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 possible this was created with secondary school pupils in mind. And then at some point something's gone wrong and someone's opened up the age rating. Perhaps they don't understand the concept of 'age appropriate'.

TBH I think it would be questionable regardless of the age of the children; to aim it at 5 yos is just incredible.

John Lydon tried to speak out.

Here's a clip of John Lydon being interviewed by Piers Morgan. The clip includes interview footage from 1978 where JL talks about Jimmy Savilles behaviour being an open secret, he knew as he spoke that part of the interview would be cut.

I’ve started a new thread to try to inform parents who may not be aware that the School of Sexuality Education is delivering ‘education’ in their child’s school. Given their connections with the Family Sex Show, I think parents deserve to know.

Thanks @Organictangerine there was already a thread but it has drifted down the list.

@MangyInseam

It occurred to me that one way to think about it is, if it were a film, what would the maturity rating be?

he film rating system isn't perfect, and films and theater aren't identical, but it could be suggestive. I think it would certainly not be rated for age 5.

It may scrap by with a U12A but a rating of 15 would be more likely.

www.bbfc.co.uk/about-classification/classification-guidelines

www.bbfc.co.uk/rating/12

U12A

Nudity
There may be nudity, but in a sexual context it must be brief and discreet.

Sex
Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed. Moderate sex references are permitted, but frequent crude references are unlikely to be acceptable.

www.bbfc.co.uk/rating/15

15

Nudity
There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context. Sexual nudity may be permitted but strong detail is likely to be brief or presented in a comic context.

Sex
Sexual activity may be portrayed, but usually without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour. Repeated very strong references, particularly those using pornographic language, are unlikely to be acceptable. Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal are unacceptable.

@SeanChailleach

Thanks *@Organictangerine* there was already a thread but it has drifted down the list.

Ohhh has it? Which category is it in?

It was in FWR sex and gender - where is the one you started?

[quote FOJN]John Lydon tried to speak out.

Here's a clip of John Lydon being interviewed by Piers Morgan. The clip includes interview footage from 1978 where JL talks about Jimmy Savilles behaviour being an open secret, he knew as he spoke that part of the interview would be cut.

[/quote] It’s things like this that keep me motivated to do my tiny bit in stopping anything of this nature drifting forwards unchallenged. I’m sure many people thought ‘Well it’s awful, but what can I do..?’ Or ‘Someone else will stop him’.

But if not us then who? Everyone seems to be turning a blind eye to the Family Sex Show, which I think is the most dangerous ‘entertainment’ since Savile in terms of openly normalising child involvement in sexuality.

@SeanChailleach

It was in FWR sex and gender - where is the one you started?

Shamelessly started in AIBU for traffic!

It doesn't help that no-one, apparently not even the cast know what this show will be. The stuff that's been put out seems inappropriate for at least some of the target audience. It may be when it's shown, everyone will be relieved/disappointed. If it wasn't for all the, I think, justifiable concern this wretched little show will have come and gone with no-one really noticing. At the moment it's a bit Passion of St Tibulus. The company have got masses of publicity. Perhaps, they'll bottle it and then complain of being cancelled. Perhaps, the show will go on and will be harmless, but if that's because it was overhyped or because they've been forced to see sense, might never be known.

I don’t think anyone should regret attempting to bring this show into the sunlight even if it has attracted a lot of publicity. The alternative is the ‘turn a blind eye and hope it goes away’ and since when has that ever worked?

Perhaps, the show will go on and will be harmless, but if that's because it was overhyped or because they've been forced to see sense, might never be known.

I think if it was harmless to begin with they would be more transparent about the shows contents. If they can't because they haven't finished developing it then what were they doing claiming it was suitable for 5+ and what were the venue's thinking when they agreed to host it.

They could modify it but unless they change the recommended age say to 11 or 13 plus, make it age appropriate for that age, remove the nudity, tone down the queer agenda and take some safeguarding advice it's still not going to be acceptable.

I want the groomers, paedophiles (I'm not going to use MAP) and their apologists to know we're watching and will speak up when they start pushing boundaries.

Here's the film rating for a 'U' film - suitable for all ages from 4 up:

Language

Infrequent use only of very mild bad language.

Nudity

Occasional nudity, with no sexual context.

Sex

Occasional nudity, with no sexual context.

And 'PG' ('General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. A PG film should not unsettle a child aged around eight or older. Unaccompanied children of any age may watch, but parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger, or more sensitive, children'.)

Language

Mild bad language only. Aggressive or very frequent use of mild bad language may result in a work being passed at a higher category.

Nudity

There may be nudity with no sexual context.

Sex

Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and innuendo only.

@DomesticatedZombie

I think it's possible this was created with secondary school pupils in mind. And then at some point something's gone wrong and someone's opened up the age rating. Perhaps they don't understand the concept of 'age appropriate'.

TBH I think it would be questionable regardless of the age of the children; to aim it at 5 yos is just incredible.

I wondered if they opened it up to a wider age range to tick some arcane Arts Council funding box.

It’s been cancelled

twitter.com/aspergerlicious/status/1515718552640237582?s=21

"Threat and abuse", they say.

I imagine there will be screenshots then. It couldn't possibly be that they are characterising middle-aged mothers as abusive for emailing about their safeguarding policy, could it?

Good result!

Would that "abuse" be people asking the NSPCC how they were involved with the show and the NSPCC responding that they weren't?

The sort of "abuse" that is actually people fact-checking and carrying out due diligence?

Win!

Great news.

So challenging the ethics of random adults stripping naked in front of very young children and discussing consent through pleasure with 5 - 10 year olds is "abuse"? Nope.

Hopefully there's finally been some pressure applied behind the scenes to ensure that children are safeguarded from deluded adults performing completely age inappropriate acts and conversations with very young children. And if they're only capable of protecting egos by blaming those insisting children are safeguarded, then that's their problem. Maybe Crispin Blunt is their role model?

Bottle it and complain of being cancelled it is then. They could have tried to address the concerns, maybe let a journalist sit in on the rehearsals. But no, easier to play the victim.

'abuse' - DARVO in action.

Tells you all about who they are and actually proves the women raising safeguarding concerns as right to be concerned.

The correct response to a safeguarding concern is to openly and transparently respond, show the safeguarding measures put in place in an open and above board way, show the risk assessments, not claim victimhood and that women raising safeguarding concerns about children is 'threatening' behaviour.

The only way that what women on here have been doing is 'threatening' is if you're a paedophile.

Overall, I think this is probably for the best.