A Detailed Look At “The Family Sex Show”

[Sazzasez]

Just for clarity & in case anyone jumps at the chance to call me a right-winger bent on denying women reproductive rights: I’m a socialist agnostic who has protested anti-abortionists.

And I know a child safeguarding hazard when I see one.

Performances planned in Bath, Bristol and Norwich.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/nope?s=r

‘I think it’s more because when right wing people oppose the topic of sex being in the public arena, it’s usually for religious or ideological reasons than practical concerns.’

I think it’s more complicated than that. Social conservatism (including for religious reasons) isn’t always ‘fire and brimstone’. It can be just a nagging feeling that things were better before we had dildos being sold in supermarkets, or a sense that children don’t need to know about felching to be happy.

I’m economically left-wing. I’m liberal in terms of what people do in their private lives. I’m probably quite conservative in terms of what we teach kids.

‘If you deny you're right wing, is that because a right wing person's opinion would be less valid than a socialist one?’

Yes. It works because nobody needs to take right wing moral panics seriously, the pearl clutchers are always reaching for their smelling salts.

I imagine plenty liberal leftists will be falling over themselves to parade their progressive credentials by taking their kids to this show.

Mary Harringtons latest @unherd was brilliant on this

The way they talk about safeguarding is bizarrely reminiscient of certain visitors to this board.

“I know nothing about safeguarding, I’ve never even attended an introductory training, but how hard can it be? Watch as I say stuff I just made up in an authoritative tone and convince everyone I’m a safeguarding expert and that [boundary-trampling thing I want to happen] is a fine example of child safeguarding.”

How weird too that this got funding and made it into production without anyone consulting a safeguarding expert. They knew enough not to pitch it at schools, at least.

Thanks, Butlerian. I hadn't seen that.

unherd.com/2022/04/the-rise-of-the-liberal-groomer/

'By normalising the idea that pre-pubescent children should engage with sexual material, The Family Sex Show in practice carries water for genuine paedophiles.'

“A response from the child such as “I saw the Family Sex Show at the Theatre” would be a reasonable response they were not in fact at risk”.

An admission they know the show could conceal red flags.

Do we think they are grooming or that have already been groomed?

It is utterly fascinating how these things get past scrutiny. Almost as if those that want to [checks notes] abuse and get close to children get themselves into positions where they can facilitate those that abuse and get close to children.

Weird.

What worries me is the lack of any rigorous response from the NSPCC. All that word salad in response to a bunch of adults not only proposing to strip naked in front of other people's 5 years olds but openly stating that it's appropriate to discuss using pleasure to explore consent with young primary aged children.

They're the UK's leading child safeguarding charity yet they are evidently so captured by the porn lobby that they can't bring themselves to say"
"At face value, much of this looks inappropriate for very young children so we're going to explore further to establish the facts. Thanks for contacting us". Instead it's "Oh please don't speak to us. This is so awkward. Why don't you go and make some phone calls instead?"

Given their track record you'd imagine they are keen to repair their rather tarnished reputation but evidently not.

The theatre company uses these words on their website.

Using pleasure as a vehicle for consent.

Which I find even more worrying.

Well that was an italics fail.

Using pleasure as a vehicle for consent.

Using pleasure as a vehicle for consent.

Target audience: 5 and up.

In plain sight or what? I can’t believe that slogan.

@tabbycatstripy

‘I think it’s more because when right wing people oppose the topic of sex being in the public arena, it’s usually for religious or ideological reasons than practical concerns.’

I think it’s more complicated than that. Social conservatism (including for religious reasons) isn’t always ‘fire and brimstone’. It can be just a nagging feeling that things were better before we had dildos being sold in supermarkets, or a sense that children don’t need to know about felching to be happy.

I’m economically left-wing. I’m liberal in terms of what people do in their private lives. I’m probably quite conservative in terms of what we teach kids.

I would put it differently. Very often the reason social conservatives and religions oppose sex in the public arena is because they think it leads to things like inappropriate sexualization of children, or risks to women, or social breakdown. It's not random dictates not to have sex shows in public, it's the same reasons that women here think these things are a bad idea.

I thought: "Love has no age limit" was bad. Remember that?

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/asda-sparks-furious-paedo-backlash-22201608

I think the question is, why have many people bought these people in at all?

Why? I don't get it. Surely there is a safeguarding lead in post at these places?

Where has safeguarding disappeared to all of a sudden?

What worries me is the lack of any rigorous response from the NSPCC.

Big on branding, big on social justice.

@FOJN

“A response from the child such as “I saw the Family Sex Show at the Theatre” would be a reasonable response they were not in fact at risk”.

An admission they know the show could conceal red flags.

Do we think they are grooming or that have already been groomed?

That's actually a good point. The show must contain a lot of language that's not suitable for 5 year olds otherwise why build in an excuse before you've seen it?

The NSPCC have also been responsible for promoting the myth that sex for a child is unacceptable if they don't enjoy it.

We know that grooming is slo about making the unacceptable acceptable. We know that many children can get a sexual response to sexual abuse. This is just wrong.

The NSPCC are unfit and have been for a long time - Google nspcc and Mumsnet to read many threads

@MrsOvertonsWindow

What worries me is the lack of any rigorous response from the NSPCC. All that word salad in response to a bunch of adults not only proposing to strip naked in front of other people's 5 years olds but openly stating that it's appropriate to discuss using pleasure to explore consent with young primary aged children.

They're the UK's leading child safeguarding charity yet they are evidently so captured by the porn lobby that they can't bring themselves to say"
"At face value, much of this looks inappropriate for very young children so we're going to explore further to establish the facts. Thanks for contacting us". Instead it's "Oh please don't speak to us. This is so awkward. Why don't you go and make some phone calls instead?"

Given their track record you'd imagine they are keen to repair their rather tarnished reputation but evidently not.

^^ I agree

@AlisonDonut

It is utterly fascinating how these things get past scrutiny. Almost as if those that want to [checks notes] abuse and get close to children get themselves into positions where they can facilitate those that abuse and get close to children.

Weird.

They've got it down to a fine art now haven't they

We clearly cannot start inspecting people's hard drives on the basis they have poor safeguarding knowledge but there is a pattern here.

Time and time again we see someone who has been associated, either directly or peripherally, with a campaign or project promoting a queer agenda is arrested for offences against children.

Do they initiate the projects/campaigns to create opportunity? Are they attracted to the projected because they recognise opportunity. Or are there so many abusers out there that their involvement is just a coincidence?

That screenshot in my previous post is from the nspcc's guidance for children.

Has the glossary been archived? Can someone link it please?

@IsabelaMadrigal thefamilysexshow.com/glossary

@FOJN

We clearly cannot start inspecting people's hard drives on the basis they have poor safeguarding knowledge but there is a pattern here.

Time and time again we see someone who has been associated, either directly or peripherally, with a campaign or project promoting a queer agenda is arrested for offences against children.

Do they initiate the projects/campaigns to create opportunity? Are they attracted to the projected because they recognise opportunity. Or are there so many abusers out there that their involvement is just a coincidence?

I daresay all of those things. I also think there are people who are True Believers, they really believe there should not be age limits etc for sexual consent, that they are oppressive. That may be a self-interested belief, but still really held.

@IsabelaMadrigal

Has the glossary been archived? Can someone link it please?

I have archived it on archive.org