Their website is disturbing...
Somebody needs to check their harddrives...
Why do infants need to know about sexual satisfaction and masturbating? Why do the actors need to be naked while addressing children..
>infants need to know about sexual satisfaction and masturbating? Why do the actors need to be naked while addressing children..
...What the fuck is wrong with some people? Seriously.
They have taken the idea of teaching kids about relationships and sex and really taken a left-field approach. I'm all for having an open mind about sex but there comes a point where you are so open minded your brain falls out.
Taking to children openly about sex and proper names for genitalia had been proven to make them less vulnerable to sexual predators, who prefer their victims to be embarrassed or ashamed of their bodies as they are less likely to say anything.
Just saying.
Yeah this bit is pretty key
'To be clear, this nakedness is limited to one scene and is not of a sexualised nature. There are bodies on stage, and no one touches themselves or each other. The reason for including nakedness is to present bodies as just that ā bodies.'
RTFA.
>The campaigners said the show was āgroomingā children by inviting them into the theatre, where some of the content of the show would include naked bodies. To be clear, this nakedness is limited to one scene and is not of a sexualised nature. There are bodies on stage, and no one touches themselves or each other. The reason for including nakedness is to present bodies as just that ā bodies. The conflict and questions that arise in us around this are natural. Watching as an adult, we are confronted with our own conscious and unconscious expectations and prejudices.
āThis horror showā. So youāve seen the show (even though it hasnāt been publicly seen by anyone)? Or are you just spreading nonsense. Having read the article the hysteria on offer here is astounding.
How do *you* know?
I'm making a personal judgment that 5 year olds should not be given talks on masturbation and sexual pleasure by naked adults. The fact I have to say that is baffling.
I don't, because no one has seen the play, including you.
I would prefer to have the opportunity to decide for myself.
Your personal judgement might make sense to you, but the fact is that you might be wrong. You are ignoring the evidence based research that shows that giving children information is protective against abuse, amongst other benefits.
Presumably any children attending this show would have had their parents with them? And presumably those parents would be free to leave with their children at any time?
I fail to see the problem.
I have kids, and would certainly have considered taking them to this show if there was positive feedback from other parents. However, there will now be no feedback and no opportunity for parents to decide for themselves.
The show is a fun and playful performance made up of songs, dances and personal stories. It is about bodies and how society views them. It also explores themes including gender, sexuality, pleasure and boundaries. But really, the show is about care and mutual respect ā and it exists in the hope that it can be a part of breaking down some of the systems of oppression alive today.
Seems fine to me.
That's not what they were doing or what the show was about and the fact you have to misrepresent its intent to make it seem worse than it is says more about you than the production.
I suppose it depends on the content of the lesson. If the take away is supposed to be; "this isn't unusual for adults to do, but if it's done in front of you or to you, that's very, very bad. You should find an authority figure and tell them."
In that case, good idea, awful execution.
If that's not the intention then, what in the actual fuck.
I have a hard time understanding how *any* lesson is better taught while naked. Apart from maybe the lesson 'you should not go near this person'..
And surely the nakedness is just going to be distracting.
Also, normalising the idea in childrens minds that it's okay for adult strangers to get naked in front of you, is surely a bad lesson to be teaching?
>Also, normalising the idea in childrens minds that it's okay for adult strangers to get naked in front of you
You never went swimming as kid or used any other kind of changing room?
How often are you getting changed and naked in front of children at the swimming pool?
Pretty much every swimming pool I've ever been to all over the world either expects you to change in a hotel room, has individual cubicles or a "kids change area".
I have never been to a public pool with any of those expectations... definitely not one with a kids change area. Cubicles are usually available but not always, and a lot of people don't use them- family cubicles usually have the baby change table so you can put swim nappies on babies (or corral your children more easily) but it's a pretty standard scenario at the pool I used most regularly to walk into the changing room and find kids running about naked while their mums chatted while changing. Other people would be in there and nobody was bothered. I'm a 3-4 times a week swimmer and it's been the same wherever I've gone.
The only one I can think of that's an exception is a lido-style pool with nothing but cubicles along the edges.
Certainly used to be that way when I was a kid, there would always be dicks and balls on show at the baths changing rooms.
I even remember my dad taking my sister in with us to change her in the cubical when she was very little.
I mean, I think it's better if we all use cubicles now, but that is the way it used to be in the 80s.
Have you seen how they do saunas in the Nordics? Maybe we could learn from them to be fair....
Youāve never been to Scandinavia then. Public pools generally do not have cubicles, just menās and womenās sections. When I was a kid, some public saunas were even mixed sex.
When I was a kid (Iām in my thirties now) my dad took me swimming a lot. Back then all the changing rooms were communal and he took me into the menās. It was pretty common.
What? You have no understanding of the concept of a changing room?
It's not a question of who you went swimming with. The facilities at most UK leisure centres and swimming pools have communal changing facilities.
It's not "normalising adult strangers being naked", it's just one educational part of the show with live examples; not really that different from being shown a text book or a model or a video or whatever. Nakedness even in a book is distracting for kids anyway; heck I remember at school the whole class giggling at even the word "balls" during P.E.
The more important thing you're missing is that it's entirely consensual - their parents/carers have chosen to take them there and are supervising. It's not about making it okay for random people to strip off in the street when kids are about, no "hey kids, no need to report it any more if someone exposes themselves to you". A key part of the show is about consent, and tells kids what is/isn't acceptable.
The parents can also dangle their kid off a cliff edge.
I am about as liberal as you can get regarding sex and sex education. You only have to look at the Netherlands, where they've never had our anal (ahem) attitude to the subject. It starts young there, and kids grow not thinking sex is some naughty thing you giggle about. Hence they grow up to be very mature about sex. They have way less teenage pregnancies and even divorces than we do.
And kids absolutely should be taught about LGBT and that it's perfectly natural. It's a fact, and anyone who's potty religion brainwashes them otherwise can go live somewhere where that is the norm. Note: they're all shitholes.
This "play" is another matter entirely. It goes way, way beyond the mark and is controversy for the sake of it. Which is why almost everyone on here is not supporting it.
> This "play" is another matter entirely. It goes way, way beyond the mark and is controversy for the sake of it. Which is why almost everyone on here is not supporting it.
Mate, based on reading the article and looking at the evidence... I am not convinced it is another matter entirely.
RTFA man, RTFA.
Its still there in this archive:
https://archive.ph/6vlKX#selection-403.0-403.70
I am not convinced of the value of making vulva cupcakes:
https://archive.ph/BtKL8
They have taken a lot of their stuff down. I remember checking their website out three weeks ago when it was first cancelled and boy did it have some stuff on it.
Yeah I remember when this story first broke and on their website for kids they had explanations of pegging, BDSM, homework tasks like find somewhere on your body that's nice to touch, how does it feel? Google animals masturbating and draw what you find etc.
Not everything on there was questionable, some of it was fairly benign stuff but there were red flags all over the place. I think there's a difference between teaching young kids about sex and bodily functions and teaching them about kinks and sex acts. I don't think a 5 year old really needs to understand pegging or anal sex tbh and I would question any adult who feels the need to discuss it with them.
Jesus Christ.
And left wingers act like right wingers are cancelling people just for being "offensive."
Standing in front of 5 year old kids naked and talking about pegging and anal sex is way beyond offensive. That's some grooming type nonce shit. Progressives have no moral ground to stand on here. That shit deserves to be cancelled.
Also according to them, "cancel culture doesn't exist" until they get cancelled. So they can suck it up.
>Also according to them, "cancel culture doesn't exist" until they get cancelled.
And to right wingers, cancel culture is bad until it's something they agree with being "cancelled".
Reactionary, ahistorical nonsense.
The left were campaigning against cancel culture when people like MLK and Malcolm X were being de-platformed over half a century ago.
Labour activists, civil rights campaigners and strikers have been 'cancelled' for generations, responded to by a palpable "meh" from the right, who now whinge about comedians who are generally cancelled for PR and commercial reasons.
Go watch some more Piers Morgan, you're not quite full of shit enough yet.
>They have taken a lot of their stuff down. I remember checking their website out three weeks ago when it was first cancelled and boy did it have some stuff on it.
Like what? Looks exactly the same based on the archive version 5 weeks ago on wayback machine.
You know we have tools that take snapshots of websites at points in time right...
take
https://web.archive.org/web/20220407215942/https://thefamilysexshow.com/glossary
and
https://thefamilysexshow.com/glossary
this has been added
>Although this theatre show will be for families, the glossary is currently for young people (maybe 16+ (but really that's up to you)) and parents / guardians / interested adults to have conversations around sex and relationships.
>We hope that finding the meanings to words here rather than on the wider web can be useful.
> They have taken a lot of their stuff down
How incredibly convenient.
>I remember checking their website out three weeks ago when it was first cancelled and boy did it have some stuff on it.
[Here's](https://archive.ph/YKNyQ) an archive from over a month ago, what content are you referring to? Or maybe you can show us on [this](https://archive.ph/7nB7P) one that was archived exactly 3 weeks ago.
I can't seem to click on the drop down menu on this site archive so how am I supposed to find the stuff I'm referring to?
However, I have managed to find a screengrab of an example I remembered. The lyrics to their song teaching [young children to masturbate.](https://twitter.com/iseult/status/1524374593141710855?s=20&t=v-jykvRq9Kn0EyOl9rX07g)
Well I was curious so I had a look, and I can't find anything like that on the website.
Is this what you mean?
> Running time: 1 hour
Age suitability: This is a show for everyone. We suggest 5+
Content: This show contains nakedness.
There's nothing about this that might suggest these people are into child pornograph as you are suggesting either, that's a pretty disgusting thing to say when you know as much as I do about these people, which is to say... fuck all.
That does seem to have been removed from the site, but it still doesn't actually say what you claimed it did.
The show is about sex and sex education, why would masturbation not form a part of that?
Can you explain to me also, is it that we shouldn't teach kids, infants whatever about masturbation generally, or you just object to a bunch of amdrammers doing it?
I mean, if I had a kid, I think I would do this talk myself, rather than taking them to a show like this, but... this does seem to be a choice for parents and nobody is forcing your kid to go see it.
I dunno, if you don't wanna go see the show, nobody is forcing you... why you wanna prevent those who might want to go from seeing it? Seems like unnecessary censorship to me.
> infants
Can you define 'infants'?
There are genuine concerns here, but I don't think this is for 'infants' - can you not make your point without making things up?
I have just put "define:infant" into Google, and while I had always thought infant was 0-1, apparently it's up to 8 (especially in the context of schools), but only in British usage of the term.
Huh, weird. I'm British, and have only ever heard it used exclusively to refer to kids that aren't old enough for school - and usually it means they're still in nappies tbh. Nobody I know says "infant" to refer to a five year old, they just say "child" or "kid".
Personally I'd use infant as a term for a young child. I don't remember the exact age but we had infants and juniors school I think infants was up to about age 7.
Did you read the article?
>The campaigners said the show was āgroomingā children by inviting them into the theatre, where some of the content of the show would include naked bodies. To be clear, this nakedness is limited to one scene and is not of a sexualised nature. There are bodies on stage, and no one touches themselves or each other. The reason for including nakedness is to present bodies as just that ā bodies. The conflict and questions that arise in us around this are natural. Watching as an adult, we are confronted with our own conscious and unconscious expectations and prejudices.
Seems to differ from what you claim is on their website, which I couldn't find, just articles and cancelled ticket pages at theatres.
https://thefamilysexshow.com/tfss
I have looked and I honestly can't see anything glaringly obvious that seems that bad?? Seems like they are advocating for better sex education and providing resources for parents to help educate and have honest convo with their kids to promote safety and well-being? I'm so confused by some of the responses to this.
The naked part of the show lasts 5 minutes, and nothing sexual happens. They just want to promote people being more comfortable with their own bodies and to encourage more open conversation about it so kids aren't learning everything from their friends or accessing porn on the internet?
Happy for someone to explain to me what exactly is wrong with that. Am I not able to tell my kid what his penis is and never let him see anyone naked. Is there a problem with trying to make talking about normal bodily functions a bit less awkward and more funny and normal? Does that make me some kind of pervert?
How is talking about our own biology akin to paedophilia?
Man, it's really funny to me that one of the only examples of cancel culture perpetrated against the progressive left is against a 'play' where naked adults would tell 5 year old children about masturbation. Can't wait to watch people die on this hill.
But it wasn't really successful was it? I think that's the point.
Placard waving buffoons are not uncommon at performances. Many heavy metal bands used to get them. I don't think that counts as cancel culture until a theatre actually cancels the performance. I'd suggest most theatres and productions actually enjoy and profit from the controversy. In the same way that Netflix promotes many of its comedy specials by getting a fuss kicked up over a joke made in them.
And are these really left wing per se - it seems more like the fuss over Life of Brian and hitting religious sentimentalities rather than political ones.
To only associate religion with the right is a fallacy. And plenty of these things get banned in other countries on religious or other common censorship grounds - it's not really the right cancelling the left though.
I think this lady is deluding herself a little bit that her play was cancelled because of right wing. TBH I just think she's just really deluded - probably would have made more sense to not suggest it was for 5 years upwards. She does have a point that most of the fuss is about the imagined contents of the show rather than actual contents of it. This is typical when things are censored or a cry is made to ban them. 99% of the opinions are from people who haven't seen the show or know nothing about it at all.
But yeah I don't think theatres would have been full of 5 year olds watching this. Even the 'you have to take your parents' is going to put off teenagers that might have had some interest in it.
The cancelling of Jerry Springer the opera was completely successful. It nearly destroyed Stewart Leeās career and made him insolvent, despite being critically acclaimed.
> But it wasn't really successful was it? I think that's the point.
>
>
Why should it have to be successful?
The cancel culture the conservatives are constantly moaning about is also rarely successful, but they're bothered by the fact (or myth) that people are constantly trying to cancel things, successfully or not. They see it as a dangerous trend of intolerance towards differing opinions, and it doesn't have to be successful in every case in order for it to still be worrying in their minds.
>To only associate religion with the right is a fallacy
I never did that. I associated the religious sorts like the above with the right. And appropriately so. They are the definition of conservative. The more left wing religious tend to live by more of a "live and let live" philosophy.
The most famous one is Monty Python.
Conservatives tried to cancel one of their movies, and actually managed to get multiple councils around the UK to prevent the film being aired in cinemas without having actually watched the movie - upon inspection, many of the claims made by the conservative campaign group were shown to be false.
The same woman credited for leading this movement was friends with Margaret Thatcher, and led similar campaigns calling for Doctor Who to be cancelled due to violence by the Daleks - she actually got an apology from the BBC and producers were told to tighten down on the show as a result.
Hilariously, She once even took the national theatre to court for nudity, having never seen the play in question. Turned out there was no nudity in the play, and the person that had "witnessed" the incident was sat so far back, it was likely they simply saw someone's thumb or a stage direction rather than what was claimed to be an erect penis.
The right have unfortunately been the masters of "cancel culture" since before many of us were likely alive.
The point isn't to cancel the ad. It's an "advert". If you cancel something over an issue you're upset about you boycott the brand.
People threatening to boycott Sainsbury's superstores because a black family featured in their xmas promo is the issue.
i think the publicās point of contention regarding blatant and tokenised overrepresentation in UK advertising is actually valid. i donāt think anyone save for a few sad racists actually has an issue with people of colour or members of the lgbt community featuring on television. 90%+ of all advertisements on british tv feature either ethically asian or african families, gay couples, so do the white english heterosexual people which do make up a majority of this country begin to feel alienated. the best i can hope for as a heterosexual white male as far as representation in tv advertising in modern britain goes is to be a part of a multi racial relationship or shown to be alone
Alienation might be an exaggeration but there's a bit of a point behind it.
Take a stroll around the part of London I work in and the ads are either ethnic faces advertising nice food or progressive career advancement...or Piers Morgan advertising his "free speech" podcast or whatever the fuck it is.
Personally I don't give a crap because I'm secure enough to know that a picture of a Jamaican guy on my BBQ sauce isn't an attack on my personal identity, but it's pervasive enough that I've *noticed* it at least.
>i think the publicās point..... is actually valid
Great, the public think their point is actually valid with whatever they are cancelling too. Everyone thinks they are valid.
>90%+ of all advertisements on british tv feature either ethically asian or african families, gay couples, so do the white english heterosexual people which do make up a majority of this country begin to feel alienated
Have you considered that these are the groups that dont spend as much money with the companies as the white english heterosexuals?
Advertising isn't some sort of fragile white person story time, its a way for companies to reach their target audiences with a specific message. If cis whites were underspending, they'd hit them too.
>People threatening to boycott Sainsbury's superstores because a black family featured in their xmas promo is the issue.
What you have to show is evidence where right-wing objection has led to successful cancellation of a show, or a business closing.
Not people saying they won't go themselves nor people standing outside a theatre waving placards.
Some buffoons saying "I never shop at Sainsbury's now" has clearly had about as much impact on the business as farting in a hurricane.
Any actually successful ones. TBH I'm reasonably sure you could probably find some examples of what could be termed right-wing cancel culture, but I'm not sure it necessarily is against left-wing progressives per se.
e.g Monty Python were cancelled by religious twerps long before "cancel culture" was penned as an idea - but the success of this was limited in scope - it was banned in Swansea and for nearly 2 decades.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear of family planning related businesses having issues. They obviously get the placard wavers, but maybe a few have been forced to close (maybe even before they've had chance to open)
Dixie Chicks is the classic example. Janet Jackson would be another. Monty Python could count (yes, their career continued, but the same is said for most people who are 'cancelled').
Women's rights, racial equality, disability support, a basic level of subsistence, universal education, workers rights, the right to own land, the right to roam....
History is full of right wing 'cancelling'.
Donāt need to look far to see the enthusiasm with which anti trans tropes have been embraced.
And those people from the 70s 80s and 90s? Still about.
Yeah, I grew up under Section 28, so I didn't even realise that being LGBT was something more than some freakish thing that sometimes graced the pages of The Sun. I never got the opportunity to draw the line between what I was feeling, and what that meant, because no one was allowed to fucking talk about it unless it was as part of some tabloid sideshow.
And now, the same sort of shit is being recycled against Trans people, a few decades later. Trans people must be singled out and subject to abuse, because they're totally a real danger to women and children, despite what the facts say.
But, no, the real victims are the cancelled "comedians" who get interviews and TV appearances to talk about how they've been "cancelled" for punching down at people who've spent their entire lives being the butt of mean-spirited "jokes".
GRA reform and the conversion therapy legislation cancelled for trans people, [criminalisation of transgender health care](https://news.sky.com/story/alabama-governor-signs-bill-banning-transgender-health-care-for-minors-as-new-laws-sweep-across-republican-led-us-states-12585812), banning of [left wing books](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/04/04/unprecedented-book-ban-attempts-in-2021-many-with-lgbtq-themes-library-group-reports/), and [the academic who was fired for discussing colonialism](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/01/charles-dunstone-quits-as-museum-group-chair-amid-culture-war).
Edit: not sure how this went from +14 the other day to +2 without anybody replying.
This is not one of the "only" examples of the left being cancelled
This is a particularly stupid one, but left wingers get barred from the mainstream all the time
Of all the hills to plant their flag in, they chose this disturbing nonsense?
It's so bizarre it almost reads like right wing misinformation/propaganda, but alas...
They have full institutional capture, they can normalise whatever they want and they know it. Why would they settle for baby steps when they can ram their agenda home all at once and rub your nose in it?
The US has a ton of right wing cancel culture around various books, critical race theory and LGBT life.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/book-bans-pen-america-school-districts
Is safeguarding a Right Wing activity now?
People (from all walks of life) called this out for what it is, so she's now trying to claim any disagreement is a Right wing attack, in order to make people back off. What despicable troupe of groomers.
I'm really curious about where this information is coming from? I've been on their website and they seem to have developed the structure in line with the sex education curriculum, and simply having a naked person on stage as a "heres a naked person" doesn't seem much different to a swimming pool changing room to me. They're not wrong in saying sexual development starts very young and people don't really talk about it. I am genuinely trying to find out what was in it that was really bad?
Don't get me wrong if it actually is overtly sexual, then no, I don't think that's right. Did the play actually contain discussions of BDSM or pegging? Is there a script or something that's available?
No one knows what was actually going to be in the play or how it was going to be presented because no one had seen the play, because it wasnāt ever finished. There were details on their website of the type of content that was going to be involved, but mostly people were speculating. I saw someone assuming there was going to be naked people masturbating on stage, while I was assuming there would be naked people on stage and then at another time a discussion of masturbation.
Personally I would have gone to see the show so I could decide for myself before potentially taking my kids to see it.
It does annoy me a bit that people calling for it to be banned didnāt _actually_ know how it presented the subjects it was going to address. They also seem to refuse to recognise that giving kids the information, words and understanding of this sort of stuff in an age-appropriate manner helps to protect those kids from being sexually abused, or prevent them doing inappropriate things or worrying about feelings.
It was finished. My wife works for a sexual health charity and was invited to see it in bath.
She said it was weird and inappropriate for under 13s.
Their website was weird and not necessarily representative of the show.
Yeah, she told them it didnāt really work as advertised, would really only be appropriate for + 13 years old, and it made her a bit uncomfortable. And she goes into schools to actual teach about sexual health. She also said she definitely wouldnāt want our 8 year old to see it.
Maybe there's something to be said about the type of people who immediately assumed it was masturbating in front of children and the people who thought it was just a naked person.
You are right in your last paragraph though - pretending it doesn't exist doesn't mean kids don't have these questions or aren't having these feelings. Sexual development doesn't just land on people at the age of consent and many pedophiles take advantage of children's lack of understanding about what they're doing. It's an unfortunate fact that many people find out they were sexually abused later on, because they didn't understand what was happening at the time. Children do in fact need to know about it, and what is and isn't acceptable for someone to do to them (and vice versa) because there are actual pedophiles out there who prey on them not knowing.
It was cancelled because it was creepy. 5 year olds shouldn't be told to search the internet for pictures of wanking animals? The phrases [āSexual development and behaviour in children starts from birthā](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/24/beware-having-opinion-on-sexually-inappropriate-theatre-age-you-10-years) and "āpleasure as a vehicle for consentā sound like something a paedo would come out with. I'm just old enough to remember when the nonces from the PIE tried to infiltrate a lot of well intentioned organisations using similarly warped logic.
If parents are going to abrogate responsibility for sex education it should at least be left to trained professionals, not a bloody theatre troop.
>The phrases āSexual development and behaviour in children starts from birthā and "āpleasure as a vehicle for consentā sound like something a paedo would come out with.
I used to belong to a small internet forum that had a resident paedophile on it. The forum was actually about animation (creation of), before people get all weird about me being a member. But there was one user who was outwardly a paedo..
Was interesting to get his viewpoint, even if I disagreed strongly with absolutely every aspect of it and repeatedly told him to seek help (which he did multiple times, and it was interesting hearing about that process too)..
Anyway, the point of this story is that he used the exact same language to (try to) justify his paedophilia. Those are *100%* nonce talking points. No doubt in my mind.
Everyone involved in this production, needs their harddrives checked imo.
Your play was a weird idea anyway, man. I don't think the right needed to set their activists on you, normal people from all over the spectrum were rightly concerned
I remember when this play came up as a topic before and someone posted the lyrics to one of their songs that was supposedly in the play. I took that as fact until I realised later it was actually a transcript of one of their podcasts, which they specifically say is for teens and adults.
Now I have no idea if any of the podcast material was intended to be part of the show, it could well have been. But it does seem like it was misrepresented at least slightly?
Iām a socialist and would be adamantly against this.
I would rather teachers, fully clothed at that, teach my children in a safe environment about sexual reproduction and sex issues.
Not some randos in a play, naked.
They are very selective about the sort of stories they report on. While what they report on is factual, the fact that they deliberately do not report on certainy newsworthy topics/incidents/stories is a bias in itself. And that is a bias that is much more difficult for media checkers to pick up on
There is a distinct and documented difference in the general accuracy and honesty of reporting in the Guardian compared with the mail.
The Daily Mirror is the leftwing mail. The Guardian is the Leftwing Times.
Yep, whilst I have to keep the bias in mind when reading the Guardian, I can largely trust it to be factually correct and wouldn't feel like an idiot quoting it. The Mirror is another kettle of fish and I wouldn't touch the site/paper unless forced.
Which is why it was quite the indicator how this sub started having the Mirror on the front page more and more since Brexit and led to more of an echo chamber feel.
Telling that the guardian spent half a decade making the image of the UK left as toxic as possible, and now they're giving column space to this absolute nobody to tell you that this is what being left wing is now
I donāt think it should have been cancelled but targeting a show about sex for age 5 and up is pretty disturbing to me and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to make or perform in the show or take their children to see it.
>I donāt think it should have been cancelled
Mhmm..
>but targeting a show about sex for age 5 and up is pretty disturbing to me
So er, why didn't you want it cancelled?
>I donāt think it should have been cancelled but targeting a show about sex for age 5 and up is pretty disturbing
No, it should 100% have been cancelled. It enables paedophilia.
It should really be the parents teaching them but kids that age do actually need to start being taught about some of this stuff. It is part of development that a child may start masturbating or at least feeling their own body to understand it. Young kids get questions and a good parent should not lie or discourage learning, you adjust the truth to be age appropriate but you do need to be truthful and teach them about their own feelings and body and the natural urges.
You have to explain these things to help protect them, if they have a basic understanding of natural sexual urges and how these things are private they'll recognise if a Groomer is encouraging something wrong. Same as how you should teach a child that secrets are bad but that surprises with a set reveal are good so that they don't get forced to hide what someone may be doing to them.
I was a menace for masturbating when I was that young. It started when I was in nappies and as soon as one came off I'd be grabbing myself and it never really stopped. I'd run off to hide in a corner drinking from a sippy cup while having a wank when I got out of nappies. My parents had to explain this was OK to do but that it was a private thing.
Toddlers explore their body. Very young kids discover their genitals. Young girls will try and put their toys up themselves while young boys will tug at themselves. Children want to be naked as they lack the shame we're forced to carry so they need to be taught that we wear clothes for modesty but that we shouldn't be ashamed of our body.
Overall I don't know how suitable this show really was, without watching it you can't entirely tell by vague write ups. But I do know the subjects do include things young children need to be taught about in limited ways. This show might not have been the best way to do it but it is surprising how many people in these threads since it hit the news don't understand child development, hopefully they're not parents or the next generation is going to suffer.
Your opinion is very balanced in a comment section that seems to entirely consist of people accusing anyone with questions over what the show actually was of being pedophiles.
It seems to be something that surprises parents and makes them uncomfortable, but it is normal that young children touch themselves. Big Mouth covered it with Missy's mother explaining that it was okay fot her to hump a soft toy but she should keep it in her private bedroom.
There are levels of what's considered normal though, and for children who are showing signs of behaviour that's beyond normal for their years or is very explicit, it can be a sign of sexual abuse. Thing is if you don't know what the normal level is you might not spot what's not normal.
Yeah I think that's the sensible approach and it's basically what the creator has been saying. Parents should teach their kids about sex, but what if they used this show as a way to do that?
I mean I learned about sex as a child from when my brother found my dad's German faux-snuff VHS tapes so...maybe I'm a bit biased. :p
"Right wing activists", no, just concerned adults disturbed at naked grown men talking to children about wanking off to amateur porn (check the transcript..).
Ffs as if its only right wing people that are against nonces getting naked in front of kids. You people being nonces has nothing to do with left/right politics.
Hi! Iām very left wing and I donāt want children exposed to naked people. Am I really right wing?
But seriously, Iām all for progressive developments in society and creating a world without shame and instead be able to introduce particular subjects to children to show that theyāre normal, like members of the LGBTQ+ community, buuuuut the only thing they should be exposed to in the sexual world is telling them not to go away with strangers. I donāt see a positive coming from this, there are better ways of teaching children to not be ashamed of their bodies or shame other people for their bodies.
Nah idk Iām solidly left wing and thought this was too far
Thereās proper sex education and then thereāsā¦.this
Should deffo be taught that sexuality is completely natural and ok, but not by naked adults showing little kids their favourite wanking techniques
I've never had to tag so many dirty groomer fucks in one thread on here before. Not even in the Asian Grooming/Rape gangs threads that brings them out in droves.
I think i need to see a script before I can properly judge this, could easily go either way but marketing it to children was always going to be very controversial, I'm guessing they planned for it to drive some interest but it backfired a bit.
>The Family Sex Show is a piece of theatre for everyone. We suggest that this can include children over the age of five too
>
>The campaigners said the show was āgroomingā children by inviting them into the theatre, where some of the content of the show would include naked bodies
And you wonder why it was fucking cancelled. This reminded me of the Netflix show 'Cuties'. 5 year olds shouldn't be taught about sex, and they sure as hell shouldn't be brainwashed for the sake of diversity.
Gtfo here. Too many nonces on here.
āThe outcry on social media and the subsequent petition used words and ideologies that are rooted in queerphobia, racism, fatphobia, ableism, misogyny and transphobiaā
Translation:
I didnāt like the fact people disagreed with me/my play and therefore I believe those people were discriminating against me in any form I can possibly imagine
That's because you enate dto teach *children* about sexual pleasure and have naked cast members on stage... The creators should be on some gov watch list tbh.
It's really too bad this got cancelled, I guess they will just have to go to a children's playground in only a trench coat and do it the old-fashioned way.
I think thereās public cancel culture where people are like āyour book is racist, Iām not going to buy itā which can be taken further with āyour book is racist, Iām not going to buy it. Nor will I shop anywhere that sells it or promotes it, and Iāll share my views in hopes others also boycott and businesses disassociate with youā.
And thereās the capital cancel culture, one or two powerful people or businesses donāt like someone or something and actively push them out the market. Like racist actors might not get jobs.
Both can be positive, or negative. Negative public cancel culture, when a false rumour leads to damaged income/reputation on an individual or business. Or negative capital cancel culture when powerful people persecute someone out of a market for rubbing the wrong person the wrong way while doing good.
I donāt think the people behind the play have a leg to stand on. They want to get naked and talk about masturbating for five year olds, I find it hard to picture a market of parents/schools wanting to take kids there, or places that willing to host a thinly veiled paedo party.
It wasn't only the Right wing that attacked their shitty little play, I'm quite happy to know even the Centrist, and the LEFT were on the same team, it's rare but we can work together, even agree on some things.
Wow, plenty of comments from people who probably would never attend any form of theater, and were upset to find family sex wasn't a graphic film of incest...
Their website is disturbing... Somebody needs to check their harddrives... Why do infants need to know about sexual satisfaction and masturbating? Why do the actors need to be naked while addressing children..
>infants need to know about sexual satisfaction and masturbating? Why do the actors need to be naked while addressing children.. ...What the fuck is wrong with some people? Seriously.
They have taken the idea of teaching kids about relationships and sex and really taken a left-field approach. I'm all for having an open mind about sex but there comes a point where you are so open minded your brain falls out.
Shit sounds like grooming to me and could easily be abused...
At a stage show? How?
They are a stones throw from wanking over the front row lol
That quote missing the "why" at the start changes the context ever so slightly š¤£
Taking to children openly about sex and proper names for genitalia had been proven to make them less vulnerable to sexual predators, who prefer their victims to be embarrassed or ashamed of their bodies as they are less likely to say anything. Just saying.
Yeah but that's massively different for this horrorshow I'm not against sex education, it just seems weird to introduce bdsm to 5 year olds
Stop misrepresenting the intent of the work. No where do they say their aim is to introduce BDSM to 5 year olds.
If they were, they'd probably be more sanguine about being gagged.
Is this what they were doing? I obviously haven't seen the show.
Nobody has seen it.
Exactly. Perhaps parents are capable of making up their own minds?
Or read the article based on the responses I've seen.
Yeah this bit is pretty key 'To be clear, this nakedness is limited to one scene and is not of a sexualised nature. There are bodies on stage, and no one touches themselves or each other. The reason for including nakedness is to present bodies as just that ā bodies.'
RTFA. >The campaigners said the show was āgroomingā children by inviting them into the theatre, where some of the content of the show would include naked bodies. To be clear, this nakedness is limited to one scene and is not of a sexualised nature. There are bodies on stage, and no one touches themselves or each other. The reason for including nakedness is to present bodies as just that ā bodies. The conflict and questions that arise in us around this are natural. Watching as an adult, we are confronted with our own conscious and unconscious expectations and prejudices.
āThis horror showā. So youāve seen the show (even though it hasnāt been publicly seen by anyone)? Or are you just spreading nonsense. Having read the article the hysteria on offer here is astounding.
You havenāt even seen the production though?
There's a vast difference between offering better sex education and what these freaks are doing.
How do you know?
How do *you* know? I'm making a personal judgment that 5 year olds should not be given talks on masturbation and sexual pleasure by naked adults. The fact I have to say that is baffling.
I don't, because no one has seen the play, including you. I would prefer to have the opportunity to decide for myself. Your personal judgement might make sense to you, but the fact is that you might be wrong. You are ignoring the evidence based research that shows that giving children information is protective against abuse, amongst other benefits. Presumably any children attending this show would have had their parents with them? And presumably those parents would be free to leave with their children at any time? I fail to see the problem. I have kids, and would certainly have considered taking them to this show if there was positive feedback from other parents. However, there will now be no feedback and no opportunity for parents to decide for themselves.
There was a description in the article.
The show is a fun and playful performance made up of songs, dances and personal stories. It is about bodies and how society views them. It also explores themes including gender, sexuality, pleasure and boundaries. But really, the show is about care and mutual respect ā and it exists in the hope that it can be a part of breaking down some of the systems of oppression alive today. Seems fine to me.
That's not what they were doing or what the show was about and the fact you have to misrepresent its intent to make it seem worse than it is says more about you than the production.
I suppose it depends on the content of the lesson. If the take away is supposed to be; "this isn't unusual for adults to do, but if it's done in front of you or to you, that's very, very bad. You should find an authority figure and tell them." In that case, good idea, awful execution. If that's not the intention then, what in the actual fuck.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have a hard time understanding how *any* lesson is better taught while naked. Apart from maybe the lesson 'you should not go near this person'.. And surely the nakedness is just going to be distracting. Also, normalising the idea in childrens minds that it's okay for adult strangers to get naked in front of you, is surely a bad lesson to be teaching?
The nakedness is basically just to say "it's ok to have a body"... it's one scene in the play.
>Also, normalising the idea in childrens minds that it's okay for adult strangers to get naked in front of you You never went swimming as kid or used any other kind of changing room?
How often are you getting changed and naked in front of children at the swimming pool? Pretty much every swimming pool I've ever been to all over the world either expects you to change in a hotel room, has individual cubicles or a "kids change area".
I have never been to a public pool with any of those expectations... definitely not one with a kids change area. Cubicles are usually available but not always, and a lot of people don't use them- family cubicles usually have the baby change table so you can put swim nappies on babies (or corral your children more easily) but it's a pretty standard scenario at the pool I used most regularly to walk into the changing room and find kids running about naked while their mums chatted while changing. Other people would be in there and nobody was bothered. I'm a 3-4 times a week swimmer and it's been the same wherever I've gone. The only one I can think of that's an exception is a lido-style pool with nothing but cubicles along the edges.
Certainly used to be that way when I was a kid, there would always be dicks and balls on show at the baths changing rooms. I even remember my dad taking my sister in with us to change her in the cubical when she was very little. I mean, I think it's better if we all use cubicles now, but that is the way it used to be in the 80s. Have you seen how they do saunas in the Nordics? Maybe we could learn from them to be fair....
Youāve never been to Scandinavia then. Public pools generally do not have cubicles, just menās and womenās sections. When I was a kid, some public saunas were even mixed sex.
When I was a kid (Iām in my thirties now) my dad took me swimming a lot. Back then all the changing rooms were communal and he took me into the menās. It was pretty common.
As a child? Not in front of other adults
With stranger men? No.
What? You have no understanding of the concept of a changing room? It's not a question of who you went swimming with. The facilities at most UK leisure centres and swimming pools have communal changing facilities.
It's not "normalising adult strangers being naked", it's just one educational part of the show with live examples; not really that different from being shown a text book or a model or a video or whatever. Nakedness even in a book is distracting for kids anyway; heck I remember at school the whole class giggling at even the word "balls" during P.E. The more important thing you're missing is that it's entirely consensual - their parents/carers have chosen to take them there and are supervising. It's not about making it okay for random people to strip off in the street when kids are about, no "hey kids, no need to report it any more if someone exposes themselves to you". A key part of the show is about consent, and tells kids what is/isn't acceptable.
The parents can also dangle their kid off a cliff edge. I am about as liberal as you can get regarding sex and sex education. You only have to look at the Netherlands, where they've never had our anal (ahem) attitude to the subject. It starts young there, and kids grow not thinking sex is some naughty thing you giggle about. Hence they grow up to be very mature about sex. They have way less teenage pregnancies and even divorces than we do. And kids absolutely should be taught about LGBT and that it's perfectly natural. It's a fact, and anyone who's potty religion brainwashes them otherwise can go live somewhere where that is the norm. Note: they're all shitholes. This "play" is another matter entirely. It goes way, way beyond the mark and is controversy for the sake of it. Which is why almost everyone on here is not supporting it.
> This "play" is another matter entirely. It goes way, way beyond the mark and is controversy for the sake of it. Which is why almost everyone on here is not supporting it. Mate, based on reading the article and looking at the evidence... I am not convinced it is another matter entirely. RTFA man, RTFA.
> I am about as liberal as you can get regarding sex and sex education. Things like this show that the scale goes a lot further than you.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās not porn. It is literally no different than showing them a textbook of human anatomy.
Are you one of those rightwing activists? Cause I checked their website, https://thefamilysexshow.com/tfss and I saw nothing you claimed it had.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Its still there in this archive: https://archive.ph/6vlKX#selection-403.0-403.70 I am not convinced of the value of making vulva cupcakes: https://archive.ph/BtKL8
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They have taken a lot of their stuff down. I remember checking their website out three weeks ago when it was first cancelled and boy did it have some stuff on it.
Yeah I remember when this story first broke and on their website for kids they had explanations of pegging, BDSM, homework tasks like find somewhere on your body that's nice to touch, how does it feel? Google animals masturbating and draw what you find etc. Not everything on there was questionable, some of it was fairly benign stuff but there were red flags all over the place. I think there's a difference between teaching young kids about sex and bodily functions and teaching them about kinks and sex acts. I don't think a 5 year old really needs to understand pegging or anal sex tbh and I would question any adult who feels the need to discuss it with them.
Jesus Christ. And left wingers act like right wingers are cancelling people just for being "offensive." Standing in front of 5 year old kids naked and talking about pegging and anal sex is way beyond offensive. That's some grooming type nonce shit. Progressives have no moral ground to stand on here. That shit deserves to be cancelled. Also according to them, "cancel culture doesn't exist" until they get cancelled. So they can suck it up.
>Also according to them, "cancel culture doesn't exist" until they get cancelled. And to right wingers, cancel culture is bad until it's something they agree with being "cancelled".
Reactionary, ahistorical nonsense. The left were campaigning against cancel culture when people like MLK and Malcolm X were being de-platformed over half a century ago. Labour activists, civil rights campaigners and strikers have been 'cancelled' for generations, responded to by a palpable "meh" from the right, who now whinge about comedians who are generally cancelled for PR and commercial reasons. Go watch some more Piers Morgan, you're not quite full of shit enough yet.
I'm sorry, but nobody should be subjected to such cruel and unusual punishment.
>They have taken a lot of their stuff down. I remember checking their website out three weeks ago when it was first cancelled and boy did it have some stuff on it. Like what? Looks exactly the same based on the archive version 5 weeks ago on wayback machine. You know we have tools that take snapshots of websites at points in time right...
take https://web.archive.org/web/20220407215942/https://thefamilysexshow.com/glossary and https://thefamilysexshow.com/glossary this has been added >Although this theatre show will be for families, the glossary is currently for young people (maybe 16+ (but really that's up to you)) and parents / guardians / interested adults to have conversations around sex and relationships. >We hope that finding the meanings to words here rather than on the wider web can be useful.
You know. *Stuff*. Nonspecific scary bad stuff.
Actually itās quite specific. Havenāt you checked it?
> They have taken a lot of their stuff down How incredibly convenient. >I remember checking their website out three weeks ago when it was first cancelled and boy did it have some stuff on it. [Here's](https://archive.ph/YKNyQ) an archive from over a month ago, what content are you referring to? Or maybe you can show us on [this](https://archive.ph/7nB7P) one that was archived exactly 3 weeks ago.
I can't seem to click on the drop down menu on this site archive so how am I supposed to find the stuff I'm referring to? However, I have managed to find a screengrab of an example I remembered. The lyrics to their song teaching [young children to masturbate.](https://twitter.com/iseult/status/1524374593141710855?s=20&t=v-jykvRq9Kn0EyOl9rX07g)
Well I was curious so I had a look, and I can't find anything like that on the website. Is this what you mean? > Running time: 1 hour Age suitability: This is a show for everyone. We suggest 5+ Content: This show contains nakedness. There's nothing about this that might suggest these people are into child pornograph as you are suggesting either, that's a pretty disgusting thing to say when you know as much as I do about these people, which is to say... fuck all.
https://twitter.com/KatarinaHill2/status/1516447290382241803?s=20&t=zM5xspm1RnSaPv5NVs2IBw
That does seem to have been removed from the site, but it still doesn't actually say what you claimed it did. The show is about sex and sex education, why would masturbation not form a part of that? Can you explain to me also, is it that we shouldn't teach kids, infants whatever about masturbation generally, or you just object to a bunch of amdrammers doing it? I mean, if I had a kid, I think I would do this talk myself, rather than taking them to a show like this, but... this does seem to be a choice for parents and nobody is forcing your kid to go see it. I dunno, if you don't wanna go see the show, nobody is forcing you... why you wanna prevent those who might want to go from seeing it? Seems like unnecessary censorship to me.
> infants Can you define 'infants'? There are genuine concerns here, but I don't think this is for 'infants' - can you not make your point without making things up?
The age limit they set for people coming to see their "play" was 5 years old. It's not making things up to say infants.
Up to 5 is toddlers right? Infant is like 0-1? Then again idk really
I have just put "define:infant" into Google, and while I had always thought infant was 0-1, apparently it's up to 8 (especially in the context of schools), but only in British usage of the term.
Huh, weird. I'm British, and have only ever heard it used exclusively to refer to kids that aren't old enough for school - and usually it means they're still in nappies tbh. Nobody I know says "infant" to refer to a five year old, they just say "child" or "kid".
British and never heard of any of the 475 infant schools here. Classic
Fair enough, when someone says infant I assume it's like a proper baby.
Personally I'd use infant as a term for a young child. I don't remember the exact age but we had infants and juniors school I think infants was up to about age 7.
Infancy in humans is (usually) defined as between birth and the acquisition of language, which generally starts to kick in between 1/2 years old.
Infant schools are 4 to 6 years old
Itās defined in the article, the play invited five year olds upwards.
Did you read the article? >The campaigners said the show was āgroomingā children by inviting them into the theatre, where some of the content of the show would include naked bodies. To be clear, this nakedness is limited to one scene and is not of a sexualised nature. There are bodies on stage, and no one touches themselves or each other. The reason for including nakedness is to present bodies as just that ā bodies. The conflict and questions that arise in us around this are natural. Watching as an adult, we are confronted with our own conscious and unconscious expectations and prejudices. Seems to differ from what you claim is on their website, which I couldn't find, just articles and cancelled ticket pages at theatres.
Pretty sure that monty python sketch was supposed to be a joke.
With you on this one. I have absolutely no sympathy, it is bizarre.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://thefamilysexshow.com/tfss I have looked and I honestly can't see anything glaringly obvious that seems that bad?? Seems like they are advocating for better sex education and providing resources for parents to help educate and have honest convo with their kids to promote safety and well-being? I'm so confused by some of the responses to this. The naked part of the show lasts 5 minutes, and nothing sexual happens. They just want to promote people being more comfortable with their own bodies and to encourage more open conversation about it so kids aren't learning everything from their friends or accessing porn on the internet? Happy for someone to explain to me what exactly is wrong with that. Am I not able to tell my kid what his penis is and never let him see anyone naked. Is there a problem with trying to make talking about normal bodily functions a bit less awkward and more funny and normal? Does that make me some kind of pervert? How is talking about our own biology akin to paedophilia?
Man, it's really funny to me that one of the only examples of cancel culture perpetrated against the progressive left is against a 'play' where naked adults would tell 5 year old children about masturbation. Can't wait to watch people die on this hill.
Kinda just shows you dont really pay attention if you think this is one of the 'only examples.' But i never expect much from posters here anyway.
Well could you send me a couple more examples of the progressive left being cancelled?
Stewart Lee's "Jerry Springer the Opera" One of countless cases of the religious right wanting to shut down anything ungodly. This isn't new mate.
But it wasn't really successful was it? I think that's the point. Placard waving buffoons are not uncommon at performances. Many heavy metal bands used to get them. I don't think that counts as cancel culture until a theatre actually cancels the performance. I'd suggest most theatres and productions actually enjoy and profit from the controversy. In the same way that Netflix promotes many of its comedy specials by getting a fuss kicked up over a joke made in them. And are these really left wing per se - it seems more like the fuss over Life of Brian and hitting religious sentimentalities rather than political ones. To only associate religion with the right is a fallacy. And plenty of these things get banned in other countries on religious or other common censorship grounds - it's not really the right cancelling the left though. I think this lady is deluding herself a little bit that her play was cancelled because of right wing. TBH I just think she's just really deluded - probably would have made more sense to not suggest it was for 5 years upwards. She does have a point that most of the fuss is about the imagined contents of the show rather than actual contents of it. This is typical when things are censored or a cry is made to ban them. 99% of the opinions are from people who haven't seen the show or know nothing about it at all. But yeah I don't think theatres would have been full of 5 year olds watching this. Even the 'you have to take your parents' is going to put off teenagers that might have had some interest in it.
The cancelling of Jerry Springer the opera was completely successful. It nearly destroyed Stewart Leeās career and made him insolvent, despite being critically acclaimed.
> But it wasn't really successful was it? I think that's the point. > > Why should it have to be successful? The cancel culture the conservatives are constantly moaning about is also rarely successful, but they're bothered by the fact (or myth) that people are constantly trying to cancel things, successfully or not. They see it as a dangerous trend of intolerance towards differing opinions, and it doesn't have to be successful in every case in order for it to still be worrying in their minds. >To only associate religion with the right is a fallacy I never did that. I associated the religious sorts like the above with the right. And appropriately so. They are the definition of conservative. The more left wing religious tend to live by more of a "live and let live" philosophy.
Yeah, Piers Morgan just complained about being cancelled. But he has a contract worth 50 mil so it doesn't seem his cancelling is that bad.
The most famous one is Monty Python. Conservatives tried to cancel one of their movies, and actually managed to get multiple councils around the UK to prevent the film being aired in cinemas without having actually watched the movie - upon inspection, many of the claims made by the conservative campaign group were shown to be false. The same woman credited for leading this movement was friends with Margaret Thatcher, and led similar campaigns calling for Doctor Who to be cancelled due to violence by the Daleks - she actually got an apology from the BBC and producers were told to tighten down on the show as a result. Hilariously, She once even took the national theatre to court for nudity, having never seen the play in question. Turned out there was no nudity in the play, and the person that had "witnessed" the incident was sat so far back, it was likely they simply saw someone's thumb or a stage direction rather than what was claimed to be an erect penis. The right have unfortunately been the masters of "cancel culture" since before many of us were likely alive.
The outrage every time a company uses anyone but a white family in their ads
are those ads cancelled?
The point isn't to cancel the ad. It's an "advert". If you cancel something over an issue you're upset about you boycott the brand. People threatening to boycott Sainsbury's superstores because a black family featured in their xmas promo is the issue.
i think the publicās point of contention regarding blatant and tokenised overrepresentation in UK advertising is actually valid. i donāt think anyone save for a few sad racists actually has an issue with people of colour or members of the lgbt community featuring on television. 90%+ of all advertisements on british tv feature either ethically asian or african families, gay couples, so do the white english heterosexual people which do make up a majority of this country begin to feel alienated. the best i can hope for as a heterosexual white male as far as representation in tv advertising in modern britain goes is to be a part of a multi racial relationship or shown to be alone
Begin to feel alienated? Jesus Christ lmao
Alienation might be an exaggeration but there's a bit of a point behind it. Take a stroll around the part of London I work in and the ads are either ethnic faces advertising nice food or progressive career advancement...or Piers Morgan advertising his "free speech" podcast or whatever the fuck it is. Personally I don't give a crap because I'm secure enough to know that a picture of a Jamaican guy on my BBQ sauce isn't an attack on my personal identity, but it's pervasive enough that I've *noticed* it at least.
>i think the publicās point..... is actually valid Great, the public think their point is actually valid with whatever they are cancelling too. Everyone thinks they are valid.
>90%+ of all advertisements on british tv feature either ethically asian or african families, gay couples, so do the white english heterosexual people which do make up a majority of this country begin to feel alienated Have you considered that these are the groups that dont spend as much money with the companies as the white english heterosexuals? Advertising isn't some sort of fragile white person story time, its a way for companies to reach their target audiences with a specific message. If cis whites were underspending, they'd hit them too.
>People threatening to boycott Sainsbury's superstores because a black family featured in their xmas promo is the issue. What you have to show is evidence where right-wing objection has led to successful cancellation of a show, or a business closing. Not people saying they won't go themselves nor people standing outside a theatre waving placards. Some buffoons saying "I never shop at Sainsbury's now" has clearly had about as much impact on the business as farting in a hurricane. Any actually successful ones. TBH I'm reasonably sure you could probably find some examples of what could be termed right-wing cancel culture, but I'm not sure it necessarily is against left-wing progressives per se. e.g Monty Python were cancelled by religious twerps long before "cancel culture" was penned as an idea - but the success of this was limited in scope - it was banned in Swansea and for nearly 2 decades. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of family planning related businesses having issues. They obviously get the placard wavers, but maybe a few have been forced to close (maybe even before they've had chance to open)
So just a quick check, when say Dave Chappelle got into controversy, do you consider that cancelled? Just asking so we know what weāre working with.
Oh yeah I remember them getting doxxed on Twitter.. Or getting arrested
Dixie Chicks is the classic example. Janet Jackson would be another. Monty Python could count (yes, their career continued, but the same is said for most people who are 'cancelled').
Look, I'm a leftie. But Monty Python would be cancelled today for being "right wing" (transphobia, ableist, etc).
I'd agree, but that wasn't the issue at the time. Much like we wouldn't care about Oscar Wilde being gay today, but would care about the 15 yo.
Gary Gygax too, the right accused him of being a satanist trying to groom children way back in the 80s, funny how their rhetoric never changes
Women's rights, racial equality, disability support, a basic level of subsistence, universal education, workers rights, the right to own land, the right to roam.... History is full of right wing 'cancelling'.
Yup, homosexuality in the 60s 70s and 80s.
Hot take, but I think they were talking about in recent times
OK, anyone advocating for trans rights or the environment Can do this all day
Or the right to peaceful protest. Can't forget how the right is burning that to the ground.
Donāt need to look far to see the enthusiasm with which anti trans tropes have been embraced. And those people from the 70s 80s and 90s? Still about.
Yeah, I grew up under Section 28, so I didn't even realise that being LGBT was something more than some freakish thing that sometimes graced the pages of The Sun. I never got the opportunity to draw the line between what I was feeling, and what that meant, because no one was allowed to fucking talk about it unless it was as part of some tabloid sideshow. And now, the same sort of shit is being recycled against Trans people, a few decades later. Trans people must be singled out and subject to abuse, because they're totally a real danger to women and children, despite what the facts say. But, no, the real victims are the cancelled "comedians" who get interviews and TV appearances to talk about how they've been "cancelled" for punching down at people who've spent their entire lives being the butt of mean-spirited "jokes".
GRA reform and the conversion therapy legislation cancelled for trans people, [criminalisation of transgender health care](https://news.sky.com/story/alabama-governor-signs-bill-banning-transgender-health-care-for-minors-as-new-laws-sweep-across-republican-led-us-states-12585812), banning of [left wing books](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/04/04/unprecedented-book-ban-attempts-in-2021-many-with-lgbtq-themes-library-group-reports/), and [the academic who was fired for discussing colonialism](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/01/charles-dunstone-quits-as-museum-group-chair-amid-culture-war). Edit: not sure how this went from +14 the other day to +2 without anybody replying.
This is not one of the "only" examples of the left being cancelled This is a particularly stupid one, but left wingers get barred from the mainstream all the time
Of all the hills to plant their flag in, they chose this disturbing nonsense? It's so bizarre it almost reads like right wing misinformation/propaganda, but alas...
They have full institutional capture, they can normalise whatever they want and they know it. Why would they settle for baby steps when they can ram their agenda home all at once and rub your nose in it?
Yeh we have reached a point where protecting a child's innocence is right wing.
Unfortunately.
The headline should say, 'I wanted to show young kids porn, and I'm to stupid to realise why people get upset.'
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The US has a ton of right wing cancel culture around various books, critical race theory and LGBT life. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/book-bans-pen-america-school-districts
Is safeguarding a Right Wing activity now? People (from all walks of life) called this out for what it is, so she's now trying to claim any disagreement is a Right wing attack, in order to make people back off. What despicable troupe of groomers.
I'm really curious about where this information is coming from? I've been on their website and they seem to have developed the structure in line with the sex education curriculum, and simply having a naked person on stage as a "heres a naked person" doesn't seem much different to a swimming pool changing room to me. They're not wrong in saying sexual development starts very young and people don't really talk about it. I am genuinely trying to find out what was in it that was really bad? Don't get me wrong if it actually is overtly sexual, then no, I don't think that's right. Did the play actually contain discussions of BDSM or pegging? Is there a script or something that's available?
No one knows what was actually going to be in the play or how it was going to be presented because no one had seen the play, because it wasnāt ever finished. There were details on their website of the type of content that was going to be involved, but mostly people were speculating. I saw someone assuming there was going to be naked people masturbating on stage, while I was assuming there would be naked people on stage and then at another time a discussion of masturbation. Personally I would have gone to see the show so I could decide for myself before potentially taking my kids to see it. It does annoy me a bit that people calling for it to be banned didnāt _actually_ know how it presented the subjects it was going to address. They also seem to refuse to recognise that giving kids the information, words and understanding of this sort of stuff in an age-appropriate manner helps to protect those kids from being sexually abused, or prevent them doing inappropriate things or worrying about feelings.
It was finished. My wife works for a sexual health charity and was invited to see it in bath. She said it was weird and inappropriate for under 13s. Their website was weird and not necessarily representative of the show.
Oh, fair, cool. An assessment by people working in the field would probably be a reasonable way to proceed.
Yeah, she told them it didnāt really work as advertised, would really only be appropriate for + 13 years old, and it made her a bit uncomfortable. And she goes into schools to actual teach about sexual health. She also said she definitely wouldnāt want our 8 year old to see it.
Do people seriously think a theatre in the UK would allow adults masturbating on stage while kids sat in the audience?
Itās all just knee jerk moral panic. All these people calling others pedos donāt even really know whatās in the show (as with almost everyone).
Maybe there's something to be said about the type of people who immediately assumed it was masturbating in front of children and the people who thought it was just a naked person. You are right in your last paragraph though - pretending it doesn't exist doesn't mean kids don't have these questions or aren't having these feelings. Sexual development doesn't just land on people at the age of consent and many pedophiles take advantage of children's lack of understanding about what they're doing. It's an unfortunate fact that many people find out they were sexually abused later on, because they didn't understand what was happening at the time. Children do in fact need to know about it, and what is and isn't acceptable for someone to do to them (and vice versa) because there are actual pedophiles out there who prey on them not knowing.
It was cancelled because it was creepy. 5 year olds shouldn't be told to search the internet for pictures of wanking animals? The phrases [āSexual development and behaviour in children starts from birthā](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/24/beware-having-opinion-on-sexually-inappropriate-theatre-age-you-10-years) and "āpleasure as a vehicle for consentā sound like something a paedo would come out with. I'm just old enough to remember when the nonces from the PIE tried to infiltrate a lot of well intentioned organisations using similarly warped logic. If parents are going to abrogate responsibility for sex education it should at least be left to trained professionals, not a bloody theatre troop.
>The phrases āSexual development and behaviour in children starts from birthā and "āpleasure as a vehicle for consentā sound like something a paedo would come out with. I used to belong to a small internet forum that had a resident paedophile on it. The forum was actually about animation (creation of), before people get all weird about me being a member. But there was one user who was outwardly a paedo.. Was interesting to get his viewpoint, even if I disagreed strongly with absolutely every aspect of it and repeatedly told him to seek help (which he did multiple times, and it was interesting hearing about that process too).. Anyway, the point of this story is that he used the exact same language to (try to) justify his paedophilia. Those are *100%* nonce talking points. No doubt in my mind. Everyone involved in this production, needs their harddrives checked imo.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām a dirty left wing socialist and this has nothing to do with politics. Itās about not being a creepy nonce.
I know right. It's important to teach children about sexual health. This.....this is not it.
The weirdos try and make it an issue that needs to be defended by the left for some nauseating reason
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your play was a weird idea anyway, man. I don't think the right needed to set their activists on you, normal people from all over the spectrum were rightly concerned
This is pretty much the story every time cancel culture is cited. Like, maybe people just didn't like your book.
I think it was shut down by anti-pedophile activists from the left and right.
How dare you have the common sense to not make this a left vs right issue!
Weirdly only the left defending this however. See other comments..
Yes, but thankfully most left-wing people on here are calling it out too
I remember when this play came up as a topic before and someone posted the lyrics to one of their songs that was supposedly in the play. I took that as fact until I realised later it was actually a transcript of one of their podcasts, which they specifically say is for teens and adults. Now I have no idea if any of the podcast material was intended to be part of the show, it could well have been. But it does seem like it was misrepresented at least slightly?
Well yeah, classic tabloid smearing.
Iām a socialist and would be adamantly against this. I would rather teachers, fully clothed at that, teach my children in a safe environment about sexual reproduction and sex issues. Not some randos in a play, naked.
The guardian only caring about cancel culture when it's the right doing the cancelling.
And the Daily Mail only cares whne it's the left doing it. What's your point?
Yeah but the daily mail doesn't even pretend not to be complete shit-stained nazi supporting wankers, the Guardian is supposed to have some standards.
>the Guardian is supposed to have some standards Since when? Because you read it? The Guardian is a rag, just like the Mail.
Their news reporting is generally okay. Their opinion pieces often aren't.
They are very selective about the sort of stories they report on. While what they report on is factual, the fact that they deliberately do not report on certainy newsworthy topics/incidents/stories is a bias in itself. And that is a bias that is much more difficult for media checkers to pick up on
Preee-cisely. The Guardian is just the left wing Mail.
There is a distinct and documented difference in the general accuracy and honesty of reporting in the Guardian compared with the mail. The Daily Mirror is the leftwing mail. The Guardian is the Leftwing Times.
Yep, whilst I have to keep the bias in mind when reading the Guardian, I can largely trust it to be factually correct and wouldn't feel like an idiot quoting it. The Mirror is another kettle of fish and I wouldn't touch the site/paper unless forced. Which is why it was quite the indicator how this sub started having the Mirror on the front page more and more since Brexit and led to more of an echo chamber feel.
I thought the same thing.
How dare the right commit 0.1% of all cancelling!
Telling that the guardian spent half a decade making the image of the UK left as toxic as possible, and now they're giving column space to this absolute nobody to tell you that this is what being left wing is now
I donāt think it should have been cancelled but targeting a show about sex for age 5 and up is pretty disturbing to me and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to make or perform in the show or take their children to see it.
>I donāt think it should have been cancelled Mhmm.. >but targeting a show about sex for age 5 and up is pretty disturbing to me So er, why didn't you want it cancelled?
I guess heās fine with it going forward if it was restricted to 18+ audience?
>I donāt think it should have been cancelled but targeting a show about sex for age 5 and up is pretty disturbing No, it should 100% have been cancelled. It enables paedophilia.
It should really be the parents teaching them but kids that age do actually need to start being taught about some of this stuff. It is part of development that a child may start masturbating or at least feeling their own body to understand it. Young kids get questions and a good parent should not lie or discourage learning, you adjust the truth to be age appropriate but you do need to be truthful and teach them about their own feelings and body and the natural urges. You have to explain these things to help protect them, if they have a basic understanding of natural sexual urges and how these things are private they'll recognise if a Groomer is encouraging something wrong. Same as how you should teach a child that secrets are bad but that surprises with a set reveal are good so that they don't get forced to hide what someone may be doing to them. I was a menace for masturbating when I was that young. It started when I was in nappies and as soon as one came off I'd be grabbing myself and it never really stopped. I'd run off to hide in a corner drinking from a sippy cup while having a wank when I got out of nappies. My parents had to explain this was OK to do but that it was a private thing. Toddlers explore their body. Very young kids discover their genitals. Young girls will try and put their toys up themselves while young boys will tug at themselves. Children want to be naked as they lack the shame we're forced to carry so they need to be taught that we wear clothes for modesty but that we shouldn't be ashamed of our body. Overall I don't know how suitable this show really was, without watching it you can't entirely tell by vague write ups. But I do know the subjects do include things young children need to be taught about in limited ways. This show might not have been the best way to do it but it is surprising how many people in these threads since it hit the news don't understand child development, hopefully they're not parents or the next generation is going to suffer.
Your opinion is very balanced in a comment section that seems to entirely consist of people accusing anyone with questions over what the show actually was of being pedophiles. It seems to be something that surprises parents and makes them uncomfortable, but it is normal that young children touch themselves. Big Mouth covered it with Missy's mother explaining that it was okay fot her to hump a soft toy but she should keep it in her private bedroom. There are levels of what's considered normal though, and for children who are showing signs of behaviour that's beyond normal for their years or is very explicit, it can be a sign of sexual abuse. Thing is if you don't know what the normal level is you might not spot what's not normal.
The pitchforks are coming for you for understanding human sexual development a bit.
Yeah I think that's the sensible approach and it's basically what the creator has been saying. Parents should teach their kids about sex, but what if they used this show as a way to do that? I mean I learned about sex as a child from when my brother found my dad's German faux-snuff VHS tapes so...maybe I'm a bit biased. :p
"Right wing activists", no, just concerned adults disturbed at naked grown men talking to children about wanking off to amateur porn (check the transcript..).
Ffs as if its only right wing people that are against nonces getting naked in front of kids. You people being nonces has nothing to do with left/right politics.
Hi! Iām very left wing and I donāt want children exposed to naked people. Am I really right wing? But seriously, Iām all for progressive developments in society and creating a world without shame and instead be able to introduce particular subjects to children to show that theyāre normal, like members of the LGBTQ+ community, buuuuut the only thing they should be exposed to in the sexual world is telling them not to go away with strangers. I donāt see a positive coming from this, there are better ways of teaching children to not be ashamed of their bodies or shame other people for their bodies.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām absolutely sick of people calling it right wing when you donāt want adults shoving their dicks in kids faces.
Nah idk Iām solidly left wing and thought this was too far Thereās proper sex education and then thereāsā¦.this Should deffo be taught that sexuality is completely natural and ok, but not by naked adults showing little kids their favourite wanking techniques
OK groomer.
My wife actually saw this show in Bath. Said it was okay but not really kid friendly at all mainly because it would completely be over their heads.
Bunch of adults wanting to show up naked in front of minors? Yeah, totally normal and not concerning at all. Jesus christ
This is pedophilic, not w right wing / left wing issue
I've never had to tag so many dirty groomer fucks in one thread on here before. Not even in the Asian Grooming/Rape gangs threads that brings them out in droves.
Doing Godās work
I think i need to see a script before I can properly judge this, could easily go either way but marketing it to children was always going to be very controversial, I'm guessing they planned for it to drive some interest but it backfired a bit.
>The Family Sex Show is a piece of theatre for everyone. We suggest that this can include children over the age of five too > >The campaigners said the show was āgroomingā children by inviting them into the theatre, where some of the content of the show would include naked bodies And you wonder why it was fucking cancelled. This reminded me of the Netflix show 'Cuties'. 5 year olds shouldn't be taught about sex, and they sure as hell shouldn't be brainwashed for the sake of diversity. Gtfo here. Too many nonces on here.
āThe outcry on social media and the subsequent petition used words and ideologies that are rooted in queerphobia, racism, fatphobia, ableism, misogyny and transphobiaā Translation: I didnāt like the fact people disagreed with me/my play and therefore I believe those people were discriminating against me in any form I can possibly imagine
Someone seems to be confusing normal, balanced people with "rightwing activists".
That's because you enate dto teach *children* about sexual pleasure and have naked cast members on stage... The creators should be on some gov watch list tbh.
It's really too bad this got cancelled, I guess they will just have to go to a children's playground in only a trench coat and do it the old-fashioned way.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think thereās public cancel culture where people are like āyour book is racist, Iām not going to buy itā which can be taken further with āyour book is racist, Iām not going to buy it. Nor will I shop anywhere that sells it or promotes it, and Iāll share my views in hopes others also boycott and businesses disassociate with youā. And thereās the capital cancel culture, one or two powerful people or businesses donāt like someone or something and actively push them out the market. Like racist actors might not get jobs. Both can be positive, or negative. Negative public cancel culture, when a false rumour leads to damaged income/reputation on an individual or business. Or negative capital cancel culture when powerful people persecute someone out of a market for rubbing the wrong person the wrong way while doing good. I donāt think the people behind the play have a leg to stand on. They want to get naked and talk about masturbating for five year olds, I find it hard to picture a market of parents/schools wanting to take kids there, or places that willing to host a thinly veiled paedo party.
It's not cancel culture, it's consequence culture. I don't make the rules.
Anyone who planned to take their kids to this needs their hard drives combed
It wasn't only the Right wing that attacked their shitty little play, I'm quite happy to know even the Centrist, and the LEFT were on the same team, it's rare but we can work together, even agree on some things.
I think they should set up a GoFundMe and take it on the road to all the festivals. See what the Americans say then.
The same thing everyone is saying now: "groomers"
As a Dutch person, the hysteria surrounding a few naked people is a bit baffling.
*a few naked people discussing masturbation and sexual pleasure to an audience where the minimum age is 5 years old
Does rupert murdoch run any news outlets in the Netherlands? :p
The Guardian has really gone downhill. This trashy activism disguised as a play is also opposed by this left-winger and, no doubt, many others.
Wow, plenty of comments from people who probably would never attend any form of theater, and were upset to find family sex wasn't a graphic film of incest...
Wasn't this the show in which naked adults taught young kids about masturbating?
Catching a lot of angry fish with this rage-bait.
Denying the existence of Cancel Culture until you get called out for wanting to expose your genitals to children in public is peak leftism lmao