

Dehumanising and dismissive, yet oh so respectful. It is sickening the lengths people go to justify reducing women and girls to mere body parts to be used and abused. This is aimed at children fgs, children.

@RabbitOfCaerbannog

Yes pussibilities simply oozes respectfulness.

Were any women at the charity involved in commissioning/approving this? Are they happy with this still being up there with Childline approval? Pussybilities - ffs. It's so reductive. What does this say to teenage girls about their own worth?

It's awful. All the more so because the misogyny behind it is completely and utterly ignored because it's normal.

They don't even see it.

I imagine abstinence itself isn't taught explicitly rather than it's your choice when and if and never being ok too. You can teach what different religions do without promoting any one path. Schools are meant to be objective and unbiased.

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

If it's not to Tom or childline then why the fuck has Tom made the video with backing by childline. Maybe both should rethink this. Tom anyway is no kind of specialist child worker so why he got involved is beyond me, also childline should vet possible co partners better.
Ive watched the whole 6 minutes of it, it's not good for any age range of children. 18/19 year old will be utterly uninterested, 14/15/16 years will see it as childish .
11/12/13 year olds will see it as too adult for them.
So what use is it?
And then asugarr says its perfect to use in the classroom. What bloody qualifications does asugarr have to know this. Cos asugarr is very wrong.

@Datun

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.

Absolutely!

It is completely within the remit of a video educating young people about porn to talk about the distasteful side of it.

Especially if it is acknowledged within the video that it's nasty.

Otherwise what is the point? It is just promoting porn to children.

FWIW I do think that a non-lecturing way to discuss porn with young people is a god idea.

The point would be to acknowledge that teenagers die example may have seen it and not to shame them for this, but to help them to see the damage or dies and give them a way to discuss it b

And he basically admits that porn is why he committed sexual assaults, so don't do that... because it's illegal.

Don't look at really dodgy porn ... because it's illegal.

Don't rape women... because it's illegal.

Any ethics in here maybe?

Adding to this list as I forgot the Chicken nuggets point.

Please show us what we are missing that you are seeing in the messaging 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

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.

- 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 youtu.be/IJNR2EpS0jw . 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?

-How does reducing porn to 'chicken nuggets' support the seriousness of the negative aspects of porn for under 18s. Is this not trivialising those negative aspects of how porn is produced? Like, ew.... fun to eat/watch but you really don't want to know how it is made.....

Don't rape women... because it's illegal.

Just watch them being raped instead as that's fun and cool and it's only those things with pussibilities that are being hurt and degraded and they don't count.

I think that are enough points for anyone to come back with reasonable and educated discussion about how I have missed the point of the video, and my analysis of the communication devices used are wrong and that I have completely misunderstood.

I will wait.

Absolutely, encouraging a child to watch pornography is child abuse. I am also regularly trained in safeguarding and that point has been made on every single safeguarding course I have ever attended.

Who the hell are these perverts trying to convince us otherwise??

@persistentwoman

My post was aimed at NiceGerbil 's comment: I'm really interested to understand when the government was pushing an abstinence message

I don't think they are and I'd they're too liberal parents like mine would remove their child entirely. Sometimes going to complain either way

Bottom line is, this isn't America and we don't have abstinence only. I learnt about abortion in my Catholic secondary, albeit in an RE lesson. It didn't tell us how to get one, but it was hardly ignored completely or demonised