The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage

[MatthewJTaylor]

The twitter account for the theatre group behind the Family Sex Show (@ThisEgg_) has revealed that there are performances planned of the Family Sex Show despite the cancellation of the national tour and they are looking for more venues to take them on.
It seems that the Bath performance(s) is/are running.

‘Why is this not getting the coverage it should do?’

Because between the praise for DQS in libraries, community activities such as Rainbow dildo butt monkey, and shows such as this, as per the upthread Spiegel article, there are genuinely conflicted adults who are unable to navigate their way between ideological freedom, the ulitimate welfare of children, politically motivated abuse, and CSA. People are so terrified that they might be repressed bigots who are harming their children through ideology that they've turned off their brains and innate sense of moral instinct.

Does what happened in a number of the Kinderladen qualify as abuse? According to the criteria to which Catholic priests have been subjected, it clearly does, says Alexander Schuller, the sociologist. "Objectively speaking, it was abuse, but subjectively it wasn't," says author Dannenberg. As outlandish as it seems in retrospect, the parents apparently had the welfare of the children in mind, not their own. For the adherents to the new movement, the child did not serve as a sex object to provide the adults with a means of satisfying their sexual urges. This differentiates politically motivated abuse from pedophilia.

'Other offences that might involve nudity
Exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires a person to intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. It is triable either way. Depending on the age of the defendant and the sentence that is imposed, an offender may be subject to the notification provisions (the sex offender register).

The need to prove that the person exposed their genitals intending that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress means that a naturist whose intention is limited to going about his or her lawful business naked will not be guilty of this offence.

Outraging public decency

At common law it is an offence to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature which outrages public decency. If conduct falls within the scope of a statutory offence, such as exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see above) it is better practice to charge that offence unless, exceptionally, the offence merits a higher penalty than that available in relation to the statutory offence. Outraging public decency is triable either way and there is no maximum penalty.

The requirement for the behaviour to 'outrage' public decency was said by Lord Simon in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and promotions) Ltd v DPP to: "go considerably beyond the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people".

The circumstances surrounding the conduct will need to be carefully considered. Section 66 SOA is available and normally to be preferred where it is done with the intention to cause alarm and distress.

Nudity in public alone with no aggravating features is very unlikely to amount to this (or any other) offence.'

This is from one of their tweets:

"For audiences who booked, or wanted to come to the show, we are sorry, we hope you will be able to soon."

It reads a little unnaturally. Do you think if they'd put 'come soon', it would have read better but had unfortunate connotations? They know exactly what they're doing.

Their vicious response to the 'cancellation' makes it very clear to me that there was no good will or naivety behind it. No apology made or consideration given to the nearly 40,000 complaints made. What continues to shock me is that any venue would host them. Do they not have their own safeguarding responsibilities?

My MP is Nadine Dorries (unfortunately). I think I will be emailing her about this in her capacity as SoS for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The fact that Arts Council England has money anywhere near this kind of grooming toolkit is outrageous. I thought it was horrifying before I saw the Zine content on their website. Now I’m just feeling white hot anger. I have infant school aged children this shit is peddled at and I can’t get my head around how anyone can’t see how dangerous and utterly inappropriate it is.

I don't have my main residential address in the UK, so it would be better if it was not me, but please could someone contact the police? I am a mental health professional and an expert on adult survivors of child sexual abuse. I commented quite extensively on previous threads. I was already incredibly outraged and enraged on behalf of past and future survivors, and contacted the NSPCC several d ago. I was not aware until this thread today of this animal masturbation aspact and the actual, in plain sight, internet grooming, that was attached to this whole show. This is even worse than we thought. Jesus H Christ, WTF was the Arts Council and other organisations that have put their name and logo to this actual sex offending thinking?

I got

And actually can't believe the group calling those of us who objected a "small group of people with extremist views". Asking about child safeguarding procedures is "extremist views"...right...

I suspect one reason why this isn't getting as much coverage as it should is that it's so fucking unbelievable. People will think, no they can't possibly be doing that, must be middle aged ladies getting hysterical.

That, and the confusion of the woke.

I think the Mail did an article on this before, hopefully they'll pick it up again.

Are all those pages archived? Just in case someone thinks to hide the evidence. I archived one but my access to the archive sites seems patchy.

We know exactly who it is sitting on their computers enjoying dreaming up an activity of getting tiny children to think about masturbation, Google it and DRAW PICTURES OF IT. Of course those people are always going to exist. We can't stop that. They are part of the wide spectrum of people that consitute humanity. We don't however have to openly sanction and encourage their activities and throw public funding at it.

Nudity in public alone with no aggravating features is very unlikely to amount to this (or any other) offence.

Slight derail but in that case why was "The Naked Rambler" pursued so relentlessly?

As far as I recall he was a harmless if eccentric chap who just liked roaming the moors naked.

Whilst in general I think nudists should reserve their nudity for designated areas - as someone who regularly dog walks in lonely areas I'm not keen on rounding a corner to find myself face to face with a naked man - nonetheless there seemed to be an authoritarian obsession with curtailing his activities at the time.

More about the Naked Rambler.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

I am no fan of the DM but I do hope they do pick this up again, with the latest kinks included. I have never been so disappointed in the Guardian in my life as I have been for their attitude on this issue.

@Absurdle

Are all those pages archived? Just in case someone thinks to hide the evidence. I archived one but my access to the archive sites seems patchy.

Bumping because this is important to do and I would but do I hell know how to and I'm off to work soon.

Masturbating animals was only posted today, I believe. I response to the uproar about safeguarding. Doubling down on the dodginess I suppose. I have archived but always good to have a few done.

@SmallSoupcon

In plain sight. And people ask how the Jimmy Savile thing happened. Like this. It happened like this. They are telling us exactly who they are, just like he did.

Yes, this.

Interesting how these plain sight groomers are also so keen to claim that 'woman' is an offensive term. Almost as if they know who will provide the most push back to their creepy attempts to sexualise children.

Talk about DARVO, it's unbelievable.

Weirdly when you Google either “The family sex show”, or “thefamilysexshow “ the site doesn’t appear in the first 3 pages of Google results. You have to put in the full url to get to the page thefamilysexshow.com

@FannyCann

Stephen Gough didn't just do it because he liked roaming naked. He had a strong point he was making about individual freedom and was prepared to spend years in jail to make it. He was certainly however harmless (and he was and is perhaps eccentric, but not mentally ill, he eventually stopped his naked rambling when his mum became ill and he had to care for her, so could not spend all his time in jail). The way he was persecuted was also a disgrace as far as I am concerned.

Gough's nakedness (and my own and my family's, incidentally, every summer on a designated naturist beach) is about as far from this disgusting paedophilic grooming as you can get!

Esecially if the masturbating animals thing is new, it really needs to be reported to the police, right now.

I thought I read on another thread that they had taken the "glossary" down. They haven't! It is still there.

Getting children to look up images of masturbating animals is so ludicrous as to almost be hilarious. I'd love to see the teacher's face if little Billy brought in a drawing of Simba or Shere Khan knocking out a crafty one! Red flags aplenty and rightly so.

Goodness only knows what the children would find in the process of looking up such images. An image search of 'The Family Sex Show' is already bad enough.

People are far too sensitive to the idea of an influential evangelical right-wing pulling the strings behind the scenes here. As someone who moves very much in that kind of world, I don't know a single Christian family or mainstream faith school that thinks that an abstinence approach is a good idea.

In fact the idea of a suppressive religious right is exactly what the sex positive people need in order to sell their ideology. There are thankfully very few children who grow up these days without an understanding of sex and sexuality or who are genuinely intolerant.

It's perfectly possible to teach children important things about how to keep themselves safe within the context of sex and relationships without exposing primary school kids to concepts of pegging, squirting, anal sex and play parties.

What the people behind this show have done is to take a kernel of truth - it's good for families to be open about sex, it's good for children to be given the information that they need to make good choices, it's good for children to learn that bodies aren't dirty etc and produce a totally distorted narrative.

People have been working out how to have fun in bed for millennia without the need to encourage children to get involved.

I can only add my name to the others here who are disgusted at the content and intention of 'The Family Sex Show'

@UsernameNotAvailableHmm

Content AND intention

That is exactly right, and important to say.

Interesting isn't it, how the Arts Council bowed to pressure to withdraw funding from an LGB Alliance project about gay history in the UK, while this company are dismissing tens of thousands of complaints (and if anything, making their content even more extreme in the process).

@UsernameNotAvailableHmm

I can only add my name to the others here who are disgusted at the content and intention of 'The Family Sex Show'

Same. Appalled. It is nothing but sinister.