Furries & gimp masks at Surrey Pride

Kids think it’s like a real dog

They damn well do not. They think it's a man dressed as a dog.

The kid kept petting me and laughed every time I made noises at him. Kids dont care. Kids think it’s like a real dog. Kids just wanna pet the pups and play with them. Kids learn hate and rejection from parents

But taken to extremes that's exactly how families like Fred and Rosemary West's bypassed all standards of acceptable behaviour. Before they even met both Rosemary's and Fred's families had generations of aberrant behaviour being presented as normal to children who were too young to learn to "hate and reject" aberrant behaviour.

This person might well be a million miles from that horror story but a grown man wanting children to pet him as they would pet a dog is aberrant behaviour.

I haven't seen anything about it elsewhere.

That's because this subject is one of those which are very tightly controlled.

I'm glad that there is a discussion about this here. I haven't seen anything about it elsewhere.

How long before people start seeking legal recognition of their pup status?

I'm increasingly waiting for the first application to be a school therapy dog from one of these individuals. It's got that stupid.

How long before people start seeking legal recognition of their pup status?

This is one of the responses to the India Willoughby tweet.

"I'm the transsexual in the pink skirt in this photo. I havent presented as myself as female for 25 years and this was a big day for me to be able to Express myself without hiding. Thank you transpride for giving me the opportunity to be able to be myself without feeling wrong."

"I'm also a human pup, this is not a kink or fetish for me this is a lifestyle, and an amazing caring and loving one too. I was to scared to present my face as female this time and being a female pup gave me the courage to step out into the light."

mobile.twitter.com/chip_pup/status/1152861967520030720

I think they're trying to imply some sort of equivalence between being a transsexual and being a 'human pup'.

At London Pride 2018 there was a toddler with his parents next to me. The kid kept petting me and laughed every time I made noises at him. Kids dont care. Kids think it’s like a real dog. Kids just wanna pet the pups and play with them. Kids learn hate and rejection from parents.

I used to joke about how fucked society would be if master/slave fetishes had been normalised the way autogynephilia has been, and everyone was supposed to be cool with people walking around on leashes and act like they "respect" the master/slave dynamic as if the whole world was some kind of giant kink party.

I wish I could retroactively retract my joking because this is not fucking funny.

How long before people start seeking legal recognition of their pup status?

If you disagree you are right wing, probably funded by fundamentalist Christians from America.

I wish these American fundamentalist Christians would hurry up and throw some funding my way. I could do with the cash.

We do not tolerate sexual behaviour around children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved. That is equality

Yup. This.

And there are limits to what sexual behaviour can be exhibited in a public place, particularly around unwitting or unconsenting bystanders.

That's a common theme to the problem across the board. Under the guise of being 'tolerant' people are being asked to accept boundary violation. Its framed as cool to not have boundaries.

Its all the same old arguments.
If you disagree you are right wing, probably funded by fundamentalist Christians from America.
And yes promote it as family friendly - but also say if children see anything "unsuitable" it is their parents problem and they shouldn't be there - even if you are taking over a park with a playground or parading through the centre of town.

I have never objected to the "London Sex Po" even if my husband saw odd things when he was at a Computer show next door. But that never called itself "Family Friendly".

Pride isn’t for children and it isn’t really for allies. If you cannot accept the lgbt community as it is, then that says something about the limits of tolerance.

1). Anything that takes place in a space were children aren't specifically excluded is for children because it is possible that children will be there.

2). Yes, tolerance is limited. We do not tolerate sexual behaviour around children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved. That is equality.

mobile.twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1152630276784304128

India Willoughby is spot on here. Yes, she may primarily be concerned that it affects her personally but I can't quibble with what she is saying.

Should anyone follow through on the links please be aware Pupchester has pictures of his/her genitals on his/her/ thread.

As a wider point, let's ask ourselves where does that all that leave safeguarding of children?

'P' for paedophilia is constantly trying to edge its way into the LGBTQ alphabet soup. Children, along with their parents, are being groomed to accept fetishes being displayed in public as normal, and children participating in them as normal (see the pups at pride thread here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3619623-pup-play-fans-dance-for-children-at-pride).

PIE never really went away, did it?

If Pride isn't appropriate for children it should not take place anywhere children are likely to be, such as town centres on a weekend afternoon.

If you want an adult only event try an industrial estate, or hold your march at midnight with appropriate noise restrictions in place.

Stop demanding to be in public places if your march isn't suitable for vast swathes of the public to see. Idiots.

This is Mr Leather Wales on twitter.
twitter.com/MrLeatherWales/status/1157180281759182855

Pride isn’t for children and it isn’t really for allies. If you cannot accept the lgbt community as it is, then that says something about the limits of tolerance.

But Rhondda Pride wanted to put on a family friendly event. So what is Pride supposed to be - an event for everyone, including children, or an adult-only, LGBTQ+ only event, all fetishes welcome?

That’s Pips at work? Bloody hell

Luckily I assume there tend not to be any naked flames at the Credit Suisse office

That outfit is a fire hazard if ever I saw one

Look, Pride is just a day to celebrate male sexual rights. We need to forget about Pride as a celebration of being able to love who you choose, it's now a day where men get to tell everyone who they are allowed to love and in what ways they're allowed to do it.

This is Pippa Bunce for those who don't know.

At Credit Suisse's office in London.

Got to respect the identity, right?

Talking of the Bunce I was reading a twitter thread that claims he has separate work emails for each 'persona' and cannot be sacked as one person because technically there is two of them!

twitter.com/farleycharl/status/1159958332872040448

I thought that for years, gay people fought to try to get people to accept that their sexual orientation wasn't a fetish.

That is exactly what I was going to post when I saw the thread title.

It is why self-ID is so important to the trans lobby.

Stonewall talking about it as "just a bit of admin".

But what it does is set a precedent that self-defined feelings (that anybody can merely claim to have) trump material reality in law.

So for example, if we take the case of the NSPCC guy who was wanking in the NSPCC offices in a rubber gimp suit and put in on the internet to brag about it.

He would be able to legitimately claim that his fetish identity should never be grounds for dismissal. That his identify is part of who he is and that he should not be discriminated at work for it. Indeed, he can take legal action against NSPCC for victimising him if they invoke disciplinary proceedings against him. That's what would happen if we enshrine self-declared identity in law.

Hell, he is probably already claiming that now.

If Philip Bunce can present as Pippa Bunce at work then why can't NSPCC guy wear a rubber gimp suit and masturbate at work? That is his fetish identity. Bunce brings one identity to work and NSPCC bloke brings another. How does the law distinguish between the two? The sexual element is absolutely core to this guy's fetish identity, so why should he be less protected in the eyes of the law than Bunce?

As a wider point, let's ask ourselves where does that all that leave safeguarding of children?

Individuals and organisations will be effectively prohibited by law from taking any action whatsoever against any individual who self-identifies as woman or fetish. Even asking a question will be a hate crime.

Society will still be able to prosecute those who abuse children. But it will be prevented from taking any action to stop it happening in the first place, indeed society's new laws will facilitate the abuse.

This will not end well.
These pride events are pushing the idea that homosexuality is associated with fetish. The general public see only the pictures of the pups and the men with their dicks out and think that is what lgbt is.
Pride should exist only to demonstrate that we are perfectly normal boring people with jobs, just like everyone else. We just need protected in law from discrimination and homophobia.
If someone wants to have a fetish parade, go for it, just keep the LGBT out of it. Public support is very easy to lose.

Because that is exactly where all this is going.

A couple of years ago, I would have said you were crazy, but I agree: this is where we're heading.

So "fetish" is an identity now?

Like "woman" is an identity for some men?

So masturbating your penis in front of women and girls in a women's toilet won't be a crime but an integral part of your identity? The police are already celebrating sexual fetishes at Pride - this would just be a short step. Presumably anybody who objected to it would be prosecuted for hate crime.

I'm guessing that you'll be able to self-ID your fetish identity online (as the government proposes to do with self-ID of sex) and insist that everyone respects it.

Because if you can have your feeling of womanhood validated legally then why can't you have your fetish validated legally? Why is one identity ranked above another? What's the difference exactly?

Because that is exactly where all this is going. It is never going to stop at self-identification of biological sex; that's just the start.

What does heteronormativity have to do with anything?

Exactly. Fifty Shades of Grey is the best selling book of all time, but apparently marching around wearing fetish gear is a daring rebellion against heteronormativity.