The Family Sex Show - 'Cancel Culture' - in the Guardian

What a very silly young woman.

It's the Opinion section, they'll print any rubbish. I expect they just check it isn't libellous.

It reminds me of when the Guardian US reporter complained about “anti-paedophile protestors”. So determined to see everything as “anti-trans” her brain fell out and she tweeted that.

'Believed' to have links to the Christian far right. The guardian is meant to be a newspaper. Couldn't someone look into to it to see if it does or does not? And if they couldn't be bothered, don't mention it at all???? It reads like they're just mud slinging.

"Was the aim just to list lots of isms and phobias!"

Queerphobia and transphobia make the cut but not homophobia.

"It gained some traction and led to a petition on the platform Citizen Go, which is believed to have links with extremist hard-right Christian groups in the US"

So who believes this and do they have evidence?

We are on it.

Yes the fact they'd rather cancel it than make it for an older (say 16+) age group is rather disturbing.

Agree. Just set appropriate age limits, FFS. it's not difficult.

Absolutely!

"A small campaign’s capacity to cancel – unseen – The Family Sex Show is far more frightening than anything I had to say in it"

No, it isn't.

"I am the producer and co-creator of a piece of theatre that was cancelled before it had even been seen."
I thought people saw it and said how great it was? Which is true?

"Still, an online group thought it should not even be seen so it could be judged fairly."
It's not just 'an online group', whatever that means. It's many people, some of whom used the internet to communicate their concerns.

"The Family Sex Show is a piece of theatre for everyone. We suggest that this can include children over the age of five too; and we ask that anyone under 16 is accompanied by a guardian" Eh? Everyone, and additionally children over five? So not children under 5?

"The NSPCC also suggests that children under five show curiosity about naked bodies." There is a link to an NSPCC page, which emphasises that "It is uncommon for younger children to discuss specific sexual acts, use explicit sexual language or have adult-like sexual contact with other people" in the under-5's section, and in general "In general, typical sexual behaviour should be:
displayed towards children of a similar age, stage of development and physical size, who know each other well and voluntary and consensual", none of which I'd argue apply to an adult exposing their naked body to a 5-year-old.

"It is a show for adults too. We have a lot to learn from one another, no matter what our age." If you are genuinely teaching me something new about sex, I very much doubt it is something that is appropriate for a 5yo.

"No one is an expert on anything other than themselves." Yes, they are. (And why would I want to see a theatre show by amateurs?)

"In reality, the world – especially the digital world – we live in means that we don’t have control over what we or our children see." We do, though, if we try.

"By not talking about issues relating to relationships and sex we are putting them in a position of vulnerability increasing the potential for harm." Pretending they think opposing this show means 'not talking' about this? Why? They are arguing that the only way to talk about this is for naked adult strangers to talk to your child?

"I believe that honesty builds trust." so if I suspect you are dishonest, I shouldn't trust you? Good to know.

"One of their aims is to promote safeguarding children, young people and vulnerable adults from abuse and harm." Name the safeguarding principles you are led by in this show, then.

"We believe the cancellation of the show is reflective of this shame and fear"
Nope, not in my case

"of structural and societal attitudes towards relationships and sex education" Safeguarding, you mean?

"How does this event speak to power in the UK? Who has it, and how will they use it?" Interesting question. I suggest watching the Jimmy Savile documentary to learn about how power can be gained in all sections of society by appealing to popularity with children.

Interesting also how not one single concern, of the many raised, has been addressed. Perhaps she just ran out of time.

"In reality, the world – especially the digital world – we live in means that we don’t have control over what we or our children see"

Ah, the paedos' defence - I had no control over what I saw.
What bollocks. Most of what we see isn't just random images flying at our retinas.

Weird to write an article about a bunch of stuff that's so provably wrong.

As for “not only women have vulvas” - tiresome bullshit.

I seem to remember that the lyrics to the song about “where’s my clitoris?” were written by a man 🤮

Fatphobia? That's quite a stretch.

I think this woman falls into the "useful idiot" category. The problem with a set up that expects people to think things through for themselves is that quite a lot of people are not really very good at thinking and just adopt whatever the general thinking is around them. And higher education now seems mainly predicated on telling people what they already believe, so no help there.

Yes exactly @CharlieParley - this is basically what I was about to post but you've summed it up there

It's the queer theory language. I don't think 'queerphobia' is a thing as nobody really knows what qualifies someone to be queer (unless it's the inability not to use silly jargon). I didn't see anything racist or fatphobic or ableist, but perhaps some people used slurs qualifying as such in their communications with the theatre group. As everything now is transphobia, I cannot tell if real transphobia was also in some of those private communications or not. Misogyny, well, it's everywhere and not a hate crime, either, and given that the website linked to the show is in itself might be seen asmisogynist, not sure how they might define that term.

When I last visited the website, it reminded us, in bold letters, that it's not only women who have vulvas. But we were not given any similar reminders about the possibility that not only men have penises. I think erasing the whole female sex is misogyny, but even if others disagree on that the disparate treatment of the two sexes shows great contempt towards only one of them.

And one of the songs in the show discusses clitoris from the point of view of someone who clearly doesn't have one ( roughly "I can't find it, where is it?" and it was described as 'wet and warm').

It wasn't a small group of critics, by the way. Is this the hill on which the Guardian wants to die?

I've read that article three times and it still reads like nonsense. They seem willing to publish any old tripe in the Guardian Opinion section.
I wish I still had the confidence of the young and ignorant, but sure Josie is old enough to know better.
If it was just a relatively small protest, why wasn't it ignored? Were some actual influential grownups moved to look and thought 'fuck, no!'. Was the protest not that smaĺl? Both?
I think theEgg are the victims of their own hubris. Possibly, had they engaged with some of the critical voices, the show could have been salvaged. Perhaps it could still be?

The Guardian is an embarrassment. Most articles seem to be written by very precious, privileged 20-somethings who inevitably have to shoe-horn in a word ending in -phobia or -ism. This Egg woman had the full house of such words. Yawn.

🤣🤣🤣 that is hilarious

Remember how horrified the Guardiany middle classes were when Michael Gove declared "we have had enough of experts" a few years ago? And now they're the ones cheering on stuff like this and children demanding surgery because of something they saw on Tumblr.

Yes the fact they'd rather cancel it than make it for an older (say 16+) age group is rather disturbing.

Almost as if talking about sex with small children was the MAIN POINT.

I've done several safeguarding courses in the past year for my job and volunteer roles and every single one said that child sexual abuse could include inappropriate discussion of sexual practices with young children (it absolutely doesn't have to be touching) - this means inappropriate adults (e.g. random stranger actors) discussing inappropriate things (like porn, which the show says it will discuss, and masturbating animals - on their website) and at inappropriate ages. In either of my roles if I came across something like this happening to a child I should make a safeguarding referral.

They've made absolutely no attempt other than word salad to explain why it's in any way appropriate for this to be aimed at primary age children.

If they knew any children, at all, they'd realise that typically children don't get phones until secondary school and do not have unsupervised internet access even then. Again, an example of something that could trigger a safeguarding referral is when young children have accessed inappropriate movies / online content (like masturbating animals) and talk about it with their teacher / other adult in position of responsibility.

Any teacher who had a child talking about the stuff in this show in their class (particularly a 5 year old - in RECEPTION FFS) should raise a safeguarding concern. It's a red flag to have a very small child talking about porn, masturbation etc.

Also, every single course says safeguarding is FOR EVERYONE. And yet, we have the Guardian, clearly a safeguarding free zone, criticising mothers who dare to try and protect their children.

Shame on you Guardian - in the interests of balance how about getting a real safeguarding expert in to analyse this show?

Tbh they could have and should have come here and cribbed the mumsnet version,

sings tiredly

the vulva is the outside,
the vagina is inside,
if people try to tell you
a girl’s parts areeeeeeee
a vaginaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (warbling like Beyoncé or fancy singer)
they are wrong (maybe some beat boxing? Leading to a rap about the vulva clitoris and the labia, Majora and minor you know where they be at?)

then there is the uterus
such a special duderus
with her bro-veries the ovaries
they got a special cycle going on
for after you hit puberty

so introducing and normalising periods instead of just fiddling with your genitals, etc. with apologies also for the plagiarising of parks and rec…

the world – especially the digital world – we live in means that we don’t have control over what we or our children see.'

Nonsense. I had absolute control over what my children saw online until they were much older than five. Not only did I have absolute control, I also had the responsibility to exert that control as a parent. I even went to school and my son's friends' parents when aged nine or ten they were innocently sharing their names and addresses in an online chatroom they did not know was public. It's certainly true that some of those parents had no idea, but they could have exerted their parental control had they wanted too. The school then proceeded with internet safety lessons to ensure the children could understand why this was dangerous and how to safely engage online.

Then, too, my kids only got a smartphone when they started high school. I checked their internet activities regularly and the main condition of having the privilege of a smartphone was that I would check their activities whenever I chose. Of course as they got older I did this with decreasing frequency in line with the increasing privacy needs of my teens.

But the notion that parents cannot control what their children see on the internet betrays the writers ignorance of modern parenthood. It is true that we cannot control the Internet. That's why we must control our children's access to it. I believe that parents who do not do so fail in safeguarding their children. (As always, this should of course be done in an age appropriate way.)

And the idea that adults cannot control what they see on the internet - does the writer truly understand what that statement means? I decide what I access online. Nobody forces me to watch or avoid anything.

I wonder if critical thinking is anathema to those infused with queer theories...

Josie doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box. Incredibly poorly argued piece.