Content Warning: This piece links to reports on lawsuits to do with child pornography.
Flora Gill, a contributor for The Sunday Times tweeted on Thursday that "Someone needs to create porn for children," with that tweet also mentioning these "young teens... need entry level porn!"
When asked "I think you mean teens right?," Gill responded with "yes! under 18 year olds but obviously not actual children." The law in the United Kingdom though, regards those under 18 as children.
Under 18s ARE CHILDREN . It’s LITERALLY the definition . pic.twitter.com/r7lEN6CwkC
— Rhodri Morgan-Smith (@DocRods) July 29, 2021
Only screenshots remain available of those tweets in question, as Gill deleted the tweet advocating this "porn for children" that same day, though many have receipts when it comes to communicating their outrage.
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 29, 2021
The journalist who called for porn for children also has a dream job of sexually arousing pandas while in costume. pic.twitter.com/XCDgwyrTpW
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 29, 2021
Some replies are still available, though.
I think it's very hard to keep teens away from porn. Most 14/15 year olds understand computers far better than their parents and will easily work a VPN
— Flora Gill (@FloraEGill) July 29, 2021
To her credit she didn't lock down her tweets though, so we can still see her complaining about people making a big deal about exposing children to something they should not legally--and, many would argue morally--consume.
apropos of nothing I really think if someone quickly deletes a tweet, it shouldn't be screenshotted and shared like... just let it die, you know? no? no one else agree?
— Flora Gill (@FloraEGill) July 29, 2021
Absolutely not getting swept up into another twitter cesspool so deleted tweet before it picks up steam! Obviously not an actual solution, but it is a real problem. Everyone take a deep breath
— Flora Gill (@FloraEGill) July 29, 2021
Well, the internet is forever.
The Post Millennial did a write-up that same day, which shares examples of sexualization of children, including in the media, with Lauren Rowello writing in her headline for The Washington Post that "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." This kind of exposure has even appeared in children's shows designed for preschoolers, such as "Blues Clues & You!" Drag Queen story hours have also been popping up in cities around the country.
Townhall has covered many of these incidents, though it sadly seems to be a pattern with likely countless more examples.
When it comes to sex education including "porn literacy," The New York Times recently came under fire for publishing a positive profile lamenting the plight of a first grade teacher in New York City. Justine Ang Fonte felt the need to resign from the private school where she taught after parents expressed outrage over the sex education courses she was teaching first graders.
Many of Gill's tweets exuded the attitude of how since teens are watching porn anyway, we might as well expose them to it in a so-called safe and soft core way.
I mention children should not morally view porn, and sadly the Post Millennial backs me up on just some of the reasons why:
Children's exposure to pornography often begins about age 11. Social Worker Amy Steele has noted that porn tends to target kids, saying that it is "programmed to find them."
Steele says that "Today's porn content is drastically more graphic, violent, deviant and destructive than anything ever seen before."
There are risks to children in viewing pornography, however, and can lead to a porn addiction, especially in young men. Looking at porn has been found to "deform the pleasure centers" in adolescent brains. It creates a neuro-chemical release and a high.
One result of porn exposure is that children who look at porn for many hours in a week are shown to have "less gray matter in their brain than those who did not view it."
In terms of how many children have watched porn, statistics show that about 90 percent of children have watched pornography at least once between the ages of 8 and 16.
The largest consumers of porn online are boys aged 12-17. These numbers are only rising. Most proposed solutions involve removing technology from children so that they do not have the space to access it on their own, and talking to kids about the dangers of pornography, and it's distinct lack of realistic portrayals of sex, relationships, and average human bodies.
Marisa Iati reported last month for The Washington Post that "Pornhub profits from rape, child pornography and sex trafficking, dozens of women allege in lawsuit."
Last December, Samantha Cole reported for VICE that "40 Girls Do Porn Victims Are Suing Pornhub for $1 Million Each."
Fight the New Drug (FTND), describes itself as "a non-religious and non-legislative organization" and warns that "Decades of studies from respected institutions have demonstrated significant impacts of porn consumption for individuals, relationships, and society." It also has helpful information and resources available. Something which Gill may find particularly compelling is how FTND notes porn consumption can affect consent.
Gill describes herself in her writing as "a sex columnist." Last November, in a Daily Mail Plus article, she wrote "I admit it, I HATE MEN," which was also covered by The Daily Mail.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member