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.

It speaks to the lack of actual critical thinking in some (young) lefty groups. “Queer” is part of the rainbow umbrella and so this is good.

It doesn’t matter that children are being groomed, supporters won’t think that hard about it. Queer equals the side on the right side of history.

I think the OMG you agree with right wing Conservatives such as … is a testament to the US influence on non US young left-wingers. Politics there seems much more tribal than elsewhere.

Fundamentally, there’s still a lack of maturity and confidence in these name-callers. It’s ok to protest something because it’s wrong, you don’t need to always align your beliefs to what your side says.

I also don’t give a fuck if someone calls me right-wing, or whatever, when I object to this blatant grooming of children.

I also don’t give a fuck if someone calls me right-wing, or whatever, when I object to this blatant grooming of children

Well, me neither, because I am right-wing. Just find it a bit unsettling that it seems to be considered a terrible thing.

Kathleen Stock has written an article on this (free to access) https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/know-your-enemy?s=r&utmcampaign=post&utmm_medium=email. I especially appreciated her forthright take-down of those who accuse the show's critics of being right-wing bigots.

P.s. a priceless comment on Twitter: "It is, after all, the most uninspired, uninspiring, immature, vacuous, turgid pretence at theatre."

Thank you reshetima
That Kathleen Stock article is magnificent. Hilarious yet spot on about what's happening.

Oh my what a magnificent article, thanks for linking!

Excellent article.
Supercharged by the internet, contemporary sexual culture is spiralling off a cliff and taking a lot of young people with it, and increasingly large numbers of ordinary parents and teachers are finding this objectionable for very good reason.

'the left-liberal fantasy of a 1950s Britain persists, propping up its own self-image as coolly rebellious and counter-cultural in the process. As in so many areas, the focus is on breathing life into long-dead political enemies rather than facing newer and more pressing social problems - which saves a lot of energy, because dead enemies are really quite easy to beat.'

Spot on.

I'm not sure whether this is entirely naive, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. The end result is the same, and that is the problem. That people are incapable of distinguising between what is well intentioned child entertainment and grooming/abusive means we are in a very difficult position societally. It all needs unpicking.

I think we need to talk about 'queering'. Which, we should all be aware by now, has very little to do with homosexuality or bisexuality and all to do with removal and bending and blurring of boundaries.

I think we need to talk about 'queering'. Which, we should all be aware by now, has very little to do with homosexuality or bisexuality and all to do with removal and bending and blurring of boundaries

this.

’queer’ is an entire culture, rather than a sexuality - which encourages fetish, kink, hardcore left political views, the semi-mandatory blue hair & lots of time spent online obsessing over pronouns, their alleged persecution and drag shows.

it’s basically a lifestyle fashion. When I was a teen ‘emo’ was in fashion - dressing a certain way, being into certain music/art/entertainment, but it also went hand in hand with self harm, depression as a default emotion, higher than average claims of bisexuality (many of whom are now straight adults), and lots of time spent online in an echo chamber, claiming the adults ‘just didn’t understand’ and were ‘out to stop me being me’.

queer is no different IMO just a little more extreme if that’s possible.

I just think she does seem more open than I am to the idea that the people involved in this show ended up where they were acidentally, and no malevolent actors were involved. That might be true for some of the young cast members, but I would be willing to bet that behind this are powerful backers and forces that knew exactly what they were doing. I am not usually a conspiracy theorist but I do not believe that this very carefully scripted groomers' wet dream (the show and especially the website and podcast) does not have behind it the PIE people of our times.

What appears to be missing from all today's news stories is that these people are in schools teaching kids their RSE.

I’m pretty clueless about politics but as someone from just an angle of having young kids of my own I’m in awe that this is even a production. I feel like if a random childcare worker suggested any of this to the kids in their care in after school say, there would be absolute outrage and rightly so. I’m neither religious or a prude but no way do I want my young kids seeing anything like this!!! Sometimes I think the world has gone mad.

I'm concerned that the young people who are involved in this stuff won't be able to parent their own children appropriately if they have them. How are they going to be able to assess risk? Are they going to have the necessary skills and critical thinking abilities to even know what represents a risk.

Are these young adults being groomed themselves, to raise the next generation to be fully available to those who wish to sexually abuse them? It all seems very convenient.

I was listening to the radio last night in car w dh and they had a segment about this. We were both wtaf! A man - of course - was talking in favour of it and how a child 5+ can sit down w parents and look at animals masturbating! What planet are these people on? All a 5 year old needs to know is that no-one should be touching their private parts apart from themselves - in private.

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation I believe the answer to the question in your second paragraph to be a clear yes.

It is certainly the case that young girls are being groomed to not expect single sex provisions, to put the feelings of a male before their own, and to build their boundaries on whether or not saying 'no' may make a male sad or hurt their feelings.

And the plan is to train all females of all ages out of expecting privacy, dignity, not to be used in male people's personal agendas which may or may not include their sexual experiences, or to expect to be permitted by males to feel safe or comfortable. Because for males to grant females this would limit male people's freedoms, choices and enjoyment.

The sexism and male supremacism of which is nauseating. And needs pointing out as often as possible: these are not ideas to go along with or accept quietly, these are plans to which the female half of the human race needs to be a very loud Fuck That. On your bike, mate, and take your misogyny with you.

If it was Radio 5 Live, that was probably Peter Tatchell. There's a thread about it somewhere...

Here you go
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4536411-milli-hill-on-the-family-sex-show-on-radio-5-now

Thanks Bore I hadn't seen that

Honestly these people's idea of sex is the most unattractive repulsive thing you could come up with. If you want to put people off sex forever continue to let the unicorn brigade dominate the arena. Revolting sexless morons. They wouldn't know sexiness if it hit them with a sledgehammer. I hate them all.

This is just unbelievable. Telling 5 yo that it is fine for strangers to show them their genitals surely goes against very basic safeguarding. The line about it being 'consensual' - how? Are 5 yo able to consent to adults stripping off in front of them? The insistence on the show being 'legal' stood out too. Are we to turn a blind eye to anything that may be damaging to children purely because there is no specific law against it?

I think the powerful backers and forces are several steps back @theDudesmummy - I don't think most of the people involved in this are anything other than useful puppets.

I would like someone to sit down with Josie whatserface and ask her why. Why does she think this will benefit children? Why is she so invested in teaching children about sex? Why does she believe that something which comprehensible to teens will make sense to 5 year olds? Why does she think small children seeing a random man's penis on stage is a good thing? Why are flashers bad? Why does she want to talk to small children about fisting?

They are useful puppets, yes. But presumably educated young people. Who don't understand the limitations of their knowledge and experience, and should really be able to think it out a bit better. I would guess Josie has been in a self-validating echo chamber for years and honestly and truly sees herself as doing something good in society. She is not spotting how she is being used and by whom. Because the real backers are many layers back and well prepared to bide their time. Successful grooming requires patience. In some cases years of patience. They will wait.

If only these young people could be compelled to spend a good few hours talking directly to survivors of CSA about their experiences, I do believe they would understand what us supposed old prudes are really talking about.

Some of them may well be survivors themselves of course. Trauma can do strange things to cognition. Including sometimes impelling a need to reframe the trauma as something else, it is a classic psychological defence against unbearable emotions.

I agree. And yes, I would suggest quite likely that some may be affected by trauma.

Tatchell is a prime example. In every interview he demonstrates how CSA can damage and distort boundaries and cause life long damage, as well as how desperately a CSA survivor can try to reframe what happened to them as good. Great. It was lovely. Honestly. Which sounds desperate to avoid having to ever reframe it in his own mind as anything else. Every time I hear him speak, all I can hear is 'look what it did to me'.

I suspect though getting this lot in front of CSA survivors would end up rather like the experience of Deptford Women's Project with their homeless and addicted; a group of highly privileged, educated, affluent youngsters who won't let the survivors get a word in edgewise because they're too busy lecturing everyone about pronouns.