Woman’s Hour presents the porn-for-children slot

[Tesla73]

Saw this article from TCW site which shows that once again Auntie Beeb shows its hand in terms of corrupting children

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/womans-hour-presents-the-porn-for-children-slot/

The interesting thing is that this has even been picked up a group in the US and the petition enclosed has upped its target as it beat its original one

www.returntoorder.org/petition/protest-bbcs-push-for-childrens-pornography/

@YetAnotherSpartacus

You really think we need to doscuss whether porn for children is a good idea?

If the idea is being floated elsewhere, which it seems that it is then why not doscuss it and give it sunlight?

Oh and your 'they can't possibly have any legitimate take on this as they are right wing and if they say the sky is blue we must disagree' comment is very revealing

I never actually said that :)

And revealing of what exactly?

My goodness.

You didn’t use those words, but your intention was clear.

In what world is child porn - which is rape in reality - worthy of discussion? Don’t we discuss things to see if we can reach some sort of consensus? The only consensus we should reach on child rape is that there is no situation where it should every be allowed to happen. Some subjects should never be given a voice to.

And did I see the new Dr Who sporting a super rainbow scarf? I give up...

‘In what world is child porn - which is rape in reality - worthy of discussion?’

Of course not, but where did anything say that they were suggesting showing porn featuring children?

Very young children get offered (or used to!) a sort of cartoon showing how a penis can go into a vagina. Couldn’t ‘age appropriate porn’ mean a more teenage friendly version of the same, with realistic graphics or live film, including same sex relationships, and showing a respectful consenting storyline?

But showing adults - not children.

@KittenKong

And did I see the new Dr Who sporting a super rainbow scarf? I give up...

After the previous series lecturing viewers on global warming and plastic pollution, I can easily see then lecturing viewers in this.

Pornography is sexualised imagery or prose with the specific purpose of inciting sexual arousal. The term derives from the Greek word for whore.

If you are showing sexualised images to children designed for good PSHE curricular purposes it is, by definition, not porn.

Ah, ok, Jaysmith. That makes sense. But all the same, I’d like to know what the actual proposal was.

@MoreRainThanAnyYet

‘In what world is child porn - which is rape in reality - worthy of discussion?’

Of course not, but where did anything say that they were suggesting showing porn featuring children?

Very young children get offered (or used to!) a sort of cartoon showing how a penis can go into a vagina. Couldn’t ‘age appropriate porn’ mean a more teenage friendly version of the same, with realistic graphics or live film, including same sex relationships, and showing a respectful consenting storyline?

The definition of pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement

Intended to stimulate sexual excitement - not to teach them about how babies are conceived.

Porn is in the world, teenagers (and younger) will be exposed earlier and to more extreme things than our generations could ever have considered possible. Porn is affecting adult and teenagers in very dangerous and negative ways.

It seems to me the way the question is being posed by the BBC is about what solutions COULD there be for this very real danger. Elsewhere, it has been suggested age appropriate porn could help. Women's hour are posing the question to their listeners about their thoughts on that.

I really can't see the BBC have done anything wrong. Clearly age appropriate porn is bat shit crazy, women's hour are not saying otherwise.

Anyone saying women's hour are encouraging porn for children have poor reasoning and analytical skill.

Elsewhere, it has been suggested age appropriate porn could help.

It has also been suggested elsewhere that the age of consent could be lowered to 4 and there is good money to be made from trafficking children...

This saturation of sexual imagery, language and overt purient things being directed at children is an outright move to remove the “innocence” of children and childhood, and therefore the need to safeguard children.

You have to ask why that is. If we take away the belief that children are “innocent “ and that innocence needs to be protected, then those who have devious intentions are going to argue that there should be no age of consent, that children can consent to sex and have relationships with adults and that pedophilia is a valid sexual orientation.

You have to be aware that this is one piece of the puzzle for pushing more and more on the public to accept sexual predators attention on children as natural. That those of us are go fund this abhorrent are bigots.

If you are advocating this and wrapping it up in “debate” then you’re part of the problem.

This is one actual thing where there is “no debate”. In no way, shape or form is porn or sexual things that are for adults at all appropriate for children. You’re part of the problem. Children need to be protected and your intention of being super cool and open minded and “debating” children being exposed to sexual things makes you an idiot. You’re not actually open minded. You’re weak minded and a coward.

If you can’t stand up for children as an absolute, then you’re no better than pedophiles. You’re encouraging them. Protecting children is an absolute. There is no maybe or faltering over that issue.

I’ve never seen a more weak minded, easily swayed, dickmatized generation of women such as ours. These people are literally telling you they want unfettered, sexual access to children and all the “cool girls” are on here .. “well let’s debate and discuss. We need to hear both sides”.

Yeah well you debate pedophiles on your time. I’m not going to have a discussion with some weak minded, dickmatized, pandering woman about if porn is ok for kids. She should have lost her job for even writing such nonsense.

People are really insane these days. What’s next? Why your 8 yr old should date a 26 yr old in the news magazines? Why your 10 yr old should have an Only Fans? Give me a break.

@Tibtom

Elsewhere, it has been suggested age appropriate porn could help.

It has also been suggested elsewhere that the age of consent could be lowered to 4 and there is good money to be made from trafficking children...

Yes, that is absolutely true. Both those statements, mine and yours, are facts Tibtom.

Porn is in the world, teenagers (and younger) will be exposed earlier and to more extreme things than our generations could ever have considered possible. Porn is affecting adult and teenagers in very dangerous and negative ways.

Street drugs are part of teenagers world. Which street drug might be age appropriate to hand out in class?

Sorry hit enter too soon.

Me and you saying other people have said things we don't think or agree with, is just that. Stating factually what others think. It doesn't imply our thoughts on their statements at all.

Age appropriate porn?

That’s the language of a pedophile. This person needs to be in jail.. or at least monitored so we can be sure they aren’t abhsing children.

There is no such thing as age appropriate porn. Porn isn’t even good for adults! It is bad for the brain of adults, so what do we think it will do to children?

All this is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at boundary breaking! Get us all to accept children being exposed to hardcore sexual things and that’s pretty much opening the gates to pedos being open. They are pretty much open as it is. But we all have to protect the feelings of men these days (most sexual predators and porn consumers are men). so all the cool kids are saying we need to listen to all sides.

We are online so I can’t give them my ass to kiss. But that’s pretty much my feeling on this.

Porn is not for children. No debate.

@Tibtom

Porn is in the world, teenagers (and younger) will be exposed earlier and to more extreme things than our generations could ever have considered possible. Porn is affecting adult and teenagers in very dangerous and negative ways.

Street drugs are part of teenagers world. Which street drug might be age appropriate to hand out in class?

Are you dim?

Using the drugs example then:

1. Drugs are a problem
2. Society agrees we need to help children not ruin their lives with them
3. Some nutter suggests giving children drugs
4. BBC reports some nutter suggests giving children drugs
5. Morons on Mumsnet say "I CANT BELIEVE THE BBC IS SAYING WE SHOULD GIVE KIDS DRUGS OMG"

@TowelStripes

Sorry hit enter too soon.

Me and you saying other people have said things we don't think or agree with, is just that. Stating factually what others think. It doesn't imply our thoughts on their statements at all.

But we don't have pieces on radio saying "trafficking childrwn for sex as a business opportunity: yay or nay? " Quite rightly we say "how do we control the pernicious evil that is trafficking children?"

Even if the subsequent discussion agrees trafficking children for sex as a money spinner is to be condemned, the fact that the question was asked shifts the goal post. You are now saying 'there are arguments for and against but on balance we are against' and given space and legitimacy to those paedophiles who argue in support rather than saying child sex slavery is an absolute wrong and children should be protected in everyway possible from those paedophiles. Why do you think TRAs are so against women's rights being discussed?

Me and you saying other people have said things we don't think or agree with, is just that. Stating factually what others think. It doesn't imply our thoughts on their statements at all.

Thr BBC say: What’s the best way to inform teenagers about porn? Should there be age-appropriate porn as has been suggested so they can learn about consent and what’s respectful and what’s not?

The way the BBC phrases it shows they are willing to at the very least host the debate about it, which leads you to the conclusion that they don't think that the idea is 'undebatable', in the same way that lowering the age of consent is 'undebatable.
They seem to feel unable to host discussions about women's rights vs trans rights, which they often refuse to air.

@MarshmallowSwede

This is the start of getting us all to “discuss” it Minor attracted people aka pedophiles (this is their term, not mine.) . should be allowed to have relationships with kids. This is the slippery slope into us accepting paedophilia.

No.. there is so such thing as age appropriate porn. It is not for children. And in my opinion it is detrimental to adults.

This person and people who are ok with this are sexual predators and/or ok with paedophilia. We need to call this out when we see it. This is disgusting.

I came on here to say just this.

If the BBC were indeed saying "Some nutter says...," that might be OK, but they aren't. They are posing the rhetorical question in faux innocence, and so aiding the normalisation of this bonkers discourse.

@MarshmallowSwede

Age appropriate porn?

That’s the language of a pedophile. This person needs to be in jail.. or at least monitored so we can be sure they aren’t abhsing children.

There is no such thing as age appropriate porn. Porn isn’t even good for adults! It is bad for the brain of adults, so what do we think it will do to children?

All this is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at boundary breaking! Get us all to accept children being exposed to hardcore sexual things and that’s pretty much opening the gates to pedos being open. They are pretty much open as it is. But we all have to protect the feelings of men these days (most sexual predators and porn consumers are men). so all the cool kids are saying we need to listen to all sides.

We are online so I can’t give them my ass to kiss. But that’s pretty much my feeling on this.

Porn is not for children. No debate.

No, we don't say 'no debate' on here. We've been victims of 'no debate.' We don't silence people, we talk about things.

Are no things absolutes then? Is slavery sometimes a good thing? Should fathers be allowed to murder their children to get back at their mother? Should Saville's abuse be praised as being true to himself? Would it be a good idea to follow the Taliban's lead to say women must not see a male doctor and women must not be doctors? Should girls in care be pimped out?

Isn't it queer theory to say barriers and norms muat be dismantled so these things are ok?

A whole series of straw men there, Tibtom.

We should be able to talk about all those things. What is so dangerous as far as you're concerned about talking about them? Because if we're not talking about these things and exposing them to sunlight, they'll grow like fungus in the dark.

You've either worked yourself up into a frenzy, Tibtom, or you're being disingenuous and have taken the Daily Mail's shilling. We're better than the Mail here.

What's your position on sex education generally?

You've either worked yourself up into a frenzy, Tibtom, or you're being disingenuous and have taken the Daily Mail's shilling. We're better than the Mail here.

Is that another way of saying "evil right wing bigot"