Eight in 10 parents polled by headteachers say issues around pornography should form part of sex education lessons
It reveals that the majority of parents do not want it to be left to them alone to educate their youngsters about the issue, and a large proportion think pupils as young as five or six should be given lessons on the subject.
Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), which conducted the poll, said many young people were exposed to explicit materials online and on mobile phones, and needed to know how to cope.
The survey, which questioned about 1,000 parents, found that six in 10 are worried, or very worried, about their children seeing violent or sexual material on the web. But the poll also reveals that the majority (80%) of are confident in protecting their children online.
While just over half (51%) say pupils should not be taught about the dangers of pornography until they are teenagers, more than two in five (42%) said they should be educated as soon as they are old enough to access the internet.
More than eight in 10 (83%) say issues around pornography should form part of sex education lessons. The same proportion thought that parents and schools should take joint responsibility for teaching children about the issue, with just 13% of parents saying it is the parents’ job alone and 4% saying it should be left to schools.
Hobby said: “There is no place for explicit materials in the classroom or school, even in the course of teaching about their dangers, but many young people are exposed to such materials on the internet and phones. In the face of this young people need to know how to cope with and avoid these distorted views of relationships.”
He added that it was reassuring to see that parents believe that schools are part of the support network for their children.
Stephen Watkins, head of Mill Field primary school in Leeds, said schools should speak to children about explicit material in an age-appropriate manner. He said he “would not dream” of talking to young children about pornography.
“We don’t talk about pornography, we do say to them if you see images of naked bodies and body parts then tell us. You start at a low level, it is about raising awareness that not everything that comes up on a computer screen should be there.”
The NAHT is not the first group to raise concerns about access to explicit images. This month Ofsted called for secondary school pupils to learn more about pornography, relationships, sexuality and staying safe, rather than just the mechanics of reproduction.
It suggested that many schools were failing to give pupils decent sex and relationships lessons, which could leave them open to sexual exploitation or inappropriate behaviour.
The findings came just weeks after a teachers’ union called for pupils to be given lessons on the dangers of pornography. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers passed a resolution at its annual conference that warned that schools must ensure pornography does not become seen as so normal that youngsters expect it to be part of everyday life.
EDITORIAL: What would make a traditional name like Philips Norelco think that it’s appropriate to make an obscene commercial to sell their razor? Their products have been in American homes for as long as I can remember and I’m 53.
Is this the advertising industry’s answer to marketing to the younger demographics? Our youth deserve more than just shoving more sex in their face 24/7 . Use some creativity instead of just selling more sex or find a new career!
Norelco . . This ad fails America, ya know, all those people who’ve kept you in business all these years? It’s time for corporations to take some social responsibility. Will you take a stand against selling more obscenity and sex to our youth or will we all need to replace your brand after ALL THESE YEARS??
PS: I bought a different brand of Parmesan cheese today. Kraft, you’re off my shopping list until I stop seeing your obscene ad!. Norelco, Christmas list, there you go!!
EDITORIAL: Looks like the advertising industry is taking cues from Porn Valley these days. Sexualizing men is no more acceptable than sexualizing women. The Kraft brand is a family favorite and an American staple. Is this some kind of a test for consumers to see how serious we are about demanding a corporation’s social responsibility?
Bad move, Kraft. Time to fire your marketing team who is obviously watching too much porn these days and find someone who supports the values of the people who buy your products. FAMILIES!! Single people eat out or they eat gourmet. What are you really trying to say by selling smut instead of your products??
Families: Pay attention and support those corporations who support your family values. It’s becoming easier to spot the offenders pimping sex to your families instead of promoting a healthier society. It’s time to use our consumer buying power to take a stand against the sexualizing of America!!
Published on Apr 4, 2013
Advertising Agency: BEING, Los Angeles, USA
May 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM ET
Video: Kylie Bisutti, a former Victoria’s Secret model, shocked the fashion world when she gave up a potentially lucrative career on the catwalk to follow her faith. Bisutti talks about what led to the controversial decision, as she outlines in her no book, “I’m No Angel.”
When she strode down the runway as a Victoria’s Secret model in 2009, Kylie Bisutti, 23, achieved a lifelong dream. But she’s given it all up because she felt the modeling industry ran counter to her Christian values.
In her new book, “I’m No Angel,’’ Bisutti describes her disenchantment with the modeling industry and the unhealthy practices she claimed were part of the job. Bisutti now lives in Big Fork, Mont., with her husband, and counsels young women about Christian values while hoping to shed light on what she feels is the dark side of the modeling industry.
“I believe that the modeling industry as a whole really exploits young girls,’’ Bisutti told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY Tuesday. “I’m just thankful that God changed my heart earlier on rather than being five or 10 years down the road runway modeling or lingerie modeling.’’
Bisutti was 19 when she beat out 10,000 contestants in an online contest voted on by the public to walk the runway at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show in 2009. She had been modeling for several years and had seemingly attained her dream, only to walk away because she felt she was being exploited and sexualized.
“It was my lifelong dream,’’ she told Guthrie. “(Deciding to leave modeling) was a slow, gradual process over time, but it really revolved around modeling lingerie. That was the pinnacle of my decision, being seen by other men in lingerie when I have a precious husband at home who should be the only one to see me that way.’’
“She came to her convictions going, ‘I don’t want to go down that road any more. I don’t feel comfortable dressing half naked to sell clothing,’’’ her husband, Mike Bisutti, told TODAY.
Victoria’s Secret claims that Bisutti is overstating her relationship to the company in her book.
“Ms. Bisutti has made numerous fabrications and misstatements of fact regarding her brief association with Victoria’s Secret,’’ the company said in a statement to TODAY. “In 2009, Ms. Bisutti won an online amateur modeling competition and hasn’t worked for us since that year. The prize for the winning contestant was the unique opportunity to a one-time walk in the 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.
“Ms. Bisutti also participated in a swim photo shoot in 2009. That was the extent of Ms. Bisutti’s involvement with Victoria’s Secret. She was never a Victoria’s Secret ‘Angel’ as defined by the terms of our Angel model contract. And contrary to Ms. Bisutti’s claims, she was never offered any subsequent modeling contracts or opportunities with Victoria’s Secret despite her multiple appeals for further work. She has repeatedly fabricated her work experience with Victoria’s Secret – including a relationship that simply did not exist.”
“My response is, all the truth is in the book,’’ Bisutti told Guthrie Tuesday. “My book is really not about Victoria’s Secret. It’s about the modeling industry as a whole and about helping girls with self-body image issues, eating disorders and really exposing the entire industry for what it is. It’s not targeting their brand.’’
Bisutti’s book also details her ordeals in trying to maintain her appearance to continue to get work in the industry.
“There was intense pressure on me and I know on many models around me to be incredibly thin,’’ she said. “I went as far as doing crazy crash diets to drop the weight after my agency had called me fat and told me that I needed to lose weight off of my thighs and hips, and I did very unhealthy things to lose the weight, but I was told if I didn’t do it, I wouldn’t book jobs and become successful.”
Bisutti said her hope was that the diets would pay off with a successful career at the top of the industry, but she claims those issues never went away.
“The whole time through my career, I always thought, ‘One day this is all going to pay off, one day it’s going to change for me.’ But I realized it never really changed the way I thought it would,’’ she told Guthrie. “As I saw more and more girls collapsing after runway shows, (and) hospitalized because of eating disorders, I realized it wasn’t just my experience. It was everyone in the entire industry.”
“It’s really the story of someone who is pursuing fame and success and money realizing along the way that those things are not going to bring her the kind of satisfaction that she was hoping for,’’ her pastor, Chris Miller of Grace Church, told TODAY.
Bisutti has not looked back since leaving the spotlight and a potentially lucrative modeling career.
“The amazing thing is, I felt total peace about my decision, and now I’m the happiest I’ve ever been in my entire life,’’ she said. “I don’t regret any decisions. I’m just so happy now.’’
EDITORIAL: My question is . . this came from a TV series so why is it okay on TV when it is obviously not okay on the street? TV is in our homes!!
If I wanted to see porn, I’d watch it. I go to other sources to get something different than porn. Like real entertainment, news and useful information. Where does one go to get that anymore since these companies are all a bunch of sex addicts with nothing left to peddle but sex, violence and twisted crap??
To the People!!
Mumbrella – May 1st, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Foxtel is pulling down a controversial Studio billboard less than 24 hours after it was erected to promote the relaunch of the arts channel.
The poster – in Sydney’s Kings cross – featured a fictional British prime minister preparing to have sex with a pig. The scene comes from the dark British series Black Mirror. The episode featured the social media storm following the kidnapping of a British princess with the ransom demand that the British PM has sex with the animal live on TV
The subscription TV platform has apologised, labelling the poster “appalling taste” and a lapse of judgement.
The statement from Foxtel said: “This billboard is part of a campaign by Studio the arts channel produced for Foxtel by SBS. It was intended to provoke, but is clearly in appalling taste and demonstrates a lapse of judgment by Studio and a failure in the approvals process at Foxtel. Once senior management at Foxtel became aware of the nature of the image we instructed Studio to remove and replace the billboard. This will happen as soon as possible. Foxtel regrets any offence that has been caused.”
As Mumbrella revealed this morning, the poster featured an image the the fictional British prime minister preparing to have sex with a pig.
Studio issued its own statement from GM Chris Keely. He said: “While art can sometimes be divisive or provocative, we certainly did not intend to upset anyone with this campaign. We apologise for any offense that was caused by the billboard. We will be immediately replacing it overnight with another piece of our campaign.”
Shortly before Foxtel said the ad was being taken down, the Outdoor Media Association also attacked the poster, which was not on a billboard owned by one of its members. CEO Charmaine Moldrich told Mumbrella: “I’m really surprised it was allowed to go up. It doesn’t matter if it’s promoting art, one of our members would never put up something like that because they’re trained in the code of ethics.
“I don’t believe it complies with section 2.4 of the code, which says Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience. This wasn’t put up by one of my members, but I can say that if it was, it wouldn’t have gone up.”
Other sections the OMA believe the billboard breaks include 2.2, which says Advertising or marketing communications should not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative and degrading of any individual or group of people; and 2.6, which says Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not depict material contrary to Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety.
An answerphone message at the Advertising Standards Board says the office was closed for the day for staff training.
As you may, hopefully, be unaware, today is Alice Day, a day inspired by Lewis Carroll’s debated sexual attraction to Alice In Wonderland’s very underage and very real counterpart, when proud pedophiles come together in celebration of their disorder. So it’s a beautiful day for a NAMBLA takedown, and Anonymous was happy to answer the call.
The hacker group gave fair warning of their intent several days ago with this YouTube video—and if you have any faith in humanity that you’d prefer to maintain, might I suggest avoiding the video’s comment section.
NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association and one of the most prominent pedophilia advocacy groups to date, was one of the first to get hit. At the time of this post, attempts to access NAMBLA’s homepage left you with the following message, although the site now appears to be back up:
But there are plenty of others on Anon’s chopping block. As The Daily Dot learned:
Target No. 1 is a Russian-hosted imageboard filled with password-protected albums such as “boy Self pics” and “girls in the bathroom.” Target No. 2 is a “free bookmarking & blogging platform” with “sex” in the URL. Target No. 3 is a popular porn-streaming site with the tagline “where anything legal stays” and the unfortunate reputation for lax security measures against user-submitted underage content. (In talking to the Anonymous source, this is the one he seemed most excited about taking down.)
While the legitimacy of Anon’s self-appointed police status often gets called into question, this is at least one set of attacks nearly everyone can get behind. Especially after the realization that “Alice Day” just so happens to fall right in the middle of child abuse awareness month. [The Daily Dot]
First of all, the whole entire world is critical of the way women look. Whether you are a supermodel, a teenager or even Secretary of State, if you’re a female, there are people all around you ready to tell you how bad your body looks. Secondly, the idea that women are valuable only for their beauty permeates nearly every facet of modern society, from the billboards we walk past to the social media we use daily. And this idea that women should be reduced to their appearance originated almost entirely in the minds and actions of men. And it is still largely perpetuated today by men – who run over 90% of our media.
So to say women are their own “worst critics” when it comes to beauty puts the blame on women for a beauty-obsessed, body-shaming and misogynistic world created and maintained largely by dudes.
Of course women should be encouraged to defy this worldview and fight the media’s impossible beauty ideal. And perhaps the sheer number of times a woman looks in the mirror is greater than the number of times a man walks by and harasses her (though, I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it). And you probably do know more about the shape of your own nose than anyone else does. But you know who almost certainly judges women’s appearance more harshly than women? These guys:
And all the men called-out daily by Everyday Sexism:
All the men in the world who feel entitled to women’s bodies, and feel entitled to have an opinion about those bodies, and sometimes even feel entitled to touch and hurt those bodies – they are the worst critics of women’s beauty. They are the ones who most often turn criticism into objectification, dehumanization and even violence.
We can all strive to be more confident and to value ourselves more, and clearly that is the intention of this Dove-inspired conversation around women’s self-image and beauty. But it’s not helpful for us to so dramatically overstate the role women play in a negative culture of judgement created and maintained largely by men. In a world where we are all constantly pummeled with images of the hypersexualized hyperfeminine thin female ideal, it is not so surprising that some women have distorted self-images.
So, women are not their own worst critics when it comes to beauty. And instead of saying they are over and over, let’s question the larger cultural environment in which we are all taught – regardless of gender – to value women first for their looks, and second for what they say or do. Let’s also not let those who objectify women, who harass women online and off, or who profit from industries exploiting the beauty ideal, off the hook.
If we really want women (and everyone else) to feel better about themselves then we should also be challenging these men and boys to take a second look at how they talk about women and women’s bodies – and the negative impact it is having on our world.
Imagine a video where a few men have a curtain lifted, and suddenly they recognize the role they play in perpetuating rape culture. Now that would be something truly shocking to watch.
Imran is the Social Media and Communications Director at MissRepresentation.org. Follow him on Twitter @imransiddiquee
The F Word – by Guest Blogger // 20 April 2013, 15:42
Lucy Pegg argues that the sci-fi/fantasy genre this sit-com is based on has already moved away from the stereotypes of women it perpetuates, leaving it woefully behind.
Image: Cover of The Big Bang Theory Season One DVD boxset.
The Big Bang Theory is America’s highest rated comedy. It is regularly E4′s most watched show on our side of the Atlantic and can definitely be said to divide opinion. Is it funny or just plain stupid? Does it laugh at nerd culture or with it? And is it sexist or not?
The programme bases itself entirely on stereotypes in a huge number of ways and given its subject matter, a lot of these are drawn from those typically found in the sci-fi/fantasy genre; a world in which historically the men are the heroes and the woman are skimpily-clothed and more than slightly helpless. Like many of us, Leonard, Sheldon, Raj and Howard submerge themselves in comic books and films as a method of escapism from a society which labels them ‘uncool’. In many ways, this brings these worlds back into their realities; part of this is seen in the way that they often view women. The even more irritating part of this is that nerd culture is starting to change and has recently become far more female-friendly, while The Big Bang Theory insists on continually perpetuating out of date ideas.
The women of the show are constantly sexualised, a major issue in sci-fi and fantasy which has been highlighted by groups like The Hawkeye Initiative. Particularly in the earlier seasons, Penny seems to be portrayed as the archetypal “helpless blonde bimbo” needing to be saved from her pedestrian life by our oh-so-intelligent lead characters. For quite a while she has virtually no character besides being hot and not very academic when compared to the hoards of scientists that populate the show. After six seasons she still doesn’t even have a last name! Penny is the clearest example of the programme objectifying women, though in no way is the practise limited to her. All four of the main characters (though particularly Howard) have very cavalier attitudes towards dating, with it made clear that sex is often the main goals of these adventures. It seems to follow the idea that a handsome male lead must desire vast amounts of intercourse with faceless women before heading off to do battle, in this case with whatever social situation Sheldon is failing to cope with that week. Furthermore, Amy is shown to have little sexual control in her relationship with Sheldon, with her clearly wanting to become more physical and him doggedly refusing to even contemplate her requests. Of course compromises are part of being in a couple but it seems very obvious that Amy has little choice in how their union progresses.
As for how this compares to recent sci-fi exports, look at The Hunger Games; Katniss is attractive but she wears what she needs to for the tasks at hand, is intelligent, remaining forthright and strong as a person, rather than being categorised as “just a woman”. If Howard of The Big Bang Theory used his usual sleazy manner to ask her out I think he could expect an arrow buried somewhere quite uncomfortable.
Another stereotype follows, which is seen both in older sci-fi/fantasy and the households of the 1950s: the idea of women as automatic homemakers or at least stay at home girlfriends. It is Howard who becomes an astronaut and Bernadette who stays at home and frets. Amy sets up the perfect non-valentines for Sheldon and he cannot even get her a present himself. Basically all the women on the show have careers, and in general very successful ones, but they are shown as performing the expressive role in the relationship despite this. Once again, the genre this is based on has already moved away from this with shows like Game of Thrones (set in a more rigorously patriarchal society than nerdom a decade ago) and Big Bang has been left woefully behind.
Overall, the programme generally misrepresents the sci-fi and fantasy genre, as well as the culture which surrounds it. The multitude of jokes made about the lack of women in comic book stores is absurd; last time I went into my local one I found myself accompanied not only by other women (including a staff member) but families too. This is the complete opposite of what is portrayed in the show. It seems patently clear that the writers don’t understand much of the content their work is based on and are working on assumptions about the genre which don’t necessarily continue to ring true. There seems to be no effort to promote equality on The Big Bang Theory and, in fact, much of the humour is based on this and other divides. Perhaps the characters have been spending too much time on their quantum physics to realise that the culture around them is changing and they’re far from catching up.