To update about The Family Sex Show

[theDudesmummy]

There are active two threads on this in Feminism but I feel I just have to update here for traffic. Although protests appear to have, for now, stopped the theatre production going ahead, new and highly disturbing material has today appeared on their webpage, clearly aimed at children. It (cheerily and breezily) suggests, among other things, that children search for images of masturbating animals on the internet and then draw what they see. I am not going to Google that term, I really don't want that in my history, but first, can you imagine what children will be exposed to if they search that, and second, this is pure and simple grooming of children into being abused. Masturbating animals? What larks! Lets have an arts and crafts session about it! Next steps: Masturbating with Uncle Jim? Why not? Masturbating Uncle Jim? Of course!

I have now made a complaint to CEOP. Others may wish to as well.

Taken from their Twitter post :''Do you fancy me?''~''If not, why not?''

Why should children be put through this?
Even adults need not give a reason as to ""Why they don't fancy someone.."" but to ask this of a child?
It's so wrong, on so many levels.

JFC and some posters think this is a fuss about nothing, it couldn't be any plainer that this is no more or less than a paedophiles charter.

It is completely flagrant, I can hardly believe what I'm hearing.

It's interesting that they used a female voice. Imagine how predatory those words would sound spoken by a man.

It's like you have to fancy them (is this ready fir the transphobic lesbians response and rejection of genital preference)

No one should have to give a reason, in fact often there isn't a reason , attraction is such a personal and frankly unpredictable thing.

Twitter welcome MAPS, so they won't be interested in taking anything down.

What a time to be alive.

I don't really expect Twitter to do anything. Just felt I had to make the complaint. Of course Twitter is a free for all, and actual children should not be on there, but hearing actual child grooming, albeit acted, on a public platform, is shocking even to me.

Does it unnerve you if my body misbehaves? What the fuck have I just?

Pretty unbelievable isn't it? I don't tweet but I do read threads on Twitter that interest me, and obviously there is a lot of truly awful stuff less than two clicks away at all times. But this...

The content people are unearthing that is connected to this group is diabolical.

I really cannot believe there is anyone defending them.

I have also now reported that specific tweet to CEOP and the Avon and Somerset police. It is nothing other than an enactment of scenes of grooming.

To be honest, if this was just a bunch of adults wanting to talk baby language and sing songs about their penises and their inability to find their clitorises I would just leave them to it.

Personally I don’t think sex should hurt (their nice little voice over “how can I make it hurt less”) but consenting adults and all that. Pretty gross also with the drawing of masturbating animals (bit to close to bestiality) but whatever.

The thing is that they are beyond keen to get children involved, as young as 5. That is the absolutely horrific part. They could easily state that the show was for adults only and continue with their silly songs, masturbation talk and getting their kit off together. Good riddance. But they are cancelling because they cannot get their hands on children 🤮.

And I just want to emphasise this. I don’t think a single woman here cares about what a bunch of consenting (non-paying) adults are up to inside and outside of their bedrooms.

They are angry that we restrict their access to our children. That is why they call us bigots.

@Doubletoilandtrouble that is right. The internet is full of sex obviously, from perfectly fine educational stuff and great art, to porn and extreme images. Including child abuse images. In my job I have frequently ended up in all sorts of dark corners. I am not going about trying to police how sex and sexuality is depicted in society and on the internet, that is impossible and in any case not desirable. I just take all individual actions I can to protect my own child (and anyone else I am responsible for via my job role). The abusers and criminals are always going to be out there. As well as dodgy views and stuff I find silly or distasteful or offensive. I can't change that and I don't need to, and neither does anyone else.

This is different. It is child abuse and child abuse apology in plain view in the mainsteam. It is brainwashing the mainstream media to think that this is edgy art with a valid sociopolitical agenda. It is taking money from public bodies purporting to be just that. It is in fact grooming aimed directly at children and grooming advice aimed directy at abusers. It is extremely dangerous.

I agree. This is grooming of children in plain sight. Some of the performers may well be too naive/stupid to see it but there’s an agenda behind it all.

That's such a powerful post theDudesmummy. I also have extensive experience of working in safeguarding and to see all this happening in plain sight, funded by public bodies with organisations like the NSPCC refusing to intervene and telling people to contact theatres etc themselves shocks me to my core.
I've done a lot of work with them in their statutory safeguarding role and to see that they've been so captured by the porn lobby that they're rendered silent in the face of this evident predatory behaviour aimed at 5 years olds is terrifying.
Safeguarding is everybody's business the government tells us - except not if you're the Arts Council, the National Lottery, theatres, local authorities who sponsor porn soaked theatre performances aimed at 5 years olds.
Why is it impossible for them to say NO to these groups. Leave children out of your sex / porn obsessions.

Thanks for your insight and all that you do.

Yes, I've sent an email about this and I got a response telling me to contact the theatre myself and to get back to them if I was concerned about direct harm to any specific child. Well I'm concerned about any child exposed to the show or the website - that was the very obvious point of my initial message.

This is in direct contradiction to all safeguarding training I've done where concerns should be logged and taken seriously - not pushed back on to the person raising the concern and suggesting that if they can't name specific children who've already been harmed it's not an issue.

Of course a response like this is very discouraging too. It seems even those supposedly responsible for safeguarding want us to shut up and go away. Very disturbing.

Thanks so much theDudesmummy and others for actually taking action on this.

I agree with the above, I am not in favour of censorship generally and I don't care if a bunch of adults want to wax lyrical about sex and identity politics, whether on the internet or in a theatre.

I do care when something like this is being openly marketed at children and supported in the media.

That tweet with the childlike voiceover is awful, given that it is aimed at children. It really does seem like grooming. I think even aiming that at teens would be wrong (I should try things even if they hurt, I have to justify why I don't fancy someone).

I'm writing to my MP and asking him to enquire whether the Minister of State for safeguarding (Rachel McClean) thinks that the £1.6 million of government money invested in the NSPCC helpline is good value if those paid to answer the phones are unable to manage even a basic level of curiosity about whether a sex show aimed at 5 years olds might possibly be a safeguarding risk to those 5 years olds? Given their evident disinterest, maybe the NSPCC's statutory role in safeguarding should be reviewed?
Be a private charity in thrall to adults over invested in porn by all means - but this must (yet again) call into question their judgements about porn, children and safeguarding and whether the NSPCC is fit for purpose and should be funded in any way by government money?

Given their evident disinterest, maybe the NSPCC's statutory role in safeguarding should be reviewed?
Be a private charity in thrall to adults over invested in porn by all means - but this must (yet again) call into question their judgements about porn, children and safeguarding and whether the NSPCC is fit for purpose and should be funded in any way by government money?

Agree with all of this.

I'm increasingly concerned about the NSPCC - so many safeguarding resources point in their direction - if they fail in safeguarding, children will be harmed. There needs to be extra scrutiny upon them and how appropriately they respond to safeguarding concerns and how THEY safeguard children because of the role they have.

Isn't the NSPCC a statutory body and as such, has the power that nobody else has where children are involved.

It might be worth finding out the powers that it possesses and quote them back at them. Otherwise what is the point of its existence?

Yes - this is true, and Lang Cleg used to often remind us that they have statutory powers...

Whatever happened to childhood? I am all for children hearing facts in an appropriate way at an appropriate time from those who love them; but this attitude of wanting them to have all the possible facts thrust down their throats at such a young age is nothing other than sick.

Childhood is a magical time, if children are allowed to enjoy it. Our education system already hurries them out of this precious time far too quickly - time that they will not get back.

How this "performance" got past the funders is beyond belief. If respected funders are appearing to endorse this pernicious stuff then we are in a sorry state.

That tweet was so paedophilic. How horrible. A creepy childlike voice asking the types of questions a paedo would say when trying to groom a child. 🤢🤢🤢 “How can I make it hurt less” was particularly gross.

I get that paedos exist, but I do not get why they are allowed to advertise grooming of children on Twitter using public money.

Feels like there is a real cultural shift happening lately, with increased normalisation of violence against women and children. Is exactly what defenders of hardcore porn said would definitely not happen.

Where does Esther Rantzen stand on all this, do we know? She's pretty straight talking.