The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage

For a generation that seems obsessed with feeling safe, saying the right things, cancelling those that offend, how vulnerable certain people are etc, they sadly seem to have fuck all interest in actual safeguarding, underage teens and children or listening to those with experience or other points of view.

I've been thinking about this video in relation to this thread. This video is important. It's a tragic story - a very brave mother (Ruth) talks about her daughter (Sophie) who's life was destroyed by viewing awful images online. This was a much older child than suggested should be brought to the family sex show. Trigger warning: suicide, child harm.

She saw awful images online that harmed her - images that are as awful, perhaps, as those you might see if you google 'animals masturbating' as suggested by the family sex show website. In this video it doesn't specify exactly what those images were, quite rightly.

This is an NSPCC video. I can't quite square the NSPCC that put out this video with the one that has done nothing about the Family Sex Show's website, twitter and show. For 5+.

What they're suggesting WILL harm children. Children aren't ready to see violent sexual images online. ANYONE who suggests googling animals masturbating to children or for parents to do with children should be NOWHERE around educating children about sex.

I know enough not to look at things I won't be able to expunge from my memory (i know what I'll get if I google what they suggest, I'm not doing it) - but I'm an adult. I have the emotional development to be able to do that. Children don't, and it's a gift to any adults who have predatory intentions.

I know they've taken that particular bit of the website down now, but anyone who does that in the first place should be barred from sex education for children because it shows a staggering lack of judgement at best, and nefarious intent at worst.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist at least they tell us clearly who they are. The women involved in this have well and truly surrendered haven't they?

@DomesticatedZombie "gashtrays"...As I said IN PLAIN SIGHT. By God they really hate us don't they?

involving crafting playdough genitals and making genital fridge magnets and 'gashtrays'.

When I first read that last week I stumbled. Gashtrays? Gashtrays? The metal imagery, the flashbacks to court cases with women dead at the bottom of stairs with horrendous, supposedly consensual, internal injuries. Fucking horrendous.

And here we have a woman happily tra la laing her way through swathes of impressionable teens, young women, making Gashtrays. Dehumanising her own sex... for what?

Seriously, if anyone here ever meets any woman making these things bloody well ask her what the fuck she thinks she is REALLY doing. Female genitalia specifically made for having cigarettes stubbed out in them! WHY????

This seems to cross over with the other thread about Javid drawing comparisons between Rotherham (and fear of racism) and trans or trans adj. issues (fear of transphobia).
I think there was a link posted about a group's (Inc. Tatchell) idea of what should be taught in RSE. Their proposals seem to chime with what TFSS was advocating in their material.

Surely it would be more appropriate for senior experienced professionals in areas directly related to child protection, child health and education to help shape government guidance on sex education in schools, than sociology academics focused on social activism, queer theory and gender ideology?

Yes, indeed.

'gashtrays'

For the love of all that's holy, can nobody see any issues with that?

I mean, aside from all the other issues that we've been discussing for days.

gashtrays?

The 'If one day you want to be touched in a particular way, that's absolutely OK. You decide what feels good for you' bit hasn't been deleted from TFSS site. Or the 'If you'd like to make your own Play- Doh genitals' bit

@ResisterRex thanks for the link. That's a good article and I hope will not be dismissed as pearl-clutching because it's the DM. It's a real shame the more left-leaning publications don't also run articles which shed light on the problems with allowing agenda-fuelled external providers to deliver education.

Agh, I mistakenly called The School Of Sexuality Education, 'The School Of Sexuality And Education'. FFS

they are being subjected to misinformation and inaccurate material.

I'll say. The clitoris is not wet and warm. That's the vagina FFS. So obviously written from a penis perspective, so it's not fit for purpose even without all the safeguarding issues, of which there are lots!

The Mail has covered this in some depth:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10745003/How-sex-children-young-five-40-000-public-cash.html

RSE is in it

"Few could have imagined that, when the Department for Education introduced compulsory RSE (relationships and sex education) for secondary school pupils in 2020, it would lead to 'external providers' such as the School of Sexuality Education.
However, the reality is that the necessity to deliver RSE left many schools struggling to fulfil the requirements of the curriculum, which has resulted in a plethora of agenda-driven groups springing up."

Potential for this to lead to inappropriate sexual behaviour and language is there:
"fears, too, that the show could lead to inappropriate conversations between children and adults and was therefore 'creating a gap, nay, a canyon for predators to enter' to quote one critic."

It also kills off the notion that it's just a bunch of prudes making threats (). Rather, many of those raising concerns are safeguarding professionals.

There's a section on the links between the show and School of Sexuality. And now-deleted pages about googling masturbating animals, and how the hell did it get funded (13th attempt apparently).

Safe Schools Alliance is quoted too.

Very much agree @Artichokeleaves
I'm a regular lurker here. Been so incensed by The Family Sex Show it's taken me days to figure out what I can say on here that won't get deleted and isn't just a rant! Have had a bit of a look into the people involved, in an attempt to understand how on earth things arrived at the point where anyone would think The Family Sex Show was a good idea and why obvious concerns about massive safeguarding red flags are being dismissed as moral panic and reported as threats and abuse. Or indeed why the School Of Sexuality And Education are deemed appropriate providers of RSE in schools when their members are involved with such a production (two of them are medical doctors so should have at least a basic understanding of child safeguarding). Several members of SOSAE are also members/founders of the Candid Collective which runs 'sex positive' workshops for adults, ie stag/hen dos, involving crafting playdough genitals and making genital fridge magnets and 'gashtrays'. UCL's 'Foucault-informed' Professor of the Sociology of Gender and Education is an advisor to and collaborator with SOSAE, has co-authored research entitled 'Play-Doh Vulvas and Felt-Tip Dick Pics' with two members of SOSAE about how getting kids in schools to make playdough vulvas can make RSE 'less phallocentric'. It's worth googling and reading as sheds some light on where some of the Family Sex Show crap came from and is also generally rather troubling. What is of concern is that this professor has also been an advisor to the Home Office on the sexualisation of young people, and carried out research for the NSPCC and CEOP regarding sexting in schools (she is against a ban, and against banning access to porn for under 18s). Surely it would be more appropriate for senior experienced professionals in areas directly related to child protection, child health and education to help shape government guidance on sex education in schools, than sociology academics focused on social activism, queer theory and gender ideology?

Yes, this 100%

LangCleg used to talk about this - if a particular group is exempt from normal safeguarding then paedophiles / predators will flock to that group.

NO-ONE should be exempt from normal safeguarding practice, no matter their characteristics.

This is the crux of the issue: that safeguarding as purported by captured groups such as the NSPCC, means that TQ+ related matters are exempted from normal safeguarding standards, and wishful thinking replaces it. And that it's unkind and unacceptable to even talk about this.

This is not compatible with doing the basic job of safeguarding. And this is going to have to be faced. Those not capable of facing it should not be involved in safeguarding, as not able to put the needs of children above their own political agenda. And having a highly ideological and distorted view of what is in children's best interests, incompatible with standard safeguarding practice.

The NSPCC absolutely should be accountable for this.

@NevaehMind. No idea. But those with emails could consider that. I'd copy my own MP and Nadine Dorries as Minister.

Have the charity commission been informed of their failure to act here?

Yes, thank you, thedudesmummy, for all the work you have put into this.

Wow, well done @theDudesmummy! I'm keeping a close eye on this. I also think the fact that the NSPCC (in effect) said "sorry we can't help, bye" needs tackling somehow. They've got statutory powers and they declined to even consider what they could do - from reports on here.

It was his show on ch 5, not the radio? Sorry.

About Jeremy Vine - I was told recently by someone who heard/watched one of his shows that he'd refused to believe any man would perve over his 17yo daughter. He seemed to think she was too young for such attention!!! I'll be charitable and say he's breathtakingly naive.

As to his recent C5 show where they discussed this gruesome theatre show in such a trite manner, I imagine he trusts his researchers to do their jobs properly but it seems to me that they are pulling the wool over his eyes. The shit will stick to him in the long run.

Thank you theDudesmummy for your sterling hard work on this.

I think that someone earlier on this thread mentioned that Jeremy Vine had discussed - or rather, failed to discuss - this “show” on his radio show earlier this week. I wonder if JV - I think he has teenage daughters? - would happily take his family to see it?

They’re a creepy load of fuckers. I wouldn’t want them within 100 miles of my children.

Laurence Cook, BBC producer, not creepy at all.