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.

I've been reading through some very interesting stuff on twitter today, involving Scouting and Maya Forstater.

I was seriously thinking about cubs for the offspring and volunteering as a parent helper after the pandemic. I wouldn't let my child in a million miles of a scout hut now!

Unfortunately it is NOT illegal for children and young adults to watch porn.

"The implementation of this age verification system proved to be contentious and ended up being one of the most heavily criticised areas of the Porn Law. Critics considered that such a system raised serious privacy concerns because of the need to collect user data, and in any case would easily be hacked or bypassed with virtual private networks (VPNs) or anonymous browsers, rendering the law useless in practice. Such extensive criticism of this aspect of the law eventually led the government to put age verification blocks on hold for the time being."

The age verification process is not active.

As children and young people are going to be watching pornography regardless of what parents think or say, it is better to have a video like the one you share OP to talk straight, without mystifying porn. Of course you can't cover everything on a short video, but the idea is to give clear information in terms that what is seen is NOT real but acting.
NSPCC and Childline have lots of resources for children and young people to access and it's better to guide them to these safes websites than leave them on their own.
Of course is by no means exhaustive in the information but gives children enough basic tools to understand what is ok and what is not ok.
Whether we like it or not, porn is here to stay and as long as the law regulates it as much as possible to guard children, animals, trafficking, etc consenting adults should be free to do it and or use it.

Whether we like it or not, porn is here to stay and as long as the law regulates it as much as possible to guard children, animals, trafficking, etc consenting adults should be free to do it and or use it.

I recommend you read the actual thread. Then watch the video and maybe them address the actual concerns raised on the thread.

Rather than AGAIN assuming that people are stating that porn should not be discussed in age appropriate ways by people who are very well educated and experienced in safeguarding.

This thread is about this particular video. Why do YOU think it is a good communication tool for raising the awareness of the negative aspects of under 18 consumption of porn.

^it is better to have a video like the one you share OP to talk straight, without mystifying porn.^

No one is arguing a video isn't a good idea. It's been. Dissected quite thoroughly further back if you care to actually engage with the content and concerns.

As to demystifying, I'm not sure what it demystifies. I'm still in the dark about swan dancing (thank goodness!)

I found the perfect image that perfectly encapsulates the counter argument.

😂

Yeah I watched that Twitter thread from maya

I agree would never let a kid of mine go near scouts when I saw the total lack of safeguarding that the scouts didn’t know and when I saw that thread

The sacred caste who must no5 be challenged was glaringly obvious

Unfortunately it is NOT illegal for children and young adults to watch porn

Showing pornography to children is illegal. Hope that helps.

(Why the need to reference young adults btw - we are aware it's perfectly legal for adults to watch porn.)

@MrsSteveMcDonald

In Guiding we have regular safeguarding training and if you don't do it you will be kicked out.

Though guiding thinks all safeguarding concerns evaporate if a man/boy identifies as a woman/girl and single sex spaces be damned... Or you are kicked out.

Yep. Guides are the same.

Yes, Guiding changed to single gender and then claimed that they have always been single gender rather than single sex. I stay as I feel I can protect girls more from the inside rather than being replaced with a woke leader.

@titchy

(Why the need to reference young adults btw - we are aware it's perfectly legal for adults to watch porn.)
Young adults as in they are not children but not adults yet...usually referred to 16 to 18 years old🙂

[quote anothertimeanotherday]@titchy

(Why the need to reference young adults btw - we are aware it's perfectly legal for adults to watch porn.)
Young adults as in they are not children but not adults yet...usually referred to 16 to 18 years old🙂[/quote]
Great.

Any comment on why THIS specific video is a good resource for explaining the risks associated with under 18 consumption of porn?

Nah, I think this one might be more accurate.

[quote anothertimeanotherday]@titchy

(Why the need to reference young adults btw - we are aware it's perfectly legal for adults to watch porn.)
Young adults as in they are not children but not adults yet...usually referred to 16 to 18 years old🙂[/quote]
Ah you do mean children then. Phrasing them as young adults of course implies we're talking about people in their late teens/early 20s so good to know you're referring to older children.

See if I were commissioned to make a video explaining porn I'd probably include:

What it is. Maybe a bit of the history of the internet, page 3 etc. and how it's got out of hand.
That most porn is male pleasure focused.
That the acts in porn aren't often things normal people do. They are to shock.
That there are health consequences for porn stars such as STDs (prolapse)
That the more people watch porn the more it desensitizes them to real sex.
That pornstar bodies are not only unattainable they are usually fake.
That women are trafficked into porn.
How to protect from revenge porn.
How porn funds unsavoury things.
How porn can put a strain on a healthy relationship.
Why some people disagree with porn.
Alternatives to porn (imagination, communication with partner)

I think I could do it without pussy puns too!

Young adults as in they are not children but not adults yet...usually referred to 16 to 18 years old

Anyone under 18 years old in UK is legally a child.

"NSPCC
Definitions of a child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

England
In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate
they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2018a).

Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland the The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 defines a 'child' as a person under the age of 18.

Scotland
In Scotland, the definition of a child varies in different legal contexts, but statutory guidance which supports the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, includes all children and young people up to the age of 18. Where concerns are raised about a 16- or 17-year-old, agencies will need to consider which legislation or guidance is appropriate to follow, given the age and situation of the young person at risk
Wales
Section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 states that a child is a person who is aged under 18."
learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law

A mistake of mine!!! Sorry
I did say young people...
And then at the end changed people for adult...My mistake!! Hands up on that!!
YOUNG PEOPLE!!!😅

@anothertimeanotherday

A mistake of mine!!! Sorry I did say young people... And then at the end changed people for adult...My mistake!! Hands up on that!! YOUNG PEOPLE!!!😅

Children then Young people still implies older teens and early 20s.

Using language like that is a deliberate attempt to minimise the actions and safeguarding need. Even children of 17 are vulnerable to abuse by those in authority, especially those that purport to act in their interest, and therefore still need safeguarding.

Titchy
I think you are really asking fir a fight...I'm not engaging in that 🙂
Even the NSPCC uses the term young people!
Night, night😴

@GoingThruTheMotions

I found the perfect image that perfectly encapsulates the counter argument.

It does seem like it.

Every poster supporting the video is unable to give clear answers to the points of concern. They are hand waved away with deflection and distraction and repeated mantras.

Almost like there is distinct lack of substantive thought behind the assertions that the video is a worthy resource.

@GoingThruTheMotions Your video sounds much better. I really object to this idea that porn is predominantly harmless and only problematic when not used correctly. How often do we hear about grown men having such difficulties in managing their porn use that it leads to relationship breakdown or makes them unable to even start new relationships (speak to anyone who has tried OLD in recent years)? Yet somehow children are expected to navigate this world even before their first experience of actual sex. I absolutely understand the parallels with drug education, for example; the idea that we teach about different drugs and their possible harms and benefits (yes, including caffeine and paracetamol or whatever). But how many people are teaching, for example, that heroin or crack just need to be managed well?

Many years ago I was fortunate enough to have a lecturer called Rae Langton, who says far more interesting and useful things on the subject of pornography than me, and is certainly worth reading.

I can barely believe we have moved from the position that pornography was predominantly viewed as being for desperate, pathetic, dirty old men as recently as the 80s to a world where we simply shrug off the fact that children are routinely exposed to it before they even experience sex. Horrendous doesn't even cover it.

Apart from the one user who claims to be in contact with young people, I doubt that the other users defending it actually have much of an idea at all of how sex education is covered in this country- as evidenced by ramblings about abstinence.

However, it does rather highlight to me that it's absolutely necessary for parents to check what is covered in sex ed nowadays. And I say that as someone who used to tut and eyeroll at parents who didn't want their year five children to learn about periods and their changing bodies. I don't personally know anyone in my neck of the woods in education irresponsible enough to push the porn is fun message, but they are obviously out there.
It's annoying because I never wanted to be one of those parents, but it's really important adults in positions of influence give the right messages.

However, it does rather highlight to me that it's absolutely necessary for parents to check what is covered in sex ed nowadays.

I agree. Wholeheartedly.

And check with their local council safeguarding team. Ours did not know the CPA advice released last year that was going to be subject to the court case was pulled until I told them. And they checked. Months after it was pulled....

I also contacted my teen’s school to check what resources they used. I got a phone call from the lead for those courses and we had a great chat. As a single sex school, they are right across consent. That is what they have experienced is the major need for their students. Consent. And everything about consent. Including having the confidence to stand up to a partner trying to convince them that porn moves are great.

When my teen showed me the pics of teenaged males holding their hands out in a choke hold as a ‘sexy’ pose and all the positive attention it got, I could see why the school had chosen this path. My teen was horrified that others thought this was ok. And ‘fun’.

Horrifying.

Still waiting for those insights from the supporters of the video. I have just seen on another thread that one of our posters is again giving their opinion as a ‘insert job title’ but without producing any evidenced thinking to support those opinions on that thread either.

It must be disheartening when people don’t take titles as evidence of expertise, experience and knowledge at all and actually want substance not superficial platitudes.

I do think it is the difference between limited character posts and long format discussion boards. If people stating they have expertise but leave the thread without leaving convincing evidence, and others chime in with completely irrelevant posts that prove they have not even read half of the thread, it ends up completely undermining any supporting arguments. Which seem to be unanswerable in the support of this specific video. I think on twitter you can get away with it.

Here, not so much.

Even the NSPCC uses the term young people!

The BBC uses 'children' in stories about refugees but they use the term 'transgender people under 18' in stories about children who consider themselves to be the opposite sex.

Mermaids uses 'young people'. Childnet uses "children and young people". Barnardos uses 'young people'.

It's almost as if there was an agenda around the language being applied and a purpose for this subtle shift in language that differs from the legal terms.

If we needed a reason to be suspicious of the NSPCC beyond what we already know, and has been noted in this thread, then this is another. Why would a children's charity not call children, children? They even have children in their name.

Do they define what a young person is? Is a two year old a young person? Does the term only apply to those 16 and older?

It's a broad brush stroke as far as I can see and so the term is rendered meaningless.