Bristol :The Family Sex Show cancelled amid threats

[arista]

On Twitter
it got loads of Jimmy Saville photos.


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13E05/production/_124131418_tfss-sharing-13-1024x.jpg


A sex education theatre show aimed
at children has been cancelled after
the venue said it had received
"unprecedented threats and abuse".
The Family Sex Show,
featuring topics such as consent,
pleasure and queerness,
was due to be performed at
Bristol's Tobacco Factory in May.
The creators of the show,
who said they had also received threats,
have now cancelled its whole tour.

More than 38,000 people signed a
petition calling for it to be axed.

The petition claimed the show was
"profoundly irresponsible" and "wholly inappropriate".

The show would have featured
full-frontal nudity and those organising
it would "present a severe safeguarding risk",
protesters added.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-61149449


Was reviewed on Ch5HD AM live

[user104658]

There is now a genuine, clear and persistent push to "include P under LGBTQ" (referring to paedophilia)... and one of the main things I really do not understand... is how the LGBT community itself is not up in arms about this. Gay men were branded as dangerous and predatory for decades and the progress that was made is now going down the drain, in the name of blinkered acceptance of "all things under the Queer umbrella". There will be a claim that it's not happening until it happens... and then an incredulous insitence that any link being made is bigoted. Safeguarding of children must come first. Always. This has to be resoundingly rejected BY the community... saying "nowt to do with us" later just isn't good enough.

[bots]

enough is enough

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/EFE5/production/_124131416_tfss-sharing-37-1024x.jpg
[The show explores names and functions,
boundaries, consent and relationships]


this tweet has part of the Script
For 5year old?
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1516723954953633795

[user104658]

Honestly if it was for young adults, say Uni freshers at 18-21 that would be one thing (god knows Universities could do with some better messaging around things like consent, going by the stats) but under-18 teens is highly questionable and actual children ... it shouldn't even be legal, let alone a good idea.

[bots]

you have to wonder about the legality, because if the show is not age restricted anyone could attend it

[arista]

you have to wonder about the legality, because if the show is not age restricted anyone could attend it


Yes I agree, not suitable for a 5 year old

[Cherie]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/EFE5/production/_124131416_tfss-sharing-37-1024x.jpg
[The show explores names and functions,
boundaries, consent and relationships]


this tweet has part of the Script
For 5year old?
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1516723954953633795

This is supposed to be for children....load of pervs, glad its been cancelled

[Beso]

Dont say you wernt warned.

[arista]

This is supposed to be for children....load of pervs, glad its been cancelled



Yes crazy to have nudes on a stage
for 5 year olds.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I bet none of these perverts have children

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/09/56385941-10734503-Theatre_company_ThisEgg_yesterday_moaned_it_had_be en_forced_to_s-m-26_1650444826982.jpg

[Oliver_W]

There is now a genuine, clear and persistent push to "include P under LGBTQ" (referring to paedophilia)... and one of the main things I really do not understand... is how the LGBT community itself is not up in arms about this. Gay men were branded as dangerous and predatory for decades and the progress that was made is now going down the drain, in the name of blinkered acceptance of "all things under the Queer umbrella". There will be a claim that it's not happening until it happens... and then an incredulous insitence that any link being made is bigoted. Safeguarding of children must come first. Always. This has to be resoundingly rejected BY the community... saying "nowt to do with us" later just isn't good enough.
I really hate the word "queer" and pretty much everything it entails. I think the "Queer Community" either overlooks or allows the inclusion of the P, while normal (oft overlooked) LGBT people are against it.

Honestly if it was for young adults, say Uni freshers at 18-21 that would be one thing (god knows Universities could do with some better messaging around things like consent, going by the stats) but under-18 teens is highly questionable and actual children ... it shouldn't even be legal, let alone a good idea.
Children can't consent. Like I know that might seem a redundant thing to say (kids can't go to work but schooling includes preparation for jobs) but exactly what I mean is hard to explain ... Like, I question the motives of those who go on about consent, it kind of feels like they're teaching consent so kids "can" consent ... If that makes sense?

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/10/56823573-10734503-image-a-36_1650446692390.jpg

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/09/56820925-10734503-image-a-1_1650444309706.jpg

[Niamh.]

Any parents who would take their children to that show should be arrested and all.

[arista]

Any parents who would take their children to that show should be arrested and all.

Yes it appears strange
to say a family show.

[arista]

This is not suitable for a 5 year old child.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/09/56820927-10734503-image-a-2_1650444311885.jpg


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10734503/Family-Sex-urges-FIVE-YEAR-OLD-children-explore-sexual-pleasures-cancelled.html

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/10/56824233-10734503-image-a-39_1650448087565.jpg

Taken from the DM link

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/10/56824225-10734503-image-a-40_1650448091947.jpg

Same DM link

[Beso]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/10/56823573-10734503-image-a-36_1650446692390.jpg

Absolutely sick.

[user104658]

I have nothing against teaching proper anatomy to teenagers as this is also something we fail on massively, but that doesn't need to involve sex in any way, or live shows :facepalm:. And again - teens, not primary-school aged children who only need to know the absolute basics.

[arista]

Absolutely sick.


But these are Educated People

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/09/56386349-10734503-Josie_Dale_Jones_pictured_from_production_company_ ThisEgg_who_re-m-11_1650444508321.jpg
[Josie Dale-Jones from ThisEgg said:
'We wanted to make something that came
at the topics of relationships and sex in a light way']

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/10/56824223-10734503-image-a-41_1650448095853.jpg

From the DM link

[arista]

I have nothing against teaching proper anatomy to teenagers as this is also something we fail on massively, but that doesn't need to involve sex in any way, or live shows :facepalm:. And again - teens, not primary-school aged children who only need to know the absolute basics.


Yes TS
that makes sense

[Crimson Dynamo]

And it's to these type of people Labour and the SNP are pandering too

Jesus wept. :facepalm:

[arista]

[Theatre company ThisEgg slammed 'extremist' parents in Twitter thread]

['Family Sex Show' that urges children
as young as five
to explore 'sexual pleasure'
and 'try sexual practices', and 'draw and label' male and female
genitals has been
cancelled following a backlash among thousands of
angry and concerned parents.

Theatre company ThisEgg has complained
it had been forced to scrap its shocking show,
which encourages young children to
explore sex and sexuality,
'before it opened' in Bristol and Norwich
after nearly 40,000 parents
signed a petition calling for it to be axed.]


https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/09/56820933-10734503-image-a-6_1650444360788.jpg


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10734503/Family-Sex-urges-FIVE-YEAR-OLD-children-explore-sexual-pleasures-cancelled.html

[Cherie]

But these are Educated People

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/20/09/56386349-10734503-Josie_Dale_Jones_pictured_from_production_company_ ThisEgg_who_re-m-11_1650444508321.jpg
[Josie Dale-Jones from ThisEgg said:
'We wanted to make something that came
at the topics of relationships and sex in a light way']

Leave it to the parents love, they dont need you interfering

[arista]

Leave it to the parents love, they dont need you interfering


Very True.

[GoldHeart]

And it's to these type of people Labour and the SNP are pandering too

Jesus wept. :facepalm:

Is there anything you don't blame labour and SNP for ?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Is there anything you don't blame labour and SNP for ?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head but if I do rest assured I will be back to post it

That is if the woke left don't ban thinking

:bored:

[Mystic Mock]

There is now a genuine, clear and persistent push to "include P under LGBTQ" (referring to paedophilia)... and one of the main things I really do not understand... is how the LGBT community itself is not up in arms about this. Gay men were branded as dangerous and predatory for decades and the progress that was made is now going down the drain, in the name of blinkered acceptance of "all things under the Queer umbrella". There will be a claim that it's not happening until it happens... and then an incredulous insitence that any link being made is bigoted. Safeguarding of children must come first. Always. This has to be resoundingly rejected BY the community... saying "nowt to do with us" later just isn't good enough.

I agree with this.

[user104658]

I feel I need to add clarity to what I said before, as the counter I always run into is "this is nonsense, the LGBTQ community is absolutely not pushing to accept P"

I just want to clarify that I am absolutely aware of that, and it is NOT what I'm saying. I don't think there's any push or inclination from the community to accept paedophilia.

Rather, it's the "P" that's actively pushing to be included under the umbrella... and I personally don't think there's a strong or vocal enough opposition to this from people who consider themselves to be a part of the LGBTQ community. I see a lot of people who would rather convince themselves it's not happening. I think - and I understand this is for obvious reasons - there's an inherent inclination to be understanding and inclusive so while they don't accept, it's difficult to vocally and clearly reject.

And the issue then is... There isn't and never has been any real requirement for "established member agreement" in adding a group to the LGBTQ umbrella. "Kinks" and "Furries" successfully added themselves under the same banner as gay and trans people (I honestly will never understand why this isn't considered more offensive - although I know gay people who do find it offensive) so why wouldn't "Minor Attracted Persons" (urgh) believe they can plant a flag as a minority group under the same heading?

Frankly it needs to be nipped in the bud, hard, or it's going to happen. And then gay men minding their own business are going to find themselves lumped back in with paedophilia to the same extent they were decades ago.

[bots]

kinks i can work out but what the heck is a furry? :laugh:

i hope its not what i think it could be

[Cherie]

kinks i can work out but what the heck is a furry? :laugh:

i hope its not what i think it could be

where did you see furry :worry:

[user104658]

kinks i can work out but what the heck is a furry? :laugh:

i hope its not what i think it could be

To be blunt - it's not beastiality, it's humans dressed up as animals, usually having sex outdoors/in the woods etc.

Essentially... it is a kink, but for whatever reason it gets its own whole category. And although this one is an "each to their own" situation - adults can have whatever kind of sex they want so long as it's consensual - I still personally will never understand why it's legit for this to be under the same "umbrella" as homosexuality. Massively offensive to most gay adults, and wildly confusing for gay adolescents.

[Niamh.]

I feel I need to add clarity to what I said before, as the counter I always run into is "this is nonsense, the LGBTQ community is absolutely not pushing to accept P"

I just want to clarify that I am absolutely aware of that, and it is NOT what I'm saying. I don't think there's any push or inclination from the community to accept paedophilia.

Rather, it's the "P" that's actively pushing to be included under the umbrella... and I personally don't think there's a strong or vocal enough opposition to this from people who consider themselves to be a part of the LGBTQ community. I see a lot of people who would rather convince themselves it's not happening. I think - and I understand this is for obvious reasons - there's an inherent inclination to be understanding and inclusive so while they don't accept, it's difficult to vocally and clearly reject.

And the issue then is... There isn't and never has been any real requirement for "established member agreement" in adding a group to the LGBTQ umbrella. "Kinks" and "Furries" successfully added themselves under the same banner as gay and trans people (I honestly will never understand why this isn't considered more offensive - although I know gay people who do find it offensive) so why wouldn't "Minor Attracted Persons" (urgh) believe they can plant a flag as a minority group under the same heading?

Frankly it needs to be nipped in the bud, hard, or it's going to happen. And then gay men minding their own business are going to find themselves lumped back in with paedophilia to the same extent they were decades ago.

Hear hear! The gay community should be absolutely raging at the damage all this "cause coat tailing" is doing to their reputation and all the great work they've put it in over many years

[Niamh.]

To be blunt - it's not beastiality, it's humans dressed up as animals, usually having sex outdoors/in the woods etc.

Essentially... it is a kink, but for whatever reason it gets its own whole category. And although this one is an "each to their own" situation - adults can have whatever kind of sex they want so long as it's consensual - I still personally will never understand why it's legit for this to be under the same "umbrella" as homosexuality. Massively offensive to most gay adults, and wildly confusing for gay adolescents.

And why do they need an Umbrella to be under anyway? They want people to accept the way they like to have sex? WHY? I don't care or want to know how other people have sex

[Beso]

I care about how paedos have sex...

I think we should all care about that.

[Niamh.]

I care about how paedos have sex...

I think we should all care about that.

I was talking about the "furries" in my post not paedophiles obviously........

[Kizzy]

a Twitter statement, it said: "These public performances would have offered safe and positive learning to children, young people and guardians about rights, bodies, sex and relationships".

They said audiences were given information about the content before booking "so they could make an informed decision" as to whether to watch it.

The opposition had "prevented families from opting to attend something that was transparent, consensual and legal," ThisEgg added.

From the article.

I don't see why the issue of sex and consent has to be acted out on stage. It's the law and if parents or guardians are willing to take their children to something like this then a simple birds and bees chat should be easy. There is also lots of age appropriate literature on this subject. I don't see the point. All the singing and silly costumes are just confusing and unecessary.

[Oliver_W]

LGBTQ

No.

It's LGBT.

[arista]

It was being debated Live
on GBNewsHD


Inya's show

https://inayafolarin.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/whatsapp-image-2021-11-22-at-12.05.58.jpeg




Both Women debating it
said it was not suitable
for 5 year olds