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.

Worthy of Russia - willing to leave out details and analysis to the point where they create a misleading report.

We should start collecting instances.

Lhddujvf · 23/04/2022 08:43
Did I just read this. Grotesque.

"Sexual development and behaviour in children starts from birth. It’s important that children are supported in their exploratory development"

It is. All development begins at birth. The brain us not fully adult until as late as 25. I hate this determination to sexualise children.

Please would you say where did you read this?
These sorts of ideas once came from that vile paedophile Hinsky report from the 1960s I think.

I'm curious, is this the same type of misleading as posters on here making up their own scenarios of what happens in this show ("a man with his cock out is going to talk to your 5 year old about pegging and BDSM" is one memorable instance), the original OP leaving out the agenda for posting threads in the first instance (so they could report on their overtly right-wing, conservative Christian blog that they had "800 mothers supporting them" when what they actually had was a thread with 800 posts), and then persuading posters who'd been whipped up to give their personal details to a similarly conservative-leaning petiton site?

Or are those acceptable instances of misleading because they come from those you agree with on one topic?

It is perfectly true that sexual behaviour and development in children starts from birth - but this includes normal age-appropriate behaviours like masturbation, curiosity about other children’s bodies, and so on. But this does not need to be “supported” other than parents giving children good boundaries and information about it like the correct names for their anatomy, making sure they know what is and isn’t acceptable (eg that’s fine but only for private time, the pants rule, that sort of thing).

There is plenty of good long-standing behavioural and medical information out there, about what is normal sexual development for children, and what is not and may indicate red flags for abuse.

This is v different indeed from any paedophilic agenda. But the way of sexualising children in the Family Sex Show is well towards the red flag end of the spectrum, hence the alarm and concern.

@Lockheart I think you must be talking about a different thread. You talk about the OP. I am the OP of this thread. I am an extremely atheist, socialist, mental health professional who works with survivors of childhood abuse. The only blog I have is about house renovation. Not sure who you are referring to.

Yes, not you, I meant the original OP of these threads on MN. I think he had a couple in AIBU and in Feminism / Petitions.

Ah OK. I wasn't aware of him. This topic is making for very strange bedfellows. To wake up this morning and find I am on the same side as a lengthy exposition in the Daily Mail is a very disconcerting expereince indeed.

lockhart- Mumsnet readers are able to identify posts which are factual and evidenced via links. They are also able to identify the odd exasperated post (such as the one you describe) and understand it’s not a scenario that has actually happened.

Also it’s getting a bit boring the claim that anyone standing for safeguarding has links to right wing Christianity. There’s a massive community of lefties here who can’t actually vote left due to weak safeguarding.

Let's look at the posters desire to be hyperbolic in comparison to your desire to minimise it.

a man with his cock out is going to talk to your 5 year old about pegging and BDSM"

I agree that this is not strictly true but is a man going to get his 'cock out' and participate in full frontal nudity in view of children of any age. Yes.

Did the website, which is named The family Sex Show and where the promoters linked to the show talk about pegging and BDSM? Yes

Further this website is designed in a way to attract children with language, colours, short extracts and videos spoken by children. Plus activities such a 'googling masturbating animals and then drawing a picture' plus instructions of how to make your own playdough so you can make Vulvas.

Whilst I have no link to the original op and do think he should have been more upfront with his religious leanings, the fact is this show and the website is not suitable for children.

This little snippet was found on the FAQ page

What point is Lockhart trying to make? Why the need for deflection and undermining?

I'm also very bored of the "ooh, danger , danger, right wing and Christian alert" tactic.

I'm right of centre and an atheist- does that make half of my opinions worthy of merit?

The arrogant blindness and narrow minded attitude that can't understand it is possible to be right wing AND a Christian AND also be 100% correct and reasonable is tedious.

Lockheart
I've not read all the comments on this thread and I understand you were not referring to the OP ( who's posts have been factual and balanced imo) but I have looked at the TFSS website and made my decision to report them on that basis. I'm not interested in joining any other sites or 'causes'. I would like TFSS to be stopped, those involved to be educated in how they are putting children at risk and those ultimately behind this to be investigated.

TFSS is grooming children and setting them up for abuse. As someone who experienced an incident of sexual abuse I am well aware now of how some messages I received throughout childhood facilitated this and how, despite feeling uncomfortable and wanting the abuse to stop, I did nothing because I had been previously 'primed' to comply.

I don’t really understand the whole “you must choose a side” stance, but, on this issue, I agree with the right wing religious group. This doesn’t mean I agree with them about everything. Although I suspect I have more beliefs in common with them than the group of self-professed queer adults who want to talk to my children about sex, including “how to make it hurt less”, and about how their “bodies misbehave”.

Lockheart refused to say on the first thread whether Lockheart considers the content that we were discussing that had been publicised - having a naked stranger talk to a 5-year-old about sexual pleasure - as age-appropriate or not.

Lockheart posted repeatedly vague posts along the lines that 'sex ed is fine if it's age-appropriate', as if anyone was disagreeing with that statement, but couldn't answer whether they personally considered the above 'age-appropriate' or not. Perhaps they would now like to answer?

As a left wing atheist, I'd rather be a right wing Christian promoting safeguarding for children, than a useful idiot who thinks it's appropriate to prematurely sexualise and groom children in line in an attempt to "queer boundaries".

I'm a Christian, does that mean I'm not allowed to prioritise safeguarding, or complain about grooming? I rather think not.

I'm a left wing athiest.

I don't like men that expose themselves to kids.

If that means standing with anyone else, regardless of faith or politics then I'll even offer them a ginger nut or two.

This whole 'waa waa right wing waa waa christian' thing is so 2020. Grow the fuck up.

Politically homeless, largely centrist, agnostic here.

Do I have permission to protest child grooming and/or discuss things with people who may have different political or religious views to myself? Where do I appy for this, please?

Same place as you apply for the permit to have lunch (or Afternoon Tea) with other women if no male chaperone is present.

I agree with the right wing religious group. This doesn’t mean I agree with them about everything.

I tend to frame this as, "[X] group agrees with me on the issue. I doubt we agree on anything else."

what is wrong with being right wing or Christian? Don’t their opinions count?

Not sure, Staffy. Some people use these terms as insults.

Colin Wright's schematic of what has happened to the liberal left (US context).

Under the rules of this bizarre game, once you can call someone a Name, you've dehumanised them and they cease to matter or deserve even basic civil rights.

It's the same behaviour you'd have seen in other places and other times, although the names used to subhuman someone and justify you behaving appallingly towards them tend to vary to time and place and fashion. It's a game no rational, competent adult would engage in, it's childish and it's regressive, and above all it is very stupid. If you support a culture in which you can say a name and dehumanise someone and throw them to the lions? It's only a matter of time before someone allocates a name to you too. You have nothing more than hour to hour hope of staying in fashion and favour.

WW2 was supposed to put an end to this ridiculousness and prejudice and self satisfied jingoism of 'I'm in the in crowd and you're not, and I can do stuff to you and it's ok'. The grown ups of the time knew, you treated everyone equally, regardless of whether you liked them, regardless of whether they were deserving, because that was the morality and ethics of grown ups and a grown up, civilised world. That was what kept everyone safest.

You really might as well substitute 'the lurgy' or 'nits' for 'right wing' or 'Christian' in this silly context, and then in the manner of a seven year old, run away screaming and giggling from the person you're behaving badly towards. That's about the level of childishness involved.

I'm hoping Sonia Sohda will have done an article on TFSS for tomorrow.

personally I feel individual politics are irrelevant, what is relevant however is the quality of safeguarding.