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.

However if this is in collaboration with child line then they would have approved this meaning it is okay to post.

[quote persistentwoman]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/[/quote]
Just want to highlight this article posted up thread.

Let’s not forget the widespread consequences of porn on people under 18.

Let us get our messages very very clear when porn in discussed in sex education, let’s get our messages clear on videos aimed at explaining risk.

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.

Yeah, I mean by 12 young girls can definitely cope with cute, jaunty cartoons implying women having their entire face covered in semen.....

Tom Ska rose to Youtube fame by doing skits and funny animations. What is he doing this for?

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.

Can you address the points please? You are a sex educator and should be able to address these points easily since you have stated up thread that you feel it is a good video and you would be inclined to use it. You see, my speciality is communications. I have said it is a fail as far as clear messaging. Others have pointed to safeguarding issues. I assume you are also a safeguarding expert so should be able to address these issues.

However he is sponsored by child line and as professionals they deemed his language to be appropriate.

And who is Childline? Who was in charge of approving this? If you cannot see the problems here, I cannot help you. As an ex marketing manager, I have my suspicions as to how this was approved. I have seen it done time and time again. Hence, why I do not feel compelled by appeals to ‘authority’ such as this.

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.

And again. I have not seen anyone on this thread state that porn should not be discussed. I notice this has been stated, however, by every poster who has posted in support of the video. Almost like it is their fall back position.

We are not coming at analyzing this video from that aspect at all. Anyone reading this thread will certainly see that.

We have dissected this video and analysed it for its purpose of communicating risks and negative aspects of porn. To UNDER 18 year olds!!!

Not one poster who has supported this video has addressed the issues raised. Why?

And you have now stated you would make changes, which bits would you change. What wording?

Instead we have been denigrated by one poster, had points of view wrongly attributed by you, and no one has taken the time to address the points of concern.

It just gets handwaved away. No critical thinking applied.

You have just stated that you don’t actually agree wholly with the wording too. Why would you then continue to support it? Knowing also that it is being viewed outside a discussion group or lesson format.

@SunsetBeetch

Tom Ska rose to Youtube fame by doing skits and funny animations. What is he doing this for?

Future sponsorship deals.

Oh, did I say that out loud......

@ASugarr

However if this is in collaboration with child line then they would have approved this meaning it is okay to post.

I think you need to get more experience as to how organisations work. How marketing and organisational decisions are made? And to understand that even sponsorship deals with the best intentions can be red flag events.

If you, personally, can see issues with it and we can essentially decimate the messages it is conveying and those that will stay with the person while they process it, don’t simply assume that there were experts in safeguarding and education involved. The fast pace this is delivered, means a great deal of information had been given, and it needs time to unpack. However, the constant reinforcement of the ‘fun and fine’ message over rides the other messages which were weak or weakened in any case.

Don’t even assume the team approving this had decades of experience or even bachelor level marketing qualifications.

If you can see some of the issues we have pointed out, then maybe the video is simply not fit for educational purposes. Even edutainment.

Also, hate to derail, but wondering how you teach gender to fall within the DfE government guidelines.

^^Schools should “not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear”, the guidance states.

They should also not use resources which “suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity”, and that schools “should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material”.

However, the guidance goes on to say that teachers “should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support”.

The DfE’s statutory guidance states that sexual orientation and gender identity “should be explored at a timely point and in a clear, sensitive and respectful manner”.^^

As it's a derail I can obviously wait until you address the previous points. It's just that knowing your previously stated views on the topic I can't square this circle.

Actually from my knowledge TomSka is a child abuse survivor so he does a lot if work with charities like childline to help young people.

It's quite simple how YouTube sponsorships work. They would have sent him a brief with a rough script, he would have filmed and edited. He would have sent that over. Any changes to language and the video itself would be sent over for him to refilm. This would happen over and over until done correctly and then it would be signed off and posted.

However he is sponsored by child line and as professionals they deemed his language to be appropriate.

They also hired a well known LGBT representative who poses for playboy and encouraged minors to contact them in DMs. The person responsible for this hiring decision filmed themself, at work, in a porn film and uploaded it to social media. Quite openly. And was defended by the NSPCC.

One reason, among many, that your appeal to authority, especially this 'authority' are misplaced.

@ASugarr

However if this is in collaboration with child line then they would have approved this meaning it is okay to post.

Just a point about this type of ‘campaign’.

When a major advertising campaign or brand change is done, large organisations will generally do some testing to ensure the messaging is clear. That the person seeing the message doesn’t have a negative reaction.

This was a sponsorship deal, I doubt that it was scripted by experts in child safeguarding or sex education. Sponsorship deals (and not all but most) are where the content provider will use their own ‘voice’ to get the message across. It must be authentic to work for either of the parties involved. Sometimes, there is little involvement from the owner of the brand at all.

Having been on both sides of these deals, I would have serious doubts that this content was in fact put through any focus groups (or with any rigour), I doubt there would be the budget and it may not be done because it was a sponsorship deal not an advertisement.

And at board level, don’t assume that even the trustees have seen it beyond a quick review. They will be looking at top level results.

No. I don’t think an appeal to authority is going to convince me.

Particularly in light of the rubber suit issue of the umbrella organization. Where is the credibility that you are appealing to?

@ASugarr

Actually from my knowledge TomSka is a child abuse survivor so he does a lot if work with charities like childline to help young people.

I am sorry to hear that he is a csa survivor, and that you are too.

However, history has shown us that even survivors can be involved in delivering the wrong messages.

They should always be listened to, and always be considered and their rights should definitely be upheld and strengthened (but never at the expense of other groups).

@ASugarr

It's quite simple how YouTube sponsorships work. They would have sent him a brief with a rough script, he would have filmed and edited. He would have sent that over. Any changes to language and the video itself would be sent over for him to refilm. This would happen over and over until done correctly and then it would be signed off and posted.

How do you know this?

I have been involved in both sides, do you know that is how it worked? He had released this information?

Ahhh. I cross posted with Datun.

Yes, just another ‘event’ involving this and the main organization.

Just to let people know that Safe Schools Alliance UK have set up a petition about this. Please share far and wide and let's get this horrible film taken down
www.ipetitions.com/petition/open-letter-to-childline-stop-normalising-the-use

I notice that none of the actual points of concern we have raised has been addressed.

Lots of distraction though.

I've got friends who are youtubers who have done work like this and this is how the procedure goes. Especially with big organizations such as Childline.

@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.

And where does this leave children from dysfunctional families, who have parents who don’t or can’t parent?

I’ve worked with some very damaged kids- from families who have let young kids watch porn, mistreated and abused them in all manner of ways. The exact kids Childline and the NSPCC are for. Whilst I absolutely agree it’s up to parents to steer their children safely through the world what about the ones who don’t have safe homes? Saying “oh that kid shouldn’t have watched that” doesn’t really help a child with no boundaries in place does it? Schools and children’s charities have to pick up the pieces not encourage shit behaviour.

From SSA Twitter

"WTF is Porn’ is aimed at young people, although there is no age specified. It tells children that “porn is great to watch” and gives impressionable and vulnerable children sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and racist porn categories to google, including:

Softcore, Hardcore Lesbian, Thespian, Interracial, Facial, Alternative, Conservative, Hentai, Far Cry, BDSM, NEDM, Amateur, Mature and Swan Disco.

This is despite the director of ChildLine at the time, Peter Liver, saying six days before this video was put up, that:

“children are telling us very clearly that [porn] is having a damaging and upsetting effect on them.”

Ffs.

As someone who was from a dysfunctional family I understand the concern. However, I'd much rather a young person in that situation watch this then find dangerous pornography.
If the child has parents then it is their responsibility. If not then that's where youth workers, social workers, teachers and more can try to help.

Helleofabore- Thank you for your posts.

@Helleofabore

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.

Care to address any of the issues?

^However, I'd much rather a young person in that situation watch this then find dangerous pornography.^
It's not an either or situation though, is it? The signposting of types here actually guarantees exposure to those types, of course curiousity is going to mean they'll look it up. I'm a grown adult and I don't know the swan thing. The only thing stopping me from looking it up is the knowledge that no good can come from that. Children don't check their impulses in that way.
If as you say, "Children will look at porn anyway" then it's doubly important a clear message comes from adults not affirming nonsense.

@ASugarr

I've got friends who are youtubers who have done work like this and this is how the procedure goes. Especially with big organizations such as Childline.

And you missed my point about how decisions are signed off in the department.

Considering the track history of the NSPCC over the past five years, and Childline is part of this, there is little credibility here.

Are you are willing to accept this despite your own misgivings because you believe that Childline is infallible?