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 may also be that the 2003 Act is not fit for purpose where we are, nearly 20 years later, especially with regard to online offending. The internet and the power of the internet is very different now from what it was in 2003.

True. Updates do get brought in (for example the sexual communication with a child bit was added in 2017(?) I think), but the advent of social media and its huge expansion could be something that requires more of a sea-change.

The stipulation that communication must be for personal sexual gratification is outdated in this context for example. It's almost impossible to prove in an online context. It also fails to capture the online sexual grooming of children for other reasons, including for the facilitation of the sexual gratification of others, or for the eroding of societal norms for political or other social reasons. This case is a prime example of this. The fact that the person producing the online grooming might not in that moment be sitting at the keyboard with an erection does not in any way decrease the actual eventual harm to the child.

Well @Lockheart I do at least agree with your last point.

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

I don't understand why you think it's an 'attack' - I believe this to be a statement of your views - certainly when you posted on the original thread discussing this specific behaviour you said along the lines of "it's fine to talk to children about sexual pleasure as long as it's done in an age appropriate way". You then couldn't or wouldn't answer whether you considered this specific behaviour (a naked adult talking about it to a 5-year-old) to be age-appropriate or not.

I therefore concluded you believe it is age-appropriate, as you spent quite a lot of time defending it and refusing to give a clear answer.

If you now do actually agree with me that an adult exposing their genitals to a child and talking about sexual pleasure is not appropriate for primary-age children, feel free to state that clearly and unequivocally.

You also said you would laugh at anyone who called the police.

I still believe it is fine to educate children about their bodies and all the elements of sex as long as it is done in an age appropriate way.

If you can show me where a naked adult talks to children about sexual pleasure, I'll happily address that point, but given none of us have seen the show and you've put two and two together and arrived at purple, I'm going to continue to ignore it. It seemed to me the naked section was about bodies, not sexual pleasure, but again, I haven't seen the show.

And as should be clear from my recent posts, I continue to believe this is not (based on the information available) a criminal offence.

Regardless of any show that may or may not exist, are you able to state that you do, or don't, believe an adult exposing their genitals and talking about sexual pleasure, to be age-appropriate when the child is 5? If not, what age child do you think that would be appropriate for?

I asked this exact question before and you still did not say you thought it was not appropriate.

I am asking specifically about the situation I have described and not any other situation that you or anyone else may imagine.

I am not talking about showing you anything. I am not talking about whether the adult is sitting down or not. I am not talking about crimes or the law or the police. The question is as I worded it.

I am sure you will handwave the question away again.

It was you that said "it's fine to talk to children about sexual pleasure as long as it's done in an age appropriate way".

Yet you are utterly unable to state what situations your own "as long as" does and doesn't apply to.

Without further clarification from you on the question, I will continue to believe that you hold the opinion I stated earlier and which you bizarrely called "an attack". Anyone who agreed that situation is patently inappropriate would not have any trouble in saying so.

I'm not going to repeat a mantra off the back off a fabricated scenario just to please or win the approval of a stranger on the internet.

You can believe whatever you want, I hope it makes you happy.

Someone should definitely become a Criminal defence lawyer... if they're not already one. It takes a certain kind of person to defend the undefendable when it comes to these types of matters.

I didn't realise pointing out the law meant you were defending something. I would argue it's quite crucial to understand the legal issues at play if you want to effect any meaningful change.

Meaningful change WAS effected, though, Lockheart. The crappy show was cancelled, and the most unsavoury sections of the website were pulled. That seems like a satisfactory result to me.

This show/website does encourage children to make a communication that is sexual as they are prompted to consider & voice what gives them sexual pleasure etc...
It is not a show about bodies as they would be shown in a biology lesson, it is a show specifically created to encourage children to see their bodies as sexual & to explore WITH OTHERS as some of the language refers to a childs reactions to other people touching in a sexual manner etc...

(b)the communication is sexual or is intended to encourage B to make (whether to A or to another) a communication that is sexual

I hate quotes, that wasn't the post I was quoting

This bill is quite interesting also

bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137/publications

It’s the online safety bill.

Thank you Clymene

Apparently the test event is tonight

I mean, if it isn't against the law to encourage children 5 and above to google masturbating animals and to draw pictures of masturbating animals, it damn well ought to be. Surely the response to finding this out shouldn't be 'it's not against any law I know of' it should be 'I'll have a little look and see which law that would fall under and if it doesn't, I'll campaign to get it included'?

My friend’s (young adult) child was given a simpering invitation to the test event tonight. He’s one of a special select few and it will be good for his drama skills apparently. He was told not to tell his parents or anyone about it.

How old is he?

He just turned 18 (we’re talking weeks, not months). Still shouldn’t be taken on a school trip to watch naked adults and told not to tell anyone though, because he apparently feels he can’t say no to attending in case it affects his grade (it’s a continuous assessment course and he needs to do well to get his uni place).

Same age as my son. I’d go mad!

So would I!
I’ve just seen more screenshots from Sonia Poulton’s Twitter. A Bath councillor claimed that tonight it’s only being shown with parental consent, but that’s not true. They tried and sent a form home early this month but some parents refused consent. So instead they’ve invited just those who are older in school year and turned 18, and told them not to tell their parents!

they’ve invited just those who are older in school year and turned 18, and told them not to tell their parents!

Well, that's not at all dodgy. Clearly their safeguarding lead continues to excel as previously.