The Family Sex Show - 'Cancel Culture' - in the Guardian

[DomesticatedZombie]

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

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

The Guardian is an embarrassment. Most articles seem to be written by very precious, privileged 20-somethings who inevitably have to shoe-horn in a word ending in -phobia or -ism. This Egg woman had the full house of such words. Yawn.

I've read that article three times and it still reads like nonsense. They seem willing to publish any old tripe in the Guardian Opinion section.
I wish I still had the confidence of the young and ignorant, but sure Josie is old enough to know better.
If it was just a relatively small protest, why wasn't it ignored? Were some actual influential grownups moved to look and thought 'fuck, no!'. Was the protest not that smaĺl? Both?
I think theEgg are the victims of their own hubris. Possibly, had they engaged with some of the critical voices, the show could have been salvaged. Perhaps it could still be?

It's the queer theory language. I don't think 'queerphobia' is a thing as nobody really knows what qualifies someone to be queer (unless it's the inability not to use silly jargon). I didn't see anything racist or fatphobic or ableist, but perhaps some people used slurs qualifying as such in their communications with the theatre group. As everything now is transphobia, I cannot tell if real transphobia was also in some of those private communications or not. Misogyny, well, it's everywhere and not a hate crime, either, and given that the website linked to the show is in itself might be seen asmisogynist, not sure how they might define that term.

When I last visited the website, it reminded us, in bold letters, that it's not only women who have vulvas. But we were not given any similar reminders about the possibility that not only men have penises. I think erasing the whole female sex is misogyny, but even if others disagree on that the disparate treatment of the two sexes shows great contempt towards only one of them.

And one of the songs in the show discusses clitoris from the point of view of someone who clearly doesn't have one ( roughly "I can't find it, where is it?" and it was described as 'wet and warm').

It wasn't a small group of critics, by the way. Is this the hill on which the Guardian wants to die?

Yes exactly @CharlieParley - this is basically what I was about to post but you've summed it up there

Fatphobia? That's quite a stretch.

I think this woman falls into the "useful idiot" category. The problem with a set up that expects people to think things through for themselves is that quite a lot of people are not really very good at thinking and just adopt whatever the general thinking is around them. And higher education now seems mainly predicated on telling people what they already believe, so no help there.

I seem to remember that the lyrics to the song about “where’s my clitoris?” were written by a man 🤮

As for “not only women have vulvas” - tiresome bullshit.

"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"

Ah, the paedos' defence - I had no control over what I saw.
What bollocks. Most of what we see isn't just random images flying at our retinas.

Weird to write an article about a bunch of stuff that's so provably wrong.

age appropriate

Not a phrase that I have seen this company use even once. As I understand it, anyone working with children, in ed, in sex ed, is completely and utterly conversant with this phrase. Because a 5 year old is not the same as an 8 year old is not hte same as a 12, 15 or 18 year old.

Idiots. Utter idiots.

"A small campaign’s capacity to cancel – unseen – The Family Sex Show is far more frightening than anything I had to say in it"

No, it isn't.

"I am the producer and co-creator of a piece of theatre that was cancelled before it had even been seen."
I thought people saw it and said how great it was? Which is true?

"Still, an online group thought it should not even be seen so it could be judged fairly."
It's not just 'an online group', whatever that means. It's many people, some of whom used the internet to communicate their concerns.

"The Family Sex Show is a piece of theatre for everyone. We suggest that this can include children over the age of five too; and we ask that anyone under 16 is accompanied by a guardian" Eh? Everyone, and additionally children over five? So not children under 5?

"The NSPCC also suggests that children under five show curiosity about naked bodies." There is a link to an NSPCC page, which emphasises that "It is uncommon for younger children to discuss specific sexual acts, use explicit sexual language or have adult-like sexual contact with other people" in the under-5's section, and in general "In general, typical sexual behaviour should be:
displayed towards children of a similar age, stage of development and physical size, who know each other well and voluntary and consensual", none of which I'd argue apply to an adult exposing their naked body to a 5-year-old.

"It is a show for adults too. We have a lot to learn from one another, no matter what our age." If you are genuinely teaching me something new about sex, I very much doubt it is something that is appropriate for a 5yo.

"No one is an expert on anything other than themselves." Yes, they are. (And why would I want to see a theatre show by amateurs?)

"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 do, though, if we try.

"By not talking about issues relating to relationships and sex we are putting them in a position of vulnerability increasing the potential for harm." Pretending they think opposing this show means 'not talking' about this? Why? They are arguing that the only way to talk about this is for naked adult strangers to talk to your child?

"I believe that honesty builds trust." so if I suspect you are dishonest, I shouldn't trust you? Good to know.

"One of their aims is to promote safeguarding children, young people and vulnerable adults from abuse and harm." Name the safeguarding principles you are led by in this show, then.

"We believe the cancellation of the show is reflective of this shame and fear"
Nope, not in my case

"of structural and societal attitudes towards relationships and sex education" Safeguarding, you mean?

"How does this event speak to power in the UK? Who has it, and how will they use it?" Interesting question. I suggest watching the Jimmy Savile documentary to learn about how power can be gained in all sections of society by appealing to popularity with children.

Interesting also how not one single concern, of the many raised, has been addressed. Perhaps she just ran out of time.

Absolutely!

Yes the fact they'd rather cancel it than make it for an older (say 16+) age group is rather disturbing.

Agree. Just set appropriate age limits, FFS. it's not difficult.

We are on it.

"It gained some traction and led to a petition on the platform Citizen Go, which is believed to have links with extremist hard-right Christian groups in the US"

So who believes this and do they have evidence?

"Was the aim just to list lots of isms and phobias!"

Queerphobia and transphobia make the cut but not homophobia.

'Believed' to have links to the Christian far right. The guardian is meant to be a newspaper. Couldn't someone look into to it to see if it does or does not? And if they couldn't be bothered, don't mention it at all???? It reads like they're just mud slinging.

It reminds me of when the Guardian US reporter complained about “anti-paedophile protestors”. So determined to see everything as “anti-trans” her brain fell out and she tweeted that.

It's the Opinion section, they'll print any rubbish. I expect they just check it isn't libellous.

What a very silly young woman.

Thank you 2falls. If SSA write a letter and the Guardian don't publish it, then we'll all know what the Guardian stands for.

I can't believe the original article got past the editors. So many lies, so many things that could be fact checked and weren't.

I simply don't believe they were subject to violent threats. There has been no evidence at all that this is true. None. If it's true and not a massive lie (like the massive lie they'd had expert safeguarding input to the show) then prove it.

'I believe that honesty builds trust' - well yes and the Family Sex Show have lied multiple times.

I'm rather fed up of being accused of violence when I mildly raise safeguarding concerns.

Words matter and they do not mean whatever people want them to. It's not 'violence' or 'abuse' to raise safeguarding concerns. You could argue it's abusive (to children) NOT to raise safeguarding concerns.

I don't think they should be able to just sling mud at concerned parents without any consequence.

Shit like that makes it difficult to raise safeguarding concerns and makes children less safe. In itself it's a red flag to demonise those raising reasonable concerns.

No one is an expert on anything other than themselves

This alone is such an utterly fatuous, bone-headed statement. Every author of meticulously-researched academic studies; every leading authority in their field; every historian; every scientist and doctor at the cutting edge of new developments……just give up now, why don’t you? Josie Dale-Jones from ThisEgg says you aren’t all that.

FFS. It’s just painful.

Brilliant. Thank you.

Agree.

Personally I want an actual expert - someone who's studied aeronautical engineering for years - to design the planes I travel on.

I'm guessing Josie doesn't employ this 'we're all only experts in ourselves' approach that she employs to safeguarding kids to things where she could die if an actual expert (with years of training and experience) hasn't been involved. E.g. flying, or driving a car, or any medical procedures.

If not we're in Darwin award territory.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2019/08/21/10-years-on-why-we-still-need-better-sex-education-for-the-digital-world/

These are the 'safeguarding experts' who advised Josie on The Family Sex Show. Sexplain is now School Of Sexuality Education. They are involved in NSPCC-backed research on sexting in schools with Prof Jessica Ringrose. The research highlighted the prevalence of sexting and exposure to online porn among schoolchildren, how boys gain approval from their friends for receiving nudes from girls and call the girls slags for sending them, how girls get coerced into sending nudes in return for unsolicited dick pics, how kids end up seeing porn online without even looking for it, how Snapchat and Instagram are the worst culprits for kids receiving pornographic messages from online strangers and bots but the reporting procedures are inadequate and kids don't bother reporting anyway. And yet the researchers' solution is not to ban smartphones in schools, advise parents on supervising their kids when using the internet so they can be safe online and to prevent children's access to unsafe social media apps. It's to throw their hands up and say 'oh well all the kids see porn and send each other nudes now. We have to teach them how to do it ethically'. Hence the 'digital defence lessons'. Assuming that children have an adult capacity to consent and adult levels of reasoning and judgement. Which they obviously don't. Even if TFSS is cancelled, this crap has been and is continuing to get pushed into schools, using the credibility afforded by their NSPCC-backed research and self-appointed 'expert' academics spouting a lot of post-humanist woo-woo that might sound clever and progressive to some teachers wondering how to provide RSE in their school but is actually dangerous nonsense.

Sorry, I'm a bit cross about it all at the moment.