A Detailed Look At “The Family Sex Show”

Excellent! And how very DARVO of them in their ridiculous statement, but who is suprised? We know exactly what they and to a greater extent their backers really are after all. I am very veryv glad that my email to the NSPCC is seen as part of a "threat" to open societal grooming of children for sexual abuse. That was the intended result.

The cancellation statement says "information regarding the content of the show was made available to bookers before coming to see it".
Is that true?
I thought they hadn't finished developing it?

"Asking questions about child protection", they mean

If it had been all fine and nothing to give anyone concern, it wouldn’t have been cancelled because of some emails and tweets. It was cancelled (clearly) because the theatres wouldn’t have wanted to be associated with the bad PR.

🥂 cheers, everyone! Another victory facilitated by Mumsnet.

Women are wonderful.

The correct response to a safeguarding concern is to openly and transparently respond, show the safeguarding measures put in place in an open and above board way, show the risk assessments, not claim victimhood and that women raising safeguarding concerns about children is 'threatening' behaviour.

It was certainly an option that was open to them. It's disappointing that the theatre company and actors chose an alternative mode of action in response.

After all, the respective insurers surely did their due diligence before the theatres went ahead with scheduling this production into their offerings so the impact assessments etc. must be available.

I can't disagree, but the whole 'woe is we'...

Overall, I think this is probably for the best.

'abuse' - DARVO in action.

Tells you all about who they are and actually proves the women raising safeguarding concerns as right to be concerned.

The correct response to a safeguarding concern is to openly and transparently respond, show the safeguarding measures put in place in an open and above board way, show the risk assessments, not claim victimhood and that women raising safeguarding concerns about children is 'threatening' behaviour.

The only way that what women on here have been doing is 'threatening' is if you're a paedophile.

Bottle it and complain of being cancelled it is then. They could have tried to address the concerns, maybe let a journalist sit in on the rehearsals. But no, easier to play the victim.

So challenging the ethics of random adults stripping naked in front of very young children and discussing consent through pleasure with 5 - 10 year olds is "abuse"? Nope.

Hopefully there's finally been some pressure applied behind the scenes to ensure that children are safeguarded from deluded adults performing completely age inappropriate acts and conversations with very young children. And if they're only capable of protecting egos by blaming those insisting children are safeguarded, then that's their problem. Maybe Crispin Blunt is their role model?

Great news.

Win!

Would that "abuse" be people asking the NSPCC how they were involved with the show and the NSPCC responding that they weren't?

The sort of "abuse" that is actually people fact-checking and carrying out due diligence?

Good result!

"Threat and abuse", they say.

I imagine there will be screenshots then. It couldn't possibly be that they are characterising middle-aged mothers as abusive for emailing about their safeguarding policy, could it?

It’s been cancelled

twitter.com/aspergerlicious/status/1515718552640237582?s=21

And 'PG' ('General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. A PG film should not unsettle a child aged around eight or older. Unaccompanied children of any age may watch, but parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger, or more sensitive, children'.)

Language

Mild bad language only. Aggressive or very frequent use of mild bad language may result in a work being passed at a higher category.

Nudity

There may be nudity with no sexual context.

Sex

Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and innuendo only.

Here's the film rating for a 'U' film - suitable for all ages from 4 up:

Language

Infrequent use only of very mild bad language.

Nudity

Occasional nudity, with no sexual context.

Sex

Occasional nudity, with no sexual context.

Perhaps, the show will go on and will be harmless, but if that's because it was overhyped or because they've been forced to see sense, might never be known.

I think if it was harmless to begin with they would be more transparent about the shows contents. If they can't because they haven't finished developing it then what were they doing claiming it was suitable for 5+ and what were the venue's thinking when they agreed to host it.

They could modify it but unless they change the recommended age say to 11 or 13 plus, make it age appropriate for that age, remove the nudity, tone down the queer agenda and take some safeguarding advice it's still not going to be acceptable.

I want the groomers, paedophiles (I'm not going to use MAP) and their apologists to know we're watching and will speak up when they start pushing boundaries.

I don’t think anyone should regret attempting to bring this show into the sunlight even if it has attracted a lot of publicity. The alternative is the ‘turn a blind eye and hope it goes away’ and since when has that ever worked?

It doesn't help that no-one, apparently not even the cast know what this show will be. The stuff that's been put out seems inappropriate for at least some of the target audience. It may be when it's shown, everyone will be relieved/disappointed. If it wasn't for all the, I think, justifiable concern this wretched little show will have come and gone with no-one really noticing. At the moment it's a bit Passion of St Tibulus. The company have got masses of publicity. Perhaps, they'll bottle it and then complain of being cancelled. Perhaps, the show will go on and will be harmless, but if that's because it was overhyped or because they've been forced to see sense, might never be known.