Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To update about The Family Sex Show

716 replies

theDudesmummy · 19/04/2022 16:36

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
30
BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation · 26/04/2022 08:33

Remember... not all vulvas belong to women" is fairly chilling, isn't it? Women don't own their own bodies?

I think they mean that men can have vulvas too (obviously they can't).

Who exactly are they preparing these children for?

Adults, men who expect anal sex without any objection and adults who practise bdsm and kink presumably. Anything goes in their world and anyone who objects is a bigot.

oakleaffy · 26/04/2022 21:35

picklemewalnuts · 19/04/2022 16:54

I find it extraordinary that this is only being scrutinised and protested by women here. How the hell can something so flagrantly transgressive be being overlooked?

Why on Earth aren't NSPCC, local safeguarding teams, and the education department (given they are citing national curriculum) all over it?

Maybe as aggressive “ Right on” groups are behind it?
The rights of “Some Men “ in whatever guise they want to be that day trumps the rights of children to be safe from sexual grooming &c

YesSheCan · 27/04/2022 11:09

oakleaffy · 26/04/2022 21:35

Maybe as aggressive “ Right on” groups are behind it?
The rights of “Some Men “ in whatever guise they want to be that day trumps the rights of children to be safe from sexual grooming &c

The whole thing is fuelled by queer theory academia and its infiltration of public organisations. Professor Jessica Ringrose is the head of the Sociology department at UCL's Institute Of Education. Some of her research into gender and sexuality discusses queering education through social activism and art (including the playdough vulva making which appears to initally have been an activity for her MA students). I tried reading some of her papers and in my non-gender-academic opinion at least, much of it seems utter twaddle. She leads the Gender, Sexuality and MA module at UCL IoE and her MA students include several members of School Of Sexuality Education (although not Gayathiri Kamalakanthan, who is both in SOSE and co-producer of The Family Sex Show, is a writer and playwright and whose only training in teaching children was watching the founder of School Of Sexuality Education do a workshop, according to a Stylist interview she gave). Prof Ringrose was commissioned by the NSPCC several years ago to conduct a report on sexting in schools. She and School Of Sexuality Education have recently built on this research by going into some secondary schools and asking the children, mainly under 14s, to show them the sexual images they have received and sent. School Of Sexuality Education have drawn up guidance for schools on online sexual harrassment, which is on their website. So perhaps you'd think that they would be able to appreciate the safeguarding red flags associated with adults removing their clothes on stage, talking about sex and simulating sex positions in front of children who by virtue of being children and under 16 are not old enough to consent to seeing this. You'd also think they'd understand the online safety issues with instructing children age 5 up, on a website with no clarity on age-appropriateness of the different sections, to google animals that masturbate. You'd also think that if they had been into schools to interview children for research purposes that they would have had to undergo some child safeguarding training prior to doing this, and so have an understanding of how grooming works, and that some sections of their website, eg discussing how fluffy slippers feel nice and swiftly moving on to talking about sexual touch, sounds like grooming language. But it would seem not. They and Professor Ringrose would appear to be self-identified experts in child safeguarding and relationships and sex education for schools as none of them appear to have any relevant professional credentials or experience in child education or child protection.

YesSheCan · 27/04/2022 11:10

That should be 'Gender, Sexuality and Education MA module'

YesSheCan · 27/04/2022 11:30

I want to add that it seems that Professor Ringrose and the School Of Sexuality Education have good intentions and believe they are doing what is right for education. I wouldn't think that they are behind the 5+ age rating of the Family Sex Show. But their involvement as self-appointed RSE and safeguarding experts, when they are actually not, could have enabled the involvement of creators on the theatre side of TFSS team who might have unsavoury motivations for wanting to perform sexual content for 5 year olds.

YesSheCan · 27/04/2022 11:32

Gah keep missing words out.

Should be 'and they believe they are doing what is right for education'.

Dinosauria · 27/04/2022 13:24

YesSheCan · 25/04/2022 23:04

Posted this on one of the other threads about TFSS but might be of interest here - includes comments from children in the test audience at Incubator Festival at Theatre Royal Bath in 2019 confirming cast were completely nude and how brave it was that they did this 'just to help us learn'. www.outspokeneducation.com/post/staging-the-conversation-the-family-sex-show

Can anyone post what this link says, my browser will jot open it.

Clymene · 27/04/2022 13:41

Here you go @Dinosauria

The Family Sex Show is as revolutionary as it sounds. It’s an all-singing, all-dancing, all-accepting way to make an important point: we need to talk openly with children about sex, love and relationships.

Billing itself as fun and silly – a chance to “laugh at the oh-so-serious & painfully awkward subject of sex” – The Family Sex Show is entertaining and educational, aiming to encourage self-acceptance and confidence in children and adults. With its playful song-and-dance numbers and sincere monologues, it works.

There are songs about consent (“Our bits belong to us”) and the clitoris (“Why can’t I find it?!”). Katie introduces herself with: “I live in a fat body.” Amelia, who’s blind, talks about the first time she “spoke my truth: that I like different people and I don’t mind what body they come in”. In one transfixing scene Mark the redhead lifts Kimberley from her wheelchair and they do a slow, delicate dance, finally spinning around then coming to rest on the stage, their arms in parallel.

The Family Sex Show acknowledges everyone’s awkwardness; its honesty is liberating. About heartbreak: “Things go wrong and people don’t always like you back.” About how difficult it is to override social conditioning: “All the grown-ups in the world get scared talking about sex.” Brilliantly, someone rotates a sign saying “sex” on one side and “relationships” on the other.

Because Outspoken Sex Ed is in the business of encouraging parents to talk openly with their children about sex and relationships, show creator Josie Dale-Jones consulted with us on our approach to changing the sex-ed conversation. The Family Sex Show – amplifying that conversation through creativity – is structured around workshops run by the sex-positive organisation Sexplain. Dale-Jones and her team are now developing wraparound activities to brief parents on the show’s themes beforehand and engage families afterwards.

At the post-show discussions – chaired by ex-Guardian theatre critic Lyn Gardner on 19 and 20 September at the Incubator Ideas Festival in Bath – Dale-Jones explains that she wants children to see The Family Sex Show not in school but, as the name implies, with someone they trust so they can then to go off and, over time, discuss the impressions it made.

And they do talk. Parents report that seeing the show provides great common ground for ongoing conversation. What resonates for the young people is that the characters lark around, are vulnerable, don’t present themselves as authorities. “It was brave that they took off all their clothes just to help us learn,” commented one child. Another said: “I love the silliness because it’s like with me and my friends.”

It also makes a massive impact seeing such diversity, tenderness and frankness onstage. One audience member says that she sometimes focused on the BSL (British sign language) interpreter as a way to manage the strength of her reactions. A man who’s taught biology for 20 years says that he was almost in tears – this show, he reckons, needs to be seen by thousands of children.

The audience responses are rapturous:

	“It’s like Pixar meets Sesame Street meets Flight of the Conchords”
	“I’d love to see it with my kids”
	“I’d love to see it with my parents. Some people can’t talk to their parents even as adults”
	“Anybody of any age can watch this. It’s so accessible”
	“It’s a leveller of generations – I didn’t know some of this stuff!”
	“We are all products of awful sex ed, so it’s instructive for everyone”
	“It reminds you of the fun about sex”

“We wanted to put pleasure at the forefront of the show,” agrees Dale-Jones. “We want to take people to new places. You might like some things, you might hate some things – but mostly we want to take you with us.”

We are definitely along for the ride.

Clymene · 27/04/2022 13:44

Sorry for crappy formatting.

Sonia Poulton is on the case. She rang them to find out who the 'invited audience' are and they hung up on her Shock

twitter.com/soniapoulton/status/1519274051365220353?s=21&t=1IyEth0uj5JqyanGiiwE5Q

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 14:50

Interesting that Sonia contacted the Avon and Somerset police and were told it is not a policing matter. I contacted the same force last week and have not even heard back from them.

OP posts:
Lockheart · 27/04/2022 15:51

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 14:50

Interesting that Sonia contacted the Avon and Somerset police and were told it is not a policing matter. I contacted the same force last week and have not even heard back from them.

I'm not certain it is a police matter. I can't think what laws would mean that a crime has been committed here, and if that's right then the police won't get involved.

I don't think a cancelled show and a dodgy website with explicit definitions would fall under the Obscene Publications Act, nothing on the website or in the show would fall under the definition of pornography in UK law ("of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"), and unless there is specific communication between an individual over 18 and an individual under 16 then I don't think the grooming laws under the SOA would not come into play.

Lockheart · 27/04/2022 15:52

*would come into play, not "would not come into play".

PrelateChuckles · 27/04/2022 16:01

theDudesmummy · 21/04/2022 12:36

Update, I just had a long phone call with a social worker from CEOP. They have had nine reports to them including mine. They are passing it up through their channels but her immediate advice is for people to report to Somerset and Avon police, as I have done already, and also to the Internet Watch Foundation, which I will do now. Also to your local police on 101.

The basic first principle of safeguarding is that the safety of children is everyone's business. Even if you are not affected by this directly, you can report it as something which is putting children at risk, which I can assure you it is. Everyone who says or thinks "this should be reported to the police and the authorities", please do it.

I assume you haven't bothered reading the full thread, then, lockheart.

Lockheart · 27/04/2022 16:06

PrelateChuckles · 27/04/2022 16:01

I assume you haven't bothered reading the full thread, then, lockheart.

Ok, what crimes do you think have been committed specifically, under what laws? I'm very happy to be pointed to the relevant legislation if I've missed something.

HairyBum · 27/04/2022 16:56

This is what the sexual offences act 2003 covers ..

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

Lockheart · 27/04/2022 17:05

HairyBum · 27/04/2022 16:56

This is what the sexual offences act 2003 covers ..

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

Yes, I've been looking specifically at the part covering child sex offences:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences

I'm not certain any of them apply here.

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:07

Just for starters, I would argue that these offences could be considered relevent:

causing a child to watch a sexual act (telling them to google masturbation, whether in animals or humans, would qualify)
inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
sexual communication with a child

But as I have said repeatedly on this thread I am also very very concerened about the grooming aspect. The wider grooming of society to normalise sexual activity by and with children, and the specific instructions on the webpage for children to engage in sexualised activities with interested adults, which would fall under facilitation of an offence.

I know full well they are not going to be prosecuted but the point is that they should be under the existing law.

OP posts:
PrelateChuckles · 27/04/2022 17:11

You're asking me why CEOP - part of the police - are explicitly asking people to report grooming behaviour?

I'd assume it comes under sexual communication with a child, or other parts of the sexual offences act.
You're also mistaken if you think the police can only be contacted if a crime can be proven to have taken place - we've had numerous discussions on here about what the police record, including coverage of various court cases.

Sonia has updated that the A&S PCC has suggested a letter to the Chief Constable. Perhaps someone should let them know that Lockheart thinks it's all fine and that adults exposing their genitals to 5-year-olds while telling them their ideas of sexual pleasure is age-appropriate?

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:15

And the definition of "sexual" is at Sec 78. Which says:

There are two alternative limbs to the definition of “sexual”. Paragraph (a) covers activity that the reasonable person would always consider to be sexual because of its nature, such as sexual intercourse. Paragraph (b) covers activity that the reasonable person would consider, because of its nature, may or may not be sexual depending on the circumstances or the intentions of the person carrying it out.

So the "reasonable person" test is relevent here, and I would imagine, if any of this was ever to be prosecuted, that would be a possible line of defence (ie that a reasonable person would not consider their actions sexual, or alternatively would not consier their intentions to cause it to be sexual). In today's world, given the aforementioned societal grooming, that defence moght well succeeed.

OP posts:
theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:16

(Sorry re typos. If only the new MN update had included an edit button!)

OP posts:
Lockheart · 27/04/2022 17:16

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:07

Just for starters, I would argue that these offences could be considered relevent:

causing a child to watch a sexual act (telling them to google masturbation, whether in animals or humans, would qualify)
inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
sexual communication with a child

But as I have said repeatedly on this thread I am also very very concerened about the grooming aspect. The wider grooming of society to normalise sexual activity by and with children, and the specific instructions on the webpage for children to engage in sexualised activities with interested adults, which would fall under facilitation of an offence.

I know full well they are not going to be prosecuted but the point is that they should be under the existing law.

s.12 (causing a child to watch a sexual act) would not apply unless you could prove a specific individual did this for the purposes of sexual gratification.

s.10 (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity) I think is the closest you would get to a breach of the law, but I think this would be a stretch in the context of a website which caters to a wide age range.

Sexual communication with a child (not under the SOA, this is under a different act) would only apply if a specific individual over 18 was talking to another specific individual under 16. Not likely in the context of an open website and a theatre show.

They should only be prosecuted under the existing law if the law can be proven to have been broken.

The conversation about a wider landscape of sexualising children is a different issue.

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:21

Sexual communication with a child is Sec 15A of SOA.

It includes communication intended to encourage B (the under 16) to make (whether to A (the person over 18) or to another) a communication that is sexual. I would argue this to be precisely the case when the website encourages mastubation-googling, making toy vulvas, drawing penises etc etc. Because realistically the younger chidren are not going to do that all by themselves, they will do it with an "interested adult".

OP posts:
Lockheart · 27/04/2022 17:22

PrelateChuckles · 27/04/2022 17:11

You're asking me why CEOP - part of the police - are explicitly asking people to report grooming behaviour?

I'd assume it comes under sexual communication with a child, or other parts of the sexual offences act.
You're also mistaken if you think the police can only be contacted if a crime can be proven to have taken place - we've had numerous discussions on here about what the police record, including coverage of various court cases.

Sonia has updated that the A&S PCC has suggested a letter to the Chief Constable. Perhaps someone should let them know that Lockheart thinks it's all fine and that adults exposing their genitals to 5-year-olds while telling them their ideas of sexual pleasure is age-appropriate?

I didn't ask you anything of the sort. The CEOP have said report it to the police, the police have apparently said it's not a police matter, so I'm contemplating the relevant laws.

It wouldn't come under sexual communication with a child or as far as I can see under the child sex offences sections of the SOA.

I'm not going to respond to the ad hominem attack.

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:24

But yes, it is tricky because of the way society has gone in recent years and changes in attitudes in some parts of society with regard to what is and is not accaptable. No way they will ever be prosecuted, as I have said. But that didn't stop me reporting them as groomers to CEOP and the police. Because I believed it to be the right thing to do regardless.

OP posts:
Lockheart · 27/04/2022 17:27

theDudesmummy · 27/04/2022 17:21

Sexual communication with a child is Sec 15A of SOA.

It includes communication intended to encourage B (the under 16) to make (whether to A (the person over 18) or to another) a communication that is sexual. I would argue this to be precisely the case when the website encourages mastubation-googling, making toy vulvas, drawing penises etc etc. Because realistically the younger chidren are not going to do that all by themselves, they will do it with an "interested adult".

But again, in order for the offence of sexual communication to have taken place, you would need to prove it was done for sexual gratification, and I don't think that could be successfully argued in this context.

F115ASexual communication with a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, A intentionally communicates with another person (B),
(b)the communication is sexual or is intended to encourage B to make (whether to A or to another) a communication that is sexual, and
(c)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a communication is sexual if—
(a)any part of it relates to sexual activity, or
(b)a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider any part of the communication to be sexual;