Deeply concerned about Child Safety in Bristol

[MatthewJTaylor]

From May 5th to May 8th 2022, the Tobacco Factory Theatres in Bristol is having performances of "The Family Sex Show".
This show is aimed at children 5 years old and up.
The performers involved get naked.
The discussion with the children is on sex, sexuality and sexual pleasure.

I cannot imagine brining a 5 year old child to a theatre where people will to to her/him about sex and show their naked bodies to her/him.

Am I the crazy one?

Sources:
The Family Sex Show website
Listing at The Tobacco Factory Theatres

[Clymene]

@Plasmodesmata

The advert for actors doesn't specify "keen to get naked on stage in front of small children". But if you were keen to do that, what a job opportunity for you. Do the performers have a DBS check I wonder?

I'm guessing not. DBS checks take ages and I'd have thought she'd specify in the ad if they needed one.

[Terfydactyl]

@Perfect28

Naked adults are not performing sexual pleasure. Definition of a straw man. To others, yes I have researched the show. Yes, I have read the thread and yes, I still disagree with you. I know that such a show would have consulted several safeguarding authorities and it's still going to go ahead so I guess you will just all have to get used to living in a world where we don't shame bodies or sex and we educate young people so when they are sexually active in the future they are empowered.

To be clear, you think this should be ok for 5 year olds and 10 year olds and 14 year olds all at the same time?
And you reckon your a teacher? Of what age group?

[Terfydactyl]

@Perfect28

Can you not perceive of the two being seperated. I.e in one act the focus is bodies and body parts and in another act the message is that sex isn't just about making babies?

Shocking stuff, I know.

You know many 5 year olds that have that kind of maturity to separate stuff?

These are children,not small adults.
I do wish people would see that.

[BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation]

It's in the Daily Mail this morning.

[NettleTea]

the quote in the mail says that they are bringing up subjects that children willak questions about

well thats all fine and dandy, if the kids are actually asking the questions. And the idea that parents are open and able to answer questions when they arise is a good thing, and the way it SHOULD be

However thats not whats happening here is it - this is giving answers to questions that a great many kids would never have asked - well certainly not before they went to the show. The questions should be coming up naturally as the children age and grow. Not being given all this information - much of which parents dont even need to know and talk about - at age 5.

[Dinosauria]

Even if it was children asking the questions a 14year old asking questions will not be appropriate for a five year old.

The mail doesn't appear to be taking any more comments

[RinklyRomaine]

[quote theDudesmummy]@ChickenonaMug so sorry to hear your experience, it is absolutely 100% familar to me as I have spoken to so many adult survivors who have said almost identical things.

The issue of children being told to resist something which feels "uncomfortable" is a highly problematic one, I did not realise this is the NSPCC's official line, as it is based on a very incorrect premise and places the responsibility for reacting against the abuse on the survivor rather than those around them, including wider society, which is where the responsibility should lie.

Probably at least half of the survivors I speak to did not recognise the abuse as "abuse" at the time, certainly not at the start, and probably half of those ones would not have described themselves then, or even later, as having felt "uncomfortable" about the abuse.

It might be just part of your normal world, or dressed up as affection or love, framed as education or discipline, or religion (God wants you to do this), even actively sought by you as positive attention or being treated as a friend, confidente or partner. People may not even recognise it as abusive for many years even into late adulthood. This does not make it less abusive, or damaging.

Teaching about sex and abuse should never place the onus on the child to set the boundaries. Something does not have to be "uncomfortable" at the time to be abusive. This is why the erosion of boundaries needs to be recognised by the adults and the authorities, and why this stage show is part of a very dangerous trend. Five-year-olds are laughing at the funny naked man, or the simulated sex (or the ranbow dildo butt monkey), so how can it possible be dangerous? Just teach them to say no, or to report it, if they dont find something "plesaurable" and then we're all good, right?

This is terribly terribly wrong and I am getting very angry on behalf of all the survivors, past and (sadly) future.

Those who are apologists for this sort of thing, please read Chicken's and my posts. Then maybe rethink? Not everything is what it seems. And not all well-meaning people actually do good.[/quote]
Just reposting coz this is so on point.

[ickky]

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

It's in the Daily Mail this morning.

Is it in the print version?

[MatthewJTaylor]

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

It's in the Daily Mail this morning.

The print edition?

[plantlady1986]

Looks like the team behind the show finally issued a statement: www.bristolworld.com/whats-on/the-family-sex-show-parents-fume-as-sex-play-for-children-ages-5-lands-at-bristol-theatre-3647301

[Shambolical]

Because that's what everyone is looking for for their 5yos, isn't it, an 'alternative to porn'?

[MatthewJTaylor]

mallarduk.com/the-family-sex-show-grooming-comes-to-britain-fleur-elizabeth-meston/
Here's an account by the woman who first brought it to my attention and prompted my OP.

[littlbrowndog]

That’s a great piece. Thanks for sharing Matthew

[Dinosauria]

@Shambolical

Because that's what everyone is looking for for their 5yos, isn't it, an 'alternative to porn'?

Noun Alternative: one of two or more available possibilities.
"audiobooks are an interesting alternative to reading."
"Red wine is an alternative to white"

Adjective (of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice.

We should not be offering alternatives to children. It needs to be a rejection.

[FunnyTalks]

Also, for the record - I’m a liberal arty type who doesn’t think that nakedness should be shameful. I think the relaxed attitude to nakedness found on the European continent is something to learn from.
And I think that this show should be 18+. As a PP said, I do not think this show in any way contributes to 5 year olds having a more happy, safe, carefree life.

This is me, too. Yet its interesting that posters who can't see the issue with this have to insinuate prudishness as being behind our objections.

Don't they see that brilliant, empowered sex is more likely to be had by people who have grown up free from the plague of rape and sexual abuse by men? That feeling good and relaxed in our bodies is more likely to come about away from the influence of porn and culture's obsession with the male gaze?

[MummyPebble]

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're just incredibly misguided, but it's hard because surely there was a research and development stage at the show's inception which should have highlighted what a bad idea this is?

As a mother of a 5 year old I would categorically not take my child to this show. If she has any questions about sex I will answer them here at home to the best of my ability in an age appropriate way, this show is simply not needed for kids as young as 5. I do not need naked strangers to teach my 5 year old about sex. I judge any parent that does actually.

Even if we go with the theory the glossary only applies to the podcast there's still a lot wrong with this if you remove the glossary issue. I'd be interested to know how many actual parents worked on this show. What actually is the NSPCC's involvement and why didn't they try to encourage The Egg to focus more on PANTS and create a show around that?

I want to know how they're policing who buys tickets and attends the show. Will it be strictly families with children or will anyone be allowed to attend? If the latter then that is bloody dangerous, what would stop a paedophile attending who'd be getting off on watching children learn about sex for (potentially) the first time? Just awful.

The website is absolutely awful. It should have been finished with full safe guarding information and copious amounts of information about the show long before tickets went on sale and should have been ready to go as soon as the show was being advertised. The show should have been finished long before tickets went on sale so everyone knew exactly what they were buying tickets for. Who on earth has bought tickets?!

I am as left and liberal as they come. I think this site is a hot bed of bigotry and ignorance and intolerance so if I agree with the majority of posters for once then this show must be awful and a genuinely bad idea. It just seems bloody dangerous for a whole number of reasons and I'm shocked at no point someone, not ONE person didn't stop and say "hang on....". I'd love to see it pulled but it seems to be forging ahead so the best we can hope for now is no children are harmed as a result of this. This is genuinely upsetting.

[AFS1]

I live up the road from the tobacco factory. I’ll be honest that this is the first I’ve heard of this production.
Quite aside from whether it’s appropriate, I can say that my kids would find it absolutely excruciatingly embarrassing to watch something like this!

[Dinosauria]

because surely there was a research and development stage at the show's inception which should have highlighted what a bad idea this is?

Problem is so many seem to work in an echo chamber

[MummyPebble]

"level of understanding of every child is really challenging. And it should be done by people with a detailed understanding of human sexual development, child development, and safeguarding. It still may not be perfect, but we shouldn't be permitting anyone who fancies having a go to do so. Educating children about sex and relationships is a responsibility."

This is such a good point. What qualifications do these people have? What training have they had? Why are they the best people to driver this information to my 5 year old?

[FunnyTalks]

Exactly they could have focused on the PANTS message... And actually consent is taught to small children without bringing sex into it. It is asking before touching; not forcing them to kiss relatives when they don't want to; being sensitive to when they've had enough tickles; helping them set physical boundaries at school with the kid that touches their hair etc.