Sex toys on display at child friendly day for Out There Queer Fest Exeter

[IwantToRetire]

It was reported that one stall displayed anatomical models of male and female genitalia, a condom-fitting device, condoms, and a penis-girth measuring card. Children as young as three were said to be present.
Devon County Council did not directly receive any complaints about the event from parents at the time, but Cllr Hill insisted there had been a safeguarding oversight.

His motion called for an independent review and an assurance on safeguarding policies and added: “This motion seeks to ensure that children and vulnerable people are protected from inappropriate material, unsafe environments, and disorderly conduct at publicly funded events.”

Cllr Hill said his motion was about protecting children while the cabinet’s response – that the council already had robust safeguarding procedures in place – was about protecting the council.

Full article https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/26156426.council-clash-sex-toy-stall-row/

@Mt563 I think over-all you make a a good point, however,

But, there is no need to tar all queer people or events with those negative ideas, or assume all lqbtq things are promoting them.

Queer is an identity class and academic theory, one that many gays and lesbians don't identify into or accept as valid. It is reasonable to broadly criticise a theory for the contents of that theory, though it would take a multi-volume set to layout a comprehensive refutation of such a vast, complex and opaque field as queer studies. So, necessarily criticisms are made with a broad brush and understanding that many of the readers here have read and argued these points before.

To put it more plainly, 'queer' as a synonym gay, lesbian and bisexual, should be strictly separated from its meaning as an identity, sensibility, outsider stance, theory, gender spectrum, and the panoply of other meanings bunched under its banner.

I've done more reading on queer theory. There have definitely been some problematic characters associated with the academic discipline (specifically, supporting pedopholia) but it seems, like critical race theory, some quotes and ideas have been taken out of context/ misunderstood because it was written for an academic audience. I'm not excusing pedophilia or apologists for pedophilia.

”don’t look there”

Older children, in my view, should be given appropriate and factual sex education. Knowledge of contraception is power, particularly for young women, which is why there are forces who wish to hide that knowledge from them and restrict their access to basic contraception.

So you are telling me the stall also provided information about the contraceptive pill, coils, implants, injections, caps? Evidence please because it sounds more like you are excusing the grooming of young children by normalising sex paraphernalia.

Sorry OP, I’m with the people wondering why you’re drumming up outrage about last year’s news. It’s Pride month right now, are they running it again this year?

I’ve been working away at the safeguarding/women’s rights issues for some time now and am aware there have been issues. But I do not have the energy to be outraged about last year, I’m only interested in engaging with NOW.

That sounds very like John Swinney denying the SNP needed to look at its financial controls because Murrell’s embezzlement took place in the past.

I would argue the fact that women's voices were ignored and silenced last year is very important for safeguarding and feminism today and tomorrow.

Because the organisers and the Council who runs the library did get queries about the age-appropriateness of the event. They ignored and belittled them.

😂 so true

But none of the things described are 'sex toys'. One may disagree with the suitability of them at a family event, but calling them 'sex toys' decidedly smacks of that form of homophobia that insists that being gay is 'an adult topic'.

This event was organised by outthere.org.uk. Take a look at their website or social media. They freely mix their "family friendly", child/young people focussed content and events, and their events which are clearly aimed at adults (see attached images). This is inappropriate and someone need to have a word with them. If they are handing out branded material to children, those children could understandably assume their website and socials are child orientated. Instead they will see lots of drag queens, lots of gender identity ideology, lots of sexually suggestive stuff all wrapped up in rainbows, sparkles and with free stickers and lollipops.

If this was a sex ed charity aimed at heterosexual children I would have exactly the same concerns.

Images didn't attach but you can take a look for yourself. They are outtheretogetheruk on IG.

Sexual activity, be it gay or straight, IS an adult topic.

Stop trying to normalise sex exposure to children.

Echobelly demonstrating the basics of queer theory. It’s all about blurring those lines until they don’t exist any more.

There is a very good reason why paedophiles and paedophile apologists are deeply involved in the queer theory school of thought.

Teenagers will learn about condoms and using them etc at school, but with their peers in a school by trained people who presumably are DBS checked. It’s a bit different to some unknown adults in a library where there are other members of the public present.

The investigation found there was pornographic material and dildos on display for children to see.

This is the BBC headline today about the story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17ylqjl9qno

If you can't see it, it says:

'Lessons learned' over library's LGBT youth event

I think you need to read more carefully:

In its report, Libraries Unlimited said the material on the stall in question "was for educational purposes and there was no item or imagery of a pornographic or explicit nature".

(Libraries Unlimited is the organisation who carried out the investigation).

You're correct that the (Lib Dem run) investigation found that, but the council's own member of staff wrote about the event:

'Sexually explicit or pornographic materials do not meet educational objectives'

That doesn't mean any were on display. That's just setting out the standard.

I think you need to read the whole thing:

Emails from council officers said according to safeguarding guidance "educational resources that explain sexual health, consent, anatomy, or relationships support statutory personal, social, health, and economic education goals".

However, they added: "Sexually explicit or pornographic materials, however, do not meet educational objectives and may conflict with safeguarding and appropriateness standards."

In its report, Libraries Unlimited said the material on the stall in question "was for educational purposes and there was no item or imagery of a pornographic or explicit nature".

It said: "There were no items or promotions that would usually be associated with children that were then used in an inappropriate way to entice engagement or placed with adult only material."

The Libraries Unlimited investigation found "no specific safeguarding incidents have been found to have occurred at the event".

So the BBC report led with this.

Lessons have been learned" in a long-running row over the appearance of sex education objects including anatomical models of genitalia at a "family-friendly" event held at a library, says a council leader.

Maybe Libraries Unlimited have a different view on what constitutes ‘explicit’.

It also said:

It said: "There were no items or promotions that would usually be associated with children that were then used in an inappropriate way to entice engagement or placed with adult only material."

Which isn’t saying that there were no items or materials inappropriate for children at a ‘family’ friendly event.

This whole article is written in a deliberately obfuscatory way. If these items were so suitable for children, why don’t they include pictures to demonstrate that?

It said: "There were no items or promotions that would usually be associated with children that were then used in an inappropriate way to entice engagement or placed with adult only material."

so there WAS adult only material on display that children could come across.

And calling something educational does not make something suitable for children.

Yup. And the article was written so confusingly that although Finchie read it very carefully, he or she was still misled.

All they needed to do was post a picture of the items or stall being complained about. The BBC are literally paid to report the news clearly. Sadly I think they are intentionally complicit in the erosion of boundaries in this way.

And there are so many ready to defend it. Or pretend it’s not happening.

How exactly have you come to that conclusion? That paragraph says nothing of the sort.

I've read it carefully. I don't think others have. Or they have, but reading comprehension is poor and they assume because something (adult-only material) is mentioned (in the context of standard that should be upheld) that it must mean it was physically present (when the report is clear that there was nothing of an explicit or pornographic nature on display).

Lessons have been learned" in a long-running row over the appearance of sex education objects including anatomical models of genitalia at a "family-friendly" event held at a library, says a council leader.

I don’t mean to be rude but do you understand what they mean by ‘the appearance of sex education objects at a family friendly event’?

It means they were there. They had appeared and were apparent.

when the report is clear that there was nothing of an explicit or pornographic nature on display).

Given the deliberate obfuscation in the article I don’t think we can be confident that what LU means by ‘explicit’ is the meaning that most would take. It sounds like they don’t include anatomical ‘sex education’ objects as ‘explicit’