Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Article in the Guardian about the Family Sex Show

25 replies

Organictangerine · 10/05/2022 22:25

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/10/cancel-culture-rightwing-activists-family-sex-show

josie dale jones whinging about how unfair it is that a grown man doesn’t get to show his dick to little kids. Anyone who objects is ‘rightwing’ (all one word apparently). Oh, and fatphobic.

OP posts:
donquixotedelamancha · 11/05/2022 00:58

Normally I think people who object to shows they haven't seen are ridiculous but this person wanted parents to bring their children to a show with full nudity, at which (from their website content) descriptions of sex acts would occur.

You don't need to see it to know this isn't OK.

People who think anyone who disagrees with them must be right or left wing (or that one of those is always bad and the other good) are so childish they shouldn't be given column inches in national newspapers, or the Guardian.

JustAnotherPoster00 · 11/05/2022 01:07

I do find it odd that a cohort who normally decry cancel culture going out of their way to cancel something, could almost call it hypocritical

noodlezoodle · 11/05/2022 02:08

Interesting that it's in the 'comment is free' section but they haven't allowed comments on the piece, presumably because they know what a shitshow it would be.

I'm also not a fan of calling for censorship of shows or films you haven't seen, but this thread was very eye opening - this show sounds like a safeguarding nightmare: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4533741-To-update-about-The-Family-Sex-Show

TomPinch · 11/05/2022 02:24

The Guardian has become extremely selective on what it allows comments on now. It has to be something that is uncontroversial or will promote a big anti-Tory pile-on. It's fun spotting the articles where they misjudge this and get their arses handed to them below the line.

balboaconstrictor · 11/05/2022 02:42

From what I've seen, leftist cancel culture tends to go after/"cancel" individual people. This wasn't an attack on an individual.

Chickenyhead · 11/05/2022 03:20

She pretends to be naive to parents concerns about the show, whilst simultaneously amending the website to remove the suggestion to children, to Google mastubating animals.

It's misinformation.

The show was entirely inappropriate for 5 year olds. Had they had a target audience from 16+ nobody would have blinked an eye.

Why was it so important to expose themselves to 5 year olds?

SourPatchAdult · 11/05/2022 03:23

balboaconstrictor · 11/05/2022 02:42

From what I've seen, leftist cancel culture tends to go after/"cancel" individual people. This wasn't an attack on an individual.

No, the right has ‘cancelled’ (and tried and failed to cancel) various individuals. It’s just only called ‘cancel culture’ when the left do it.

SourPatchAdult · 11/05/2022 03:24

I have no idea about The Family Sex Show though, not read up.

MistyFuckingQuigley · 11/05/2022 04:11

SourPatchAdult · 11/05/2022 03:24

I have no idea about The Family Sex Show though, not read up.

Thanks for this enlightening comment.

jlinya · 11/05/2022 04:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

GeorgiaMcGraw · 11/05/2022 04:50

It's not "cancel culture" to point out that a tax-payer funded "sex show" for children is not appropriate.

Passanotherjaffacake · 11/05/2022 05:15

There is an e-mail link to write the guardian a letter about this topic - am very tempted to do just that! Perhaps a bunch of us should! ‘Rightwing’ indeed - have been a lefty all my life.

FOJN · 11/05/2022 05:18

Well that article is interesting. Raising safeguarding concerns is not cancel culture. The theatre company website contained inappropriate material and they had failed to complete the section which gave more detail about the show. We did know it was aimed at children of five years and up and included nudity and sexual content. You don't need to be a safeguarding expert to know that is a problem. It's grooming.

They didn't need to cancel the show they could have taken advice, from actual safeguarding experts, and made some changes but they have decided objections to the show arose out of prudery. Perhaps they could have listened to the concerns people raised rather than complaining they weren't allowed to let unrelated adults get naked in front of five year olds and talk about sex.

LadyEggs · 11/05/2022 07:19

No mention of Mumsnet? Is that in case people come and read the debates here? Instead the plays closure has been linked to far right groups in the States.

Whatwouldscullydo · 11/05/2022 07:23

Fgs. All they had to do was aim.it at adults and nothing would have happened.

Instead they go full on DARVO because they cant expose themselves to children .

Says all you need to know.

sst1234 · 11/05/2022 07:33

It’s the guardian. No surprise that anything published there would be completely detached from reality and not taken seriously in the real world. This paper is the true epitome of an echo chamber, written for by people who never really left student politics and entered the real world.

DukeOfNorth · 11/05/2022 07:37

JustAnotherPoster00 · 11/05/2022 01:07

I do find it odd that a cohort who normally decry cancel culture going out of their way to cancel something, could almost call it hypocritical

Perfect observation!

What sleaze rag the Guardian to support this preposterous 'show' Envy

DukeOfNorth · 11/05/2022 07:37

What sleaze rag the Guardian is* to support this preposterous 'show'

Zebedee55 · 11/05/2022 07:40

I wouldn't have taken my children or grandchildren to it. Feels like grooming by the back door, and would have attracted dubious people. Glad it was called off.👍

Bunnycat101 · 11/05/2022 07:41

I have a 5yo. I’d have very serious concerns about anyone who thought the content was ok for that age group.

Whatwouldscullydo · 11/05/2022 08:42

Zebedee55 · 11/05/2022 07:40

I wouldn't have taken my children or grandchildren to it. Feels like grooming by the back door, and would have attracted dubious people. Glad it was called off.👍

I'm so bloody sick of trying to show horn in some kind if ism or phobia to justify it all. I'm.sure the parents and grandparents of gay teens would have reservations too I know I do. I wouldn't even care if it was suitable fir teens because the fact they think.its ok fir 5 year olds means I wouldn't trust any of it to be appropriate.

I actually think the fact they aimed it at 5 years olds was so that if they made any amendments to say that it was a mistake and it should be 15+ , wed all suddenly be relieved and be accepting of it. When in truth no one under the age of 18 should be exposed to naked bodies and I'd consider 18-24 as still having a possibility of being too immature or vulnerable to maybe give true informed consent although obviously as legal adults there would be little choice in the matter of they chose to see it.

Organictangerine · 11/05/2022 08:50

Whatwouldscullydo · 11/05/2022 08:42

I'm so bloody sick of trying to show horn in some kind if ism or phobia to justify it all. I'm.sure the parents and grandparents of gay teens would have reservations too I know I do. I wouldn't even care if it was suitable fir teens because the fact they think.its ok fir 5 year olds means I wouldn't trust any of it to be appropriate.

I actually think the fact they aimed it at 5 years olds was so that if they made any amendments to say that it was a mistake and it should be 15+ , wed all suddenly be relieved and be accepting of it. When in truth no one under the age of 18 should be exposed to naked bodies and I'd consider 18-24 as still having a possibility of being too immature or vulnerable to maybe give true informed consent although obviously as legal adults there would be little choice in the matter of they chose to see it.

Plenty of non-white/straight/NT people have objected to this show. ‘You’re just -phobic’ is literally the response to everything these days. It doesn’t require any engagement with the argument, it’s a lazy and slanderous and is basically throwing some mud in the hope it sticks. I’m sick of the Guardian and it’s unquestioning promotion of queer theory and every ludicrous idea that stems from it

OP posts:
Organictangerine · 11/05/2022 08:51

DukeOfNorth · 11/05/2022 07:37

Perfect observation!

What sleaze rag the Guardian to support this preposterous 'show' Envy

They wrote a gushing review about it before it came under fire so I expect they’re doubling down

OP posts:
Organictangerine · 11/05/2022 08:53

JustAnotherPoster00 · 11/05/2022 01:07

I do find it odd that a cohort who normally decry cancel culture going out of their way to cancel something, could almost call it hypocritical

I thought that too! When JK gets ‘cancelled’, the woke blue hair brigade are all ‘it’s not cancel culture it’s refusing to give a platform to something harmful’ etc

when PIE The Musical gets cancelled it’s all whinging about fatphobia and calling their critics ‘rightwing’

OP posts:
PrelateChuckles · 11/05/2022 08:57

There's another thread here www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4547065-the-family-sex-show-cancel-culture-in-the-guardian

It's very telling how not one of the actual concerns has been addressed. They're not at all serious about safeguarding, otherwise they'd be doing it openly and would want to ensure everyone knew what steps they had taken to make it age-appropriate.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page