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.

To be honest I consider nspcc out of touch anyway. The last trainer we had in announced to the whole school that child abuse was 'An adult asking you to do something you don't want to do'. They failed to clarify what they meant so you can imagine the hilarity that afternoon.
'Now write down the date children'
'Naw, Ms, CHIlD ABoosee, snort, snigger'.

It's so frustrating seeing people who work with children that have no concept of safeguarding or appropriate boundaries. As a volunteer with children, I have to regularly do safeguarding training and would never consider it appropriate to tell children that watching porn is not only fine for them to do but also lots of fun. If a child ever told me that an adult said this to them then I would be immediately reporting that to our local safeguarding team as it's a massive red flag.

It's so frustrating seeing people who work with children that have no concept of safeguarding or appropriate boundaries

It's bizzare how they even get these jobs in the first place.

I question how often red flags are clearly ignored with the aim to seem to be inclusive or sex positive. I have seen it repeated time and time again across multiple platforms.

@GoingThruTheMotions

To be honest I consider nspcc out of touch anyway. The last trainer we had in announced to the whole school that child abuse was 'An adult asking you to do something you don't want to do'. They failed to clarify what they meant so you can imagine the hilarity that afternoon. 'Now write down the date children' 'Naw, Ms, CHIlD ABoosee, snort, snigger'.

And aso bearing in mind lots of abuse takes the form of grooming which can cause a child to have a very complicated relationship with their abuser and confused feelings about the abuse they experience.

@Helleofabore

I question how often red flags are clearly ignored with the aim to seem to be inclusive or sex positive. I have seen it repeated time and time again across multiple platforms.

I agree.

It's really a really neat trick. Making women actually feel guilty for not wanting to perform sexual practices that make them uncomfortable. Or give them pain. Or are potentially fucking fatal.

Sex positivity.

I understand it was initially a way to help women feel positive about sex. Now it's trying to make them feel coerced into sex they don't want.

So presumably it was to make women feel that sex was fine, outside of monogamy or marriage, which is a patriarchal institution. And now it's to make women feel fine about being subjected to sexual acts that they loathe.

I'm detecting a theme.

I used to imagine that I was very enlightened and libertarian by approving of porn, now that I'm older and perhaps a bit wiser I see porn for what it is and that is hugely damaging to how boys and men view women and sex. Porn in its portrayal of sex involving men and women is all about using the female body for the mans own gratification and nothing more, sadly this now shapes how boys and girls view sex with girls in particular feeling pressured into acts which they neither want to do or indeed should do at the behest of young men who care not a jot for the girl or her feelings and wellbeing.

@widthofacircle

I used to imagine that I was very enlightened and libertarian by approving of porn, now that I'm older and perhaps a bit wiser I see porn for what it is and that is hugely damaging to how boys and men view women and sex. Porn in its portrayal of sex involving men and women is all about using the female body for the mans own gratification and nothing more, sadly this now shapes how boys and girls view sex with girls in particular feeling pressured into acts which they neither want to do or indeed should do at the behest of young men who care not a jot for the girl or her feelings and wellbeing.

IAnd at the same time porn has evolved into something that needs women to be hurt in order for men to orgasm.

The threads I linked to upthread about other sex education programmes have lots of examples of this rush to be "inclusive" and down with the kids at the expense of providing age appropriate content.

Porn is fun and fine!

Maybe softcore porn from decades ago. But not now.
I want anyone who agrees with the bolded sentence to read this post, or any other post of your choosing from this blog, and tell me they're happy with preteens and young teenagers seeing this stuff as their introduction to sex. If you don't have time for the whole thing, scroll down to the end and read the last paragraph and view the images. This is all readily available for any 10 year old who gets curious and finds pornhub. Will they think this is sexy? That this is what sex is? That this is how women should be treated? This is not ok. theviolenceofpornography.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-comparison-between-straight-and-trans.html?m=1&zx=af170829d00b1f0d

Note: I'm not making a point about gender identity in any way with linking to a transgender porn comparison blog post, it's this one simply because it has some images and types of video that really stuck with me in a really bad way.

I think some other posters might have also been referring to this post or something like it? Tenderness, kissing, humanity, mutually enjoyable sex in gay porn compared with violence, humiliation and tears in straight porn. Poor girls today don't stand a chance. theviolenceofpornography.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-comparison-between-straight-and-gay.html?m=1

Also, massive trigger warning for post of these links. Do not click if you've already decided you think porn is violent and degrading and bad for kids and you find it upsetting

For both of these links, not post.

I watched the video.

I don't think it's "encouraging kids to watch porn" or "Google BDSM". IMO from what he says and his vibe I think what he's trying to do is encourage a discussion regarding porn (a healthy discussion is good). Porn is a very complex matter that could be discussed in detail for hours and hours but what he has done is make a short video that very briefly touches on some aspects of it- what it is, why people watch it, the good, the bad etc. I think the video could be useful for young people to watch with their parents or as part of a sex-ed class to lead to a discussion.

IMO I don't think porn should be banned (enforcing this can be tricky anyway since most people know now about VPNs) but something I would like to see (which can be easily enforced) is stricter rules (on streaming-video websites where people can upload videos) regarding what the videos can be called, and also restrictions regarding what people can search for. For example words and phrases like "barely legal" or "violent" or "extreme" etc could be banned from the website for naming and searching for videos. That would be at least one step. What videos are titled IMO matters.

MargaritaPie if you think that then perhaps you could answer the questions Helleofabore posted on the previous page.

@manatsu

I think some other posters might have also been referring to this post or something like it? Tenderness, kissing, humanity, mutually enjoyable sex in gay porn compared with violence, humiliation and tears in straight porn. Poor girls today don't stand a chance. theviolenceofpornography.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-comparison-between-straight-and-gay.html?m=1

Also, massive trigger warning for post of these links. Do not click if you've already decided you think porn is violent and degrading and bad for kids and you find it upsetting

From the analysis in that link. (And yes, a trigger warning is needed as it comprises stills and violent narrative).

The above videos only occur in straight porn, and are numerous on pornhub.
Hatred, sexual violence, humiliation, degradation, torture and destruction only happen to women. Of all the hate crimes, misogyny is sanctioned, legal entertainment and masturbation fodder for millions of boys and men, all over the world.

This violence is only inflicted onto teenage girls and women, not to gay men or trans-women.

Mainstream pornography clearly demonstrates that straight males hate, and want to destroy women. If men could legally kill women on film..then they would.

Cut to MSM reporting this week of numerous girls and women frightened to be in school because of the terrifying, highly charged, rape culture.

The DM reports:

One post shows a boy asking a girl for sex. When she says no, he replies 'Even better, no consent'.

One post shows a boy asking a girl for sex. When she says no, he replies 'Even better, no consent'

Chilling, utterly chilling. Porn is fun yay!!

This is pertinent:

Pornography causing backward step in boys' respect for girls, say victims and teachers

<a class="break-all" href="https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjsuZD4iIh3gOVaxFKmAOTL52FtUa703B5sGBXFROvzilXxZf6Mq83_DMl0TXYgZwiSZhXLQZsdruwxBCDDd_Omyeb4qEOBhEbXEYbV8a9fWAX3Pq7s9LKtJXhG9qHhWT8TC_j1vQ8pCNFTjgCSl7OHr65mZcRb3L46RJkT6GqtC841SeJek1-vhV_3LcHAzU-pC72eudAN68qSl8l1YCFJUjJ0x8Sfbki82XViLvjahlXdgIUwX3JOfjpSW4T6L5v_lJCTpiCJpjTPr8fGbXeGe3u-iTyKQ76zb5PpAVmZSd_igbreU7F8kq&sai=AMfl-YSkYY-6s6aFCxJP_V1H3P30_KUxPfphwIx5wYffmr07e9LQskvJMR_AvMDzcI0CLOqMpUjQZ6NUCwNnbkacqUBuu5HMzTmFEr_TGpjDo2icFrHfZ1hSfSN0YGCEb6Gz&sig=Cg0ArKJSzHrUdEco2jMY&adurl=www.sky.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

"It's not inappropriate to talk to a 10-year-old about sex, it's inappropriate for a 10-year-old to be watching fake sex online and thinking that that's what's normal."

news.sky.com/story/pornography-causing-backward-step-in-boys-respect-for-girls-say-victims-and-teachers-12269732

I have added to the list as those supporting use of the video seem to feel that it doesn’t encourage children to search for the porn types and other information on line. I would like to know why posters think this.

Why do they think bringing attention to unusual and strange sounding porn types would NOT be sticking in any persons mind compelling them to find out what it was?

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.....

-The mention of very uncommon types of porn has the effect of increasing curiosity. This is a very deliberate tactic used by marketing to hook people’s interest. It had been used here and will have the effect of children googling the terms, if not immediately, then eventually. Anyone watching will be both curious and, maybe, embarrassed that they didn’t know what it was.

I don't think it's "encouraging kids to watch porn" or "Google BDSM". IMO from what he says and his vibe I think what he's trying to do is encourage a discussion regarding porn (a healthy discussion is good).

I don’t think I have seen any posters have disagreed that balanced discussion around porn is necessary. I think it is vital. But it has to be done in a sensitive, balanced way.

My major concern is that I feel lessons like this need to be delivered only by someone with a teaching degree and experience teaching the age group they deliver the session to or a child psychologist. I have NO confidence after interactions across the past year that I have had that people claiming to be specialist educators for sex education have enough education, enough experience with the age groups they are responsible for.

However, we are obviously disagreeing on whether this video, when you analyze it and the messages it delivers in reality vs the intention to deliver, is suitable to be promoted by Childline.

I would like to point out, as I'm unsure if others understand this or not. Kids shouldn't be on YouTube. They should be using YouTube kids until they are 11 years old. This video wouldn't be allowed to appear in YouTube kids (obviously). So if a child sees this at a younger age then 11 then that's not on the YouTubers fault. That is a parenting fault. Additionally, this is for TomSkas target audience of young teenagers and up. Meaning it should only be shown to those ages. You can agree ore disagree if that's still not appropriate however I thought it was an important point to make.

And we are taking about under 18s in general. As you say, the limit is 11 for youtube.

My points are relevant for any person under the age of 18.

Maybe you’d like to address some since you are here.

Kids shouldn't be on YouTube. They should be using YouTube kids until they are 11 years old.

Um,you do realise that people don't become adults at 11 years old dont you? That they are still 'kids' until they are 18?

@Helleofabore

And we are taking about under 18s in general. As you say, the limit is 11 for youtube.

My points are relevant for any person under the age of 18.

Maybe you’d like to address some since you are here.

Okay that's your opinion. However as someone to delivers sexual health advice this kind of information is important to at least ages 13 and up. Would I word everything in the same way? No. However he is sponsored by child line and as professionals they deemed his language to be appropriate. I think from the ages of 13 to 18 it is very important to discuss these kinds of topics like pornography, no matter what you may think as a parent because by the age of 12/13 it would be most likely that they either know what porn is or have watched it themselves.

@ASugarr

I would like to point out, as I'm unsure if others understand this or not. Kids shouldn't be on YouTube. They should be using YouTube kids until they are 11 years old. This video wouldn't be allowed to appear in YouTube kids (obviously). So if a child sees this at a younger age then 11 then that's not on the YouTubers fault. That is a parenting fault. Additionally, this is for TomSkas target audience of young teenagers and up. Meaning it should only be shown to those ages. You can agree ore disagree if that's still not appropriate however I thought it was an important point to make.

Tom ska obviously has no appropriate training in childrens psychology at all. This is something he should remove. It's far too childish for his target audience as you put it. He needs some serious training in his target audience safeguarding because I have watched the whole video and its not appropriate for any children.