The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage

Their vicious response to the 'cancellation' makes it very clear to me that there was no good will or naivety behind it. No apology made or consideration given to the nearly 40,000 complaints made. What continues to shock me is that any venue would host them. Do they not have their own safeguarding responsibilities?

This is from one of their tweets:

"For audiences who booked, or wanted to come to the show, we are sorry, we hope you will be able to soon."

It reads a little unnaturally. Do you think if they'd put 'come soon', it would have read better but had unfortunate connotations? They know exactly what they're doing.

'Other offences that might involve nudity
Exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires a person to intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. It is triable either way. Depending on the age of the defendant and the sentence that is imposed, an offender may be subject to the notification provisions (the sex offender register).

The need to prove that the person exposed their genitals intending that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress means that a naturist whose intention is limited to going about his or her lawful business naked will not be guilty of this offence.

Outraging public decency

At common law it is an offence to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature which outrages public decency. If conduct falls within the scope of a statutory offence, such as exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see above) it is better practice to charge that offence unless, exceptionally, the offence merits a higher penalty than that available in relation to the statutory offence. Outraging public decency is triable either way and there is no maximum penalty.

The requirement for the behaviour to 'outrage' public decency was said by Lord Simon in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and promotions) Ltd v DPP to: "go considerably beyond the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people".

The circumstances surrounding the conduct will need to be carefully considered. Section 66 SOA is available and normally to be preferred where it is done with the intention to cause alarm and distress.

Nudity in public alone with no aggravating features is very unlikely to amount to this (or any other) offence.'

‘Why is this not getting the coverage it should do?’

Because between the praise for DQS in libraries, community activities such as Rainbow dildo butt monkey, and shows such as this, as per the upthread Spiegel article, there are genuinely conflicted adults who are unable to navigate their way between ideological freedom, the ulitimate welfare of children, politically motivated abuse, and CSA. People are so terrified that they might be repressed bigots who are harming their children through ideology that they've turned off their brains and innate sense of moral instinct.

Does what happened in a number of the Kinderladen qualify as abuse? According to the criteria to which Catholic priests have been subjected, it clearly does, says Alexander Schuller, the sociologist. "Objectively speaking, it was abuse, but subjectively it wasn't," says author Dannenberg. As outlandish as it seems in retrospect, the parents apparently had the welfare of the children in mind, not their own. For the adherents to the new movement, the child did not serve as a sex object to provide the adults with a means of satisfying their sexual urges. This differentiates politically motivated abuse from pedophilia.

‘In the end, I suppose it doesn’t really matter if it’s intended as a child sexual grooming resource sheet or if it accidentally functions as such. I still think at least one person involved knows what they’re doing.’

Well, that’s entirely possible. I don’t really care, it’s wrong even if they’re all just idiots.

I think the ‘actors’ and other staff have thrown themselves in to the fashion of queer theory and gender ideology.

Yes. And perhaps it's a good demonstration of exactly what those particular theories and ideologies lead to when academic theories are put into practise - undermining and ignoring and removing boundaries, including age and consent. As Absurdle says above:

In the end, I suppose it doesn’t really matter if it’s intended as a child sexual grooming resource sheet or if it accidentally functions as such. I still think at least one person involved knows what they’re doing.

Here’s my two cents on the ‘intentions’ behind this show.

I think the ‘actors’ and other staff have thrown themselves in to the fashion of queer theory and gender ideology. And in doing so have developed the obligatory hatred of anyone they perceive to be ‘square’ or ‘right wing’ (which lets face it means anyone that doesn’t unquestioningly agree with everything stated by queer people on Twitter).

Do I think they’re paedophiles? I can’t be certain but I don’t think so. I think this is more about ideological grooming than sexual grooming for the direct benefit of those involved in the show - basically trying to plant the seeds of queer theory in young minds so they grow up with the kind of views that the actors will approve of.

My other take is that people heavily invested in queer theory really, really enjoy inflicting their ideology on children and young people because:
a) they are impressionable and less likely to critique the #bekind emotional blackmail
b) they love the thought of a bunch of outraged ‘square’ parents very upset at the thought of their child being exposed to it, but unable to do anything about it - but we have! Go us!

With regards to grooming for sexual purposes, I think at best they’re indifferent about whether the show results in eroded boundaries and therefore easier access for sex offenders. At worst they might see it as some kind of progressive movement like PIE 🤮

www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/the-family-sex-show-cancelled-in-norwich-8905696

Cancelled! 🙂

Use the internet to find some examples of animals that masturbate
Christ alive, I'm over 50 and dont want that search term on my hard drive.

What in the hell are they thinking? Can tell that they really went all out to find someone invested in safeguarding. And evidently took their advice
andthrewitaway--

I see what you’re saying tabby; you agree with me that it’s deliberate but you’re saying that perhaps it’s intended as deliberate desensitisation to sexual material that isn’t deliberate grooming for abuse. I don’t really buy it. In particular the open-ended questions on each page seem designed as opportunities for abusers.

In the end, I suppose it doesn’t really matter if it’s intended as a child sexual grooming resource sheet or if it accidentally functions as such. I still think at least one person involved knows what they’re doing.

This smacks to me of the kind of highly enthusiastic, indoctrinated and phenomenally righteous while naive who believe that they know best, everyone else is wrong, anyone disagrees is stupid (or evil) and they have a job to spread love, light and The Word.

And will bear no responsibility of any kind for the wreckage they leave behind them on their happy little way.

This is what grown ups are for. To see this kind of thing coming and be willing to be the bad guy in the name of not letting this kind of nutjobbery loose on kids. No one sane could possibly agree with this.

‘I really don't see many right wing homophobes or transphobic people, as you describe, following this issue. All I see are women, and some men, who find this disgraceful.’

I don’t either.

Absurdle

I’m not saying I think it’s definitely not the work of child-interested people. It might be. But there’s a certain (wrong) mindset that says comfort with a topic makes the topic okay.

So - for example - I could slowly inure my young child to violence. I could let them watch (or, like this show, make them watch - the kids aren’t buying the tickets) content with increasing levels of violence, beginning with Tom and Jerry and progressing to Saw, Hostel, the Human Centipede...

I might decide that because the kid wasn’t distressed, it was all good. I have successfully made them comfortable and they are now enjoying extremely violent content with nary a whimper.

Now, if you’re not a dangerous idiot, you understand that what you have actually done is desensitised them. You have abused them by making them comfortable with violence. Like these people would be abusing 5 year olds by making them ‘comfortable’ - gradually - with porn and masturbation.

I think you can genuinely think you are doing good while being an abject fool.

It may as well be titled "A groomer's guide to lowering children's boundaries"
Exactly.
I don't understand how this is allowed to exist at all.

I really don't see many right wing homophobes or transphobic people, as you describe, following this issue. All I see are women, and some men, who find this disgraceful.

'Transphobe' is dished out as soon as anyone dares disagree, hence why few people do openly, or sit quietly thinking it's ok because everyone else is going along with things.

Daily Mail! Where are you!

Yes all you wanted to do was get naked in front of small children

Talk to them about masturbation and encourage them to google a lot of stuff guaranteed to produce images highly inappropriate for the age group

Encourage a belief in young children that experimenting with sex is all good fun and something they should crack on with in between watching octonauts and building genitals out of playdoh

Ensure they're indoctrinated that safeguarding is stupid, if you enjoyed it it wasn't abuse, there's no such thing as biological sex kids, pick your sex, women who want rights are evil and we call them names and spit upon safeguarding concerns.

Ffs.

Did anyone else catch the bit about 'they want to riff off or replace' the sex ed guidance for schools, hence not doing this in schools?

‘Why is this not getting the coverage it should do?’

I don’t know. There’s a lot of conflation between our (reasonable) concern and the agendas of right wing homophobes, abstinence advocates and (actually) transphobic people. That’s one factor.

Another is probably the nexus of sympathies between people who occupy left-wing power bases: theatres, media, publishing. There are loads of people on Twitter going “oh you poor poor darlings! All you wanted to do was strip in front of some children! How dare they?!”

I hope they disinfect and thoroughly fumigate the venue afterwards. Can you imagine the smell🤮🤢

Can you imagine if a primary school set the homework of "research masturbating animals on the internet"?! There would be massive outrage in the media. Why is this not getting the coverage it should do?