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.

@GoingThruTheMotions

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!

Excellent post. That is exactly what should be taught.

The announcing you're a professional then flouncing tactic reminds me of a certain Simpsons character.

Hi everybody!

@OhHolyJesus

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.

I empathise with people who come to this country seeking a better life. Doesn't mean that I don't recognise that the use of the word 'children' when describing 17/18 year old refugees is a deliberate choice on the part of some publications/organisations and is designed to elicit further sympathy. So what purpose does it serve for organisations that work with children to describe them as young people instead? In Mermaids case it would make me suspect that they want to reinforce a message that the children they represent are capable of making their own decisions, that they should have bodily autonomy and be trusted when they say they know they are the opposite gender. Both of these are deliberate approaches. The latter doesn't prevent me from seeing the reality - that children/young people are hugely vulnerable to manipulation and they do not benefit from being forced into a single, wide ranging, category. Why are children's organisations no longer concerned about the different stages of mental and physical development and responding in an age appropriate way? For Childline to signpost its porn explainers available to 12+ (when they're clearly much more appropriate for older teens and even then highly questionable) invites suspicion.

define what a young person is?

Communication eh? A wondrous thing.

If only there was a way to analyze it. Wouldn’t that need, I don’t know, words that are clearly defined for universal use?

I find increasingly that the universal definitions are being ignored for agenda-driven language.

(Just today I have seen an American survey asking about 'transgender females' when they are referring to boys).

Gendered Intelligence creates weird age categories of ages of children (8-15 yo for example) and will collectively call them 'young people'.

Are they young? Yes. Are they people? Yes. But by calling them young people and not children indicates autonomy and decision-making ability. I think, to a degree, it also separates them from the family unit as we consider children to be the responsibility of a parent/guardian and a young person to be close to adulthood and so moving away from parental control and responsibility towards independence.

At least that's how I see it.

If it was up to me, the BBC (licence fee funded and the NSPCC (with statutory powers) would need to write a glossary of terms if they are going to carry on like this. Personally I would have charities do it too if I ran the charities commission, but I don't.

I might also issue pearls as standard for the obligatory clutching.

It definitely something to watch out for, that and the "porn for kids"/"porn is fun" attitude of those around children.

It's reassuring to hear from PPs that the teaching professional hasn't gone completely mad.

it also separates them from the family unit as we consider children to be the responsibility of a parent/guardian and a young person to be close to adulthood and so moving away from parental control and responsibility towards independence.

I agree

[quote yeahbutnaw]Here's some info on it that you obviously won't read: www.childnet.com/blog/childline-fapz-campaign[/quote]
From the above link:

our poll shows that one in five 12-13 year-olds think that watching porn is normal behaviour

So four in five - 80% of 12-13 year-olds do not think that watching porn is normal behaviour.

What is the purpose of this video again?

@GoingThruTheMotions

The announcing you're a professional then flouncing tactic reminds me of a certain Simpsons character.

Hi everybody!

Apparently, on the other place with lots of birds, there has been a complaint leveled at the posters on FWR for not immediately recognizing the significant expertise and experience of posters who post their job titles across multiple threads as an appeal to authority to support their assertions.

Of course, I always thought respect was earned, even on the internet, by applying said expertise to questions and concerns raised through either clear answers or links to robust evidence or experts with clear answers.

Yes, just because you are a professional, doesn't mean that you are any good. It's always interesting if someone has a professional angle to lend to the conversation, but their view is only as good as the quality of idea they are touting.

Ok just watched it all the way through and yes it starts out light and could be seen as promoting porn but it does also highlight the the legalities and the ethics, addiciton etc

The types of Porn are not "google this" statements. It is designed to demystify porn and warn of the dangers aimed at teens/young adults.

I would rather my son be exposed to this and have open and frank discussions about these issues than try and work it out for himself and get drawn into it, addicted by it and grow up to objectify women and have unrealistic standards about sex and interactions with women.

Hellofabore it often seems that the rookery cannot cope with the concept of people being mums and experts on here. Scientists, psychologist, teachers, safeguarding professionals, geneticists, pharmacists, health researchers, GPs, developmental biologists, lawyers, judges, professors, political researchers, politicians... And many more walk the hallowed halls of FWR. I remember once the number of PhDs went on for pages.

I would rather my son be exposed to this and have open and frank discussions about these issues than try and work it out for himself and get drawn into it, addicted by it and grow up to objectify women and have unrealistic standards about sex and interactions with women.

If you have read the thread, you will see no one disagrees that porn should not be discussed in an open and balanced way by teachers who have a depth of experience in teaching and safeguarding the age group they are discussing this with.

So.... your son should be getting a balanced and sensitive education around porn suitable for their age.

Our complaint is that this video when analysed against the aim of raising awareness of the negative aspects of porn, delivers conflicting messaging.

I disagree that it does not lead to googling porn types. It is a communication hook used by marketers to increase interest to mention things that lead people to go looking further, and to keep listening.

What point is there to mention rare porn types if it is a video to discuss the negative aspects of porn?

If you know anything about pedagogy, you'd be aware that children need clear, no nonsense messages with images and audio that enhance understanding. This video does neither. The visuals and tone say one message and the script is patchy at best. Would you honestly, honestly expect someone working with children in a professional capacity not to find a better way to convey the ideas about porn needed to navigate teen years? Your standards must be very low.
Thankfully, the teachers delivering these messages understand this more than the 'cool' people advocating for this video. We'll, most of them anyway. Like I said, reviewing material is the way to go.

@InsanityOf2020

Ok just watched it all the way through and yes it starts out light and could be seen as promoting porn but it does also highlight the the legalities and the ethics, addiciton etc

The types of Porn are not "google this" statements. It is designed to demystify porn and warn of the dangers aimed at teens/young adults.

I would rather my son be exposed to this and have open and frank discussions about these issues than try and work it out for himself and get drawn into it, addicted by it and grow up to objectify women and have unrealistic standards about sex and interactions with women.

And so having watched it, what age group do you believe its aimed at? And there is no reason to mention some of those really esoteric porn names unless you want someone to Google them. If you were truly bothered about your child and porn, you would start the conversation with age appropriateness.

InsanityOf2020
“The types of Porn are not "google this" statements.”

Though he does not actually say, “Here is a list of types of porn to Google.”, the list, its delivery, the graphics to go along with the list, the words “porn is fun” would mean a child/teen would be extremely likely to google every variation mentioned.

There is no guarantee that the child/teen would first discuss everything with their parents first.

Just thought people might be interested in what the actual national curriculum 2021 says and how this measures up.

^^Internet safety should also be addressed. Pupils should be taught the rules and principles for keeping safe online. This will include how to recognise risks, harmful content and contact, and how and to whom to report issues. Pupils should have a strong understanding of how data is generated, collected, shared and used online, for example, how personal data is captured on social media or understanding the way that businesses may exploit the data available to them.

Some pupils are also exposed to harmful behaviours online, and via other forms of media, which may normalise violent sexual behaviours. A focus on healthy relationships and broader Relationships Education can help young people understand acceptable behaviours in relationships.^^

So internet dangers aren't really recognised in this video. The only adherence to the NC is the jokey warnings about googling animals or children. Misses the mark by a mile.

Here's the learning that should be achieved by the end of ks4. Let's see which ones are met by this video-
Pupils should know:

Their rights, responsibilities and opportunities online, including that the same expectations of behaviour apply in all contexts, including online

Does it address this point? Not really. It focuses on positive possibilities without any discussion of the negative (for example, looking at porn on a work computer could get you sacked.) This is very relevant as this sre is for school leavers. Expectations of behaviour isn't really covered at all.

about online risks, including that any material someone provides to another has the potential to be shared online and the difficulty of removing potentially compromising material placed online

Is it covered? Other than to say you can share porn as a joke. No it doesn't. This would be a good opportunity to discuss digital creation of images of themselves and why it should be discouraged.

Not to provide material to others that they would not want shared further and not to share personal material which is sent to them

Is it covered? No it is directly in opposition by saying porn can be shared as a joke.

what to do and where to get support to report material or manage issues online
This is not adequately covered at all.

the impact of viewing harmful content
that specifically sexually explicit material, for example pornography, presents a distorted picture of sexual behaviours, can damage the way people see themselves in relation to others and negatively affect how they behave towards sexual partners

Is it covered? No. Other than an aside about porn star bodies it doesn't engage with the points above at all and the porn is fun message directly contradicts it.

That sharing and viewing indecent images of children (including those created by children) is a criminal offence which carries severe penalties including jail
how information and data is generated, collected, shared and used online

Is it covered? Not adequately. A throwaway comment about pedaphila doesn't cut it. This section clearly points out that children need to be aware that anything they create themselves or share with their peer group is against the law.

So in conclusion. Not a good resource. Not ethical. Doesn't meet the national curriculum expectations and actively comes up against them in places.

For those like @ASugarr who work with children please note this needs to be in place by law in education settings by July 2021. I suggest you look at your materials to ensure they meet current DfE and NC guidelines.

Oh and this is assuming that the video is aimed at the oldest children in secondary, which the video does not make clear.

It's obviously grossly inappropriate to teach ks4 content to KS2 for example.

Not to provide material to others that they would not want shared further and not to share personal material which is sent to them

"Is it covered? No it is directly in opposition by saying porn can be shared as a joke."

This is one of the (many) things that stood out. It could be hugely compromising.

@GoingThruTheMotions

Oh and this is assuming that the video is aimed at the oldest children in secondary, which the video does not make clear.

It's obviously grossly inappropriate to teach ks4 content to KS2 for example.

Thanks for that analysis GoingThruTheMotions.

So, a failure against curriculum too really.

Just adding this there in case this has raised any issues where people feel they need to complain to their school: : safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/04/16/how-to-complain-to-your-childs-school/

Great guidance 2falls, thank you.

I'm adding this excellent Twitter thread 2falls - in which SSA details the interactions they've had with Childline/NSPCC over the video. I'd say it's incredibly lax of them as an organisation protecting children to fall back on the defence that it was posted some time ago - without being clear that it should not be associated with them any more and stating that organisations shouldn't be using it claiming it has their endorsement:

twitter.com/safeschools_uk/status/1384234109019463690?s=21

Thank you Rabbit.
Fascinating how yet again, where porn is involved (thinking of the NSPCC's wanking rubber man) they can never acknowledge responsibility. They work with children, they're allegedly role models yet when something like this gets through (and I accept it originated with Childline) they can never say "we'll try to take this down" or "we regret this was associated with our name".
So depressing.

Rabbit thank you for sharing there thread. I'd just come on to post it. It's truly horrendous to see it all written down. And I know there is worse to come when the review of their education materials is published.