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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage

354 replies

MatthewJTaylor · 19/04/2022 10:34

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.

The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage
OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
MrsOvertonsWindow · 19/04/2022 15:53

IANAL but In relation to children, some of the specific crimes under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 could apply to some of the online suggestions (eg, google masturbating animals) which the company are clear are aimed at 5 year old children upwards? (Section 10: Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity?). As might the proposal for adults to deliberately display their naked bodies to unknown very young children?

Trouble is that most sexual offences are centred around the targeting of individual children. A teacher, police officer, doctor, nurse stripping naked in front of unrelated primary aged children would be subject to immediate disciplinary action by their employers and regulatory body. But a group of "actors" seems to have a get out clause with no responsible adults interested in safeguarding children in the Arts / theatre world and the specific criminal offences may not apply to children in an audience.

It would be great if one of our knowledgable police people / lawyers could give an insight into this aspect of the law (obviously not those in thrall to the Stonewall fantasy versions of our laws) Wink

DomesticatedZombie · 19/04/2022 15:54

@BraveBananaBadge

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).
That was an arts organisation distributing funds, not the Arts Council themselves. But yes.
Organictangerine · 19/04/2022 15:54

I’ve emailed Nadine Dorries in her position of SOS of culture media and sport. If anyone else wants to do the same her email address is:
[email protected]

theDudesmummy · 19/04/2022 15:54

Can someone point me to where the masturbating animals bit is, I cannot see it. I plan to make a report to CEOP.

safeguardingnonos · 19/04/2022 15:57

NCed to say that parts of the sexual health and education charities world are not as clued up about safeguarding as I expected.

A few years back I had a close friend who was a very experienced (10 years plus) sexual health educator at a respectable medium sized sexual health charity with government contracts, work in schools etc. I went to one of her sessions for university students, and was shocked by what happened. She began a discussion with all of us young adults about our experiences of childhood masturbation and said that any hang ups we had about sex began when we were not able to discuss masturbation openly with our parents years ago when we began masturbating.

My own mother had told me, aged 13 or 14, that masturbation was healthy and normal, so when my friend started down this line of thought, I assumed that was the sort of parental support my friend was saying we should all have received. But then my friend claimed that young children ought to be confident describing the details of their masturbatory practices to parents and teachers (‘I like to masturbate by…’) and that children should talk to family and other adults about the details of their orgasms (‘I had a great orgasm this morning mum’). One person in the group challenged my friend about this, but she humiliated him for being a prude. There was no mention of child safeguarding or of appropriate boundaries between children and adults.

I don’t know if my former friend said the same things when she went into schools - presumably not, since she was invited back, though she often complained about how ‘conservative’ schools were. This session was talking to young adults about our memories of our childhoods. But her philosophy was that silence about any aspect of sex enabled abuse, that detailed discussion of sex was always beneficial, including between adults and children, and that emphasis on pleasure was the best way to prevent abuse and assault. I had no reason to think my friend had any inappropriate interest in children - she didn’t have much interest in them of any kind to my knowledge, and preferred working with adults. I knew many other staff at the charity, and so far as I could tell, they all had the same philosophy and the same approach to education. I had the impression that my ex-friend’s worldview represented the corporate view of the charity she worked for, though I don’t know if her colleagues shared her specific views on children talking to adults about masturbation.

I didn’t know who to complain to or what to do, and I wasn’t confident at that time in describing about what was wrong with what I had heard. This charity were the experts, so far as I knew. This wasn’t long ago though and I suspect that there are many such charities with a similar philosophy that goes unchallenged, regardless of the safeguarding implications.

I haven’t heard much comment on the Family Sex Show from the sexual health charities sector, and the School of Sexuality Education don’t seem to have disavowed the show, even though their own expertise is only with KS3+, and this show is aimed at young children. Basically I’m wondering whether there are quite a few people in this field who don’t understand safeguarding as they ought to, potentially enabling those with a nefarious agenda to operate in plain sight.

Maybe the government needs to look at toughening up safeguarding training for anyone offering any sexual health education to children in school or out of it? My understanding is that at the moment there’s actually no requirement for organisations offering SRE guest sessions in youth clubs, community centres or even schools to have done any safeguarding training, but hopefully a teacher can correct me.

tabbycatstripy · 19/04/2022 16:00

You go to their url. Familysexshow .com

You go to the Zine section.

It’s in bodies and touching.

tabbycatstripy · 19/04/2022 16:00

‘Basically I’m wondering whether there are quite a few people in this field who don’t understand safeguarding as they ought to, potentially enabling those with a nefarious agenda to operate in plain sight.’

Yes.

Organictangerine · 19/04/2022 16:03
Grin
The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage
littlbrowndog · 19/04/2022 16:08

Unbelievable

The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage
tabbycatstripy · 19/04/2022 16:09

The language is so groomy throughout. 5 year olds don’t ‘get naked’. That is a troubling way to think about children who usually remove clothes for bath, bed, swimming, or play.

Adults having sex ‘get naked’.

littlbrowndog · 19/04/2022 16:10

Well

The Family Sex Show to continue, despite widespread outrage
Absurdle · 19/04/2022 16:11

Maybe the government needs to look at toughening up safeguarding training for anyone offering any sexual health education to children in school or out of it?

This sounds like a really good idea. Actually I’m starting to wonder if all organisations, even those not in directly relevant sectors should get safeguarding training. Like Stonewall training but useful. Imagine if large corporations started competing with each other to go above and beyond on safeguarding vulnerable populations like they did to move up Stonewall’s list.

Safeguarding training for people educating kids about sexuality should be a bare minimum.

BraveBananaBadge · 19/04/2022 16:11

Ah yes DomesticatedZombie I stand corrected, it was Arts Council cash distributed by community foundations.

nepeta · 19/04/2022 16:11

Doesn't really matter what the intention of this sow might be; it's simply exactly how someone would groom very small children so that they could be more easily exploited.

I get the strong feeling that no child psychologist was consulted in the design of that zine, for instance.

nepeta · 19/04/2022 16:12

I will leave my typo above as it is appropriate.

theDudesmummy · 19/04/2022 16:17

OK, thanks for that link, I have made a report to CEOP. Others make like to as well.

MangyInseam · 19/04/2022 16:18

@tabbycatstripy

‘Basically I’m wondering whether there are quite a few people in this field who don’t understand safeguarding as they ought to, potentially enabling those with a nefarious agenda to operate in plain sight.’

Yes.

I don't think it's just safeguarding.

They don't understand children, child development, or child sexual development.

I would argue they also have a distorted vision of healthy sexuality generally. And personal boundaries.

theDudesmummy · 19/04/2022 16:18

www.ceop.police.uk/Safety-Centre/

theDudesmummy · 19/04/2022 16:21

I belive many of the people involved in show/website will be naive, well-meaning young people who have no idea what this is all about. Some will have had their own problematic sexual experiences no doubt. Behind it all though are the real backers. They know exactly what they are doing by grooming society in the way they are.

theDudesmummy · 19/04/2022 16:24

The new stuff I have seen on the website today goes way way beyond not understanding safeguarding. This is not being done from a position of ignorance. It is being done in the full understading of what is going on here.

Artichokeleaves · 19/04/2022 16:34

Maybe the government needs to look at toughening up safeguarding training for anyone offering any sexual health education to children in school or out of it

We are long past the point where anyone providing any content for children should be able to demonstrate qualifications and credentials to do so. We had the very inappropriate materials distributed by a supermarket a few years ago who had seen shiny and sounding good and mistaken that for appropriate content. We live in times where some groups have excellent marketing but absolutely no bloody idea of appropriacy or qualifications, and where certain political agendas are furthering content that, whatever the reason for doing so, is very questionable in its actions and intents and suitability as well as being heavily biased and factually incorrect presented as the one True Way.

It requires heavy regulation. Trust no longer works.

However safeguarding training also needs to become a qualification that requires to be actually passed based on demonstrated knowledge and a signed agreement to follow the practice of the training, not just sat through as time served/exposure to information. I'm reminded of Challoner, who despite having been involved in safeguarding, was found during an inquiry to be incapable of understanding it .

DomesticatedZombie · 19/04/2022 16:40

@Artichokeleaves

Maybe the government needs to look at toughening up safeguarding training for anyone offering any sexual health education to children in school or out of it

We are long past the point where anyone providing any content for children should be able to demonstrate qualifications and credentials to do so. We had the very inappropriate materials distributed by a supermarket a few years ago who had seen shiny and sounding good and mistaken that for appropriate content. We live in times where some groups have excellent marketing but absolutely no bloody idea of appropriacy or qualifications, and where certain political agendas are furthering content that, whatever the reason for doing so, is very questionable in its actions and intents and suitability as well as being heavily biased and factually incorrect presented as the one True Way.

It requires heavy regulation. Trust no longer works.

However safeguarding training also needs to become a qualification that requires to be actually passed based on demonstrated knowledge and a signed agreement to follow the practice of the training, not just sat through as time served/exposure to information. I'm reminded of Challoner, who despite having been involved in safeguarding, was found during an inquiry to be incapable of understanding it .

200%

This show is a good demonstration of what happens when queer theory/gender ideology is put into practise.

You get adults inviting children to search the internet for 'animals masturbating' and draw pictures of the images they see.

And said adults complaining that people raising safeguarding concerns are just pearl clutching.

It's a perfect illustration of all the issues involved.

OatSprout · 19/04/2022 16:47

@theDudesmummy

The new stuff I have seen on the website today goes way way beyond not understanding safeguarding. This is not being done from a position of ignorance. It is being done in the full understading of what is going on here.
I agree

If the intention is ‘only’ to talk to children about sexually explicit themes that go far beyond simple anatomical descriptions, for the adults to “get naked” in front of the children and direct children to search the internet for animals masturbating, then that intention is plain wrong.

I can’t find any excuses for it. It’s impossible to be that naive these days. They have an agenda/ ideology and have planned and consulted with others to push it.

Omemiserum · 19/04/2022 16:59

Any of you old enough to remember the 'paedophile information exchange', supported for a while by labour ministers such as Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman. All that needs for this rubbish to flourish is for decent people to say nothing.

CompulsiveSoupEater · 19/04/2022 16:59

I doubt anyone involved in the writing of this show or the web content have children if their own or they’d understand just how inappropriate it was.