Mail on Bath Theatre Family Sex Show for 5+ age

[Abitofalark]

The DM article quotes from a thread on mumsnet in AIBU www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4524406-Deeply-concerned-about-Child-Safety-in-Bristol?messages=100&pg=1

The Mail explains:
"A theatre company has sparked fury by staging a show featuring naked bodies that explores 'love, sexuality and sexual pleasure' aimed at children as young as five. ..
The website describes it as 'a fun and silly performance about the painfully awkward subject of sex, exploring names and functions, boundaries, consent, pleasure, queerness, sex, gender and relationships.
It goes on: 'Using real life bodies, personal stories, songs and movement, The Family Sex Show puts the good stuff at the forefront of conversation and imagines a future where there is no shame; but a celebration of difference, equality and liberation.' "

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10700795/Fury-theatre-company-stages-naked-exploring-sexuality-sexual-pleasure-queerness.html

It is claimed to be based on the school curriculum but according to a AIBU poster, it includes gender identity indoctrination, along with the stuff about sexual pleasure, nudity, etc:

"I would challenge PPs to show where pegging comes in the RSE curriculum for 5 year olds.
Or ‘TERF’, which is helpfully included in the glossary, just in case we were in any doubt about this group’s intentions.
They can just FOTHFSOFAFOSM with their queering and cissing. If any public money is going into this, it’s a fucking outrage when huge numbers of children are arriving at school hungry."

I regret to inform you the Guardian is at it again:

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

Commentary by the ThisEgg producer. Even by Grauniad standards it's jawdroppingly disingenuous

I was hoping there'd be a word or two of explanation about searching the Internet for masturbating animals. Nah!
There is a link at the end of the article encouraging people to put their view to the Guardian (300 words or less).

I noticed the Guardian article.
As if everyone who complained was a right wing USA conspiracy loon.
There was no reflection on actual issues raised in places like Mumsnet.
It is beyond disingenuous to bring the NSPCC into the discussion as though they would be in favor of this production. I worked for them for years and this doesn't meet any of the safeguarding requirements we used to have for public events about sex and children.
This person hasn't listened or learned anything at all.

A couple of weeks ago a Guardian arts writer was on Twitter proudly saying how he refused to listen to anyone trying to show him evidence that something he asserted didn't happen actually DID happen. I have friends who still, it seems, only get their 'news' and 'opinion' filtered through The Guardian. It's so mad and frustrating. 'Facts are sacred' my arse.

The whole 'don't upset me with facts and evidence that mess with my chosen reality' crew, and the really quite amazing Stonewall farce in the AB case today.... I have Frankie Howerd murmuring in my ear a lot about how it's wicked to mock the afflicted. It's getting past the point of being able to take such people seriously or as with capacity to engage in any debate with.

Josie says share with the family "whatever family means to you". So "Uncle Jim" who happens to have been your auntie's boyfriend for the past 4 months and is "wonderful" with all the prepubescent kids in the family then. Terrific.

But... but...

"The team behind The Family Sex Show are committed to rights-based relationships and sex education"!

Rights-based relationships? What now? As pps have said it is laughably disingenuous word salad.

Whose "rights" is the relationship based on? Let me guess....

In reality, the world – especially the digital world – we live in means that we don’t have control over what we or our children see. We have a responsibility to provide children and young people with the tools to understand, challenge and put into context certain situations and media they might encounter. By not talking about issues relating to relationships and sex we are putting them in a position of vulnerability increasing the potential for harm.

This is just so gaslight-y!

In the olden days you could keep your kids safe by locking them indoors (ahem, family predators) and now that scary stuff gets piped into their bedrooms all day long it's your fault if they get groomed. Unless you explain felching and frottage and fisting and all the rest of the yuck to them.

Oh, I got a reply from the Arts Council today:

Thank you for your email raising concerns about the Family Sex Show.

I would like to reassure you that we acted promptly to investigate the matter and to seek assurances from the production company. The proposed tour has now been cancelled, and no performances are planned.

The Arts Council never compromises on the safeguarding of children, young people and vulnerable adults. We require the organisations and artists we support to have appropriate measures in place, and this is part of the terms and conditions of their grant agreements.

Whilst we followed all of our processes correctly, we will consider what additional requirements we can put in place for project organisers in the future, in order to provide even greater assurance that children and young people are always safe and protected.
^^

Let me guess, they think adults have a 'right' to talk about sex with pre-pubescent children. Why won't Josie go on a safeguarding training course? Rather than writing drivel for the Guardian. Hopefully then she'd learn what the objections were about.

The nakedness is not a problem - little kids see naked bodies all the time. The problem is nakedness in a sexual context for 5 YEAR OLDS!

We don't want to 'break down the systems of oppression' such as safeguarding to protect children from paedophiles, thanks. We really want those 'systems of oppression' to remain firmly in place.

Oh well done on getting a reply @theDudesmummy .

Reading between the lines that sounds like ThisEgg deliberately obscured some of the details at the application stage. And ACE are not best pleased at being hoodwinked....

Quite, emperor, Josie says something to the effect of "yes they're naked but they're not touching themselves or each other". Oh that's alright then.

That defence posted in the Guardian is so gaslighty. I'm so sick of safeguarding being painted as transphobia or 'queerphobia'.

Obviously us 'right wing bigots' are so prudish. Look at us, clutching our pearls because we don't want our innocent little ones to see naked bodies at the theatre.

Sarcasm aside Wtf happened to childhood innocence? Why is safeguarding it seen as a bad thing now? This is grooming in plain sight.

In reality, the world – especially the digital world – we live in means that we don’t have control over what we or our children see.

This might be true for teens but it isn't true for five year olds.

In reality, the world – especially the digital world – we live in means that we don’t have control over what we or our children see.

Is this the Royal "we"???
Oddly enough I have never had a problem in activating an off switch to not see something I don't want to watch. Was this an odd life skill which my parents managed learn and pass along before the internet was invented? It's a handy skill which even still functions when 5 year old children are near by.🤷🏼‍♀️

I have also, somehow, managed not to see animal masturbating, I suspect that this may somehow be due to not actually looking for it on the Internet??👀

JD-J continues to choose to breach boundries around child safeguarding by selling work product as suitable for 5 year olds.

Also note the choice in the removal of the parents role to subsitute the word guardian. The parent may not class themselves as a "guardian" its a subtle disassociation trick. But in this context anyone who pays the entry fee for the 5 to 16 year old qualifies as a "guardian".
🙄

JD-J is selling JD-J work's product on stage for a wage.

If JD-J filmed JD-J naked and discussing sex JD-J would not be allowed to have 5 year old children at the Family Sex Show "film" and would have to apply appropiate age guidance.

JD-J will profiting from the Family Sex Show if it is staged anywhere in the world.
So JD-J's fundamental argument is about why a 5 year old should help finance JD-J business model.

Some small edits to highlight JD-J point.

It also explores themes including
• a 5 year old's gender,
• a 5 year old's sexuality,
• a 5 year old's pleasure and
• a 5 year old's boundaries.
But really, the show Family Sex Show is about care and mutual respect between a 5 year old and other's – and it the Family Sex Show exists in the hope that it can be a part of breaking down some of the systems of oppression alive for a 5 year old today.

JD-J is, indeed, offering a winning argument as to why a 5 year old should be involved in the Family Sex Show.
🙃

As a performance, The Family Sex Show is an invitation to a 5 year old to experience something together as a family with an adult (whatever family that adult means to you), encourage questioning and signpost places for audiences you at 5 to figure out answers about gender, sexuality, pleasure and boundaries etc. for themselves. As a guardian 5 year old , the show is designed to help open conversations with your child the person who brought your 5 year old self to the show about relationships and sex. I believe that honesty builds trust. Where transparent conversations are able to be had, children and young people 5 year olds might include guardians adults in their ongoing decision-making processes – and surely that’s a wonderful thing.

Who would not trust a 5 year old to make good life choices around relationships and sex?
🤷🏼‍♀️

It is a show for adults too. We have a lot to learn from one another, no matter what our age. No one is an expert on anything other than themselves.

Lots and lots of people are experts in many different fields. Some people are experts in child safeguarding, they kindly pointed out problems. Even some non-experts pointed out the same problems.

Benjamin A Boyce did a fairly good job asking questions

Now looking at some inclusive and excluding pronoun.

^A relatively small media storm closed a show no one (except JD-J and JD-J's staff) had watched. Beyond arts and culture, what does this reveal about the health and resilience of our (JD-J and inclusive of reader) public conversation? How does this event speak to power in the UK? Who (JD-J wants it) has it, and how will they (JD-J and reader now excluded) use it? Who (JD-J, wants to) gets to decide what on behalf of other people (JD-J excluded JD-J) ? I (JD-J) think what has happened (people raising safegarding concerns) is far more frightening than the performance.

We (JD-J and inclusive of reader) still hope to find a home (a permanent space for the business model) for this show.
And now I (JD-J, owner of the Family Sex Show work product) am left in the position to wonder : where do we (JD-J and inclusive of reader) go from here ?

Dear Capitalist applying for tax payers funding, if you are not an expert vested in child safeguarding and are still attempting to earn money by selling your Family Sex Show work product to 5 year olds:

PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.

Thank you

Or the ACE people signing off on the funding did not question how a production could be age appropriate when both a 5 year old and 16 year old would be the target audience.

There is a reputation risk here for ACE if the funding process is insufficient to prevent inappropriate funding decisions. The last paragraph suggests that there may have been a gap in the process around children in the audience.

theDudesmummy
It would be interesting to know if the ACE investigation received a reply before or after the invite preformance happened. If it was before will ACE investigate the motivation for the single preformance?

@theDudesmummy Well done getting a reply from ACE. I think there 'answer' is disingenuous and, frankly, arse covering. They sought assurances from the company, they don't say whether or not those assurances were forthcoming. They acknowledge it's been cancelled, but don't say it had anything to do with their involvement, so it probably didn't. They followed all their processes correctly, processes that allowed several tens of thousands of public money to be wasted. Kathleen Stock's article on the FSS, had a few things to say about ACE.

@SolasAnla loved your post, it must have taken you ages. Not to mention many read throughs of that turgid self-pitying tripe.

IcakethereforeIam it took a while🤷🏼‍♀️, and I had to limit from just doing an copy/edit dump for the whole of JD-J's the opinion👀 piece.

But oddly, everybody who posted they pointed out the exact same problems.
So we they must all be right (wing) and they have power (not to them people) and they are not involved in public (petitioning or reading newspaper articles or) conversation.

Its tone is about censorship from the bad religion people them while
• we/I talk and sing and tell stories about ???? ,
• then we/I get naked,
• then we/I talk and sing about ????

Censorship of the our/my nice homeless Family Sex Show frightens us/me.
😫

Dear Grammar Nazzi's is the ever a pronoun?🤔