Is Pride exempt from public indecency rules?

[Libre2]

DD (aged 14) went into London today with a friend she is staying with. I can only assume friend’s parents didn’t realise it was pride weekend and we don’t live anywhere near London so had no idea.

Aside from the fact that it was a complete ballache getting back out because tube stations were closed, DD said she was shocked at some of the things she saw in terms of arses on display with men just wearing “thongs”.

How is it OK to have such sexualised stuff going on in view of young kids?

I hate it all. It's sexual exhibitionism and very inappropriate on the street.

Didn't mean to quote btw. Fat fingers

Can you explain the difference?

You have repeatedly said that we should just ‘look away’ or avoid the area or not take our kids to an event generally advertised as family friendly.

It is kind of incredible that there is an extremely popular parenting website where it’s now apparently fine to be ‘fine with gay people as long as I don’t have to see them’

Thank you! 🙏🏻 this is exactly my thought

By 'sexual fetish' you mean things like wearing skimpy clothes? Kissing? Sexy dancing? Wearing leather?

Do you find it hard to cope when you see women doing this, or is it just the sight of men that upsets you?

....
Eh?

Literally cannot even decipher this.

I was shocked the first time I saw arse at my local pool.

I was even more shocked when I saw fanny at a restaurant (very short shorts, labia and bum cheeks visible). It's the way the world is going.

Fpr nakedness to count as public indecency the prosecution must show that the perpetrator did it with the intention of causing alarm, distress, shock, offence etc. So if a gentleman is stark bollock naked in Oxford Street without even a thong, due to having been thrown out of somewhere involuntarily, he is not guilty of indecency, nor is the above mentioned naked ramble. I think you'd have a tough time proving that the fundamental intention of the Pride parade is to cause alarm, distress, shock, or offence.

I guess what this thread is REALLY saying is that although heteronormative society has switched it's obsession from homosexuality to transwomen, that actually, gay men aren't OK after all.

I mean, I'm not on the side of public bums out (hell, I don't want to see male nipples even), but it's just another set of double standards.

You’re right. This is very concerning

but also, I’ve been wearing shorts and a singlet lately as it’s been warm out. You can def see my boobs outline and I am quite sexy even though I am 46. Is it ok

WORSE it was in suburban zone 3. I realise you might not be aware but people travel to concerts and events in the clothes they are attending the event in

if you’re talking about the wannabe women trans types attention seeking and pushing their pervy kinks into spaces that are not appropriate, yes, I agree. It’s grim. They need to take their drag and their insulting womenface posturing elsewhere. Cos out on the streets in broad daylight with kids around is not the place.

Your last comment exposes all your hatred and bigotry that you've been trying to pretend isn't there

Newsflash: there are gay and trans military personnel. People fighting in actual wars (insulting of you to all those in current war zones to suggest this is merely a possibility not a reality) who will fit into your idea of undesirables who will run away and suit themselves

I'll let you off 😉

Just make sure you don't have your bum hanging out whilst you're wearing them 😁

Yeah I hadn’t seen it this clearly stated before but I guess that dumb poem was right after all

Fuck off with your bigotry tbh

Trans and drag aren't the same thing for a start

And drag has a long history as an art form. It's not "woman face" and that term is used to imply it's the same as the actual offensive Blackface which is disgusting.

It's clear there is a lot of homophobia present here though.

I'm also really not sure why you seem to be under the impression that I personally have any influence on what the Pride organisers say about their events?

Where did I say that?

And for some reason you seem desperate to suggest Pride is connected to paedo's and so on. I may as well take the opportunity to say I disagree strongly and find it super distasteful and weird that you keep suggesting such things.

Im not ‘suggesting’, I’m telling you information that shows the links. It’s a shame you don’t find that as distasteful as me mentioning it.

At least we agree on one thing - that Pride is not suitable for children. You seem to think just London Pride is not suitable but from the track record of other Pride events and the sex offenders (that I mentioned earlier) that have been heavily involved, they don’t sound suitable either. I can’t imagine that a Pride event organised by a man who raped an 11 yr old boy (do look it up if you don’t believe me) is going to be great on ‘family friendly’ aspects.

I have not made any ‘assumptions’. Everything I have said is based on reports from previous events. With photographs to prove it. Feel free to check.

Once again

We aren't all straight

And supporting LGBT+ isn't "wanting a pat on the back"

It's just being supportive and not a hate filled dick

No. It's not.

Plenty of women wear visible thongs

They too aren't being sexual

Some people like feet. It doesn't make them sexual.

Liking something in a sexual way doesn't inherently make the thing sexual

I was going to Pride (in London and Brighton) from my teens back in the 80s (and as far back when it was an actual political march, not a big corporate kinkfest. Imagine that? And back in the 90s even they used to have the big march and then the localised events, like on Clapham Common, so it wasn't shops everywhere or anything.)

Yes, there were always blokes in leather chaps and a few bare arses, lots of drag queens, lots of campery and fun, plus there were a lot more lesbians. But fetish really wasn't most of it and it did used to be fairly family-friendly, at least during the day. Got a bit raunchier at night obvs.

But there certainly weren't the TQ+ furries and pups (which are obvious draws to naive kids), nappy fetishists or old blokes dressed as babies, cock images & dildos, everywhere, straight blokes claiming to be lesbians (back then "trans" was those Jan Morris middle aged military type transvestites having their conservative tea parties over at the Beaumont society in their pearls, which they clutched often at the thought of the disgusting gays and openly said they didn't want to be associated & didn't believe in gay rights).

And the police weren't leading pups around on leads and no, if you walked out of Piccadilly Circus tube with your kids, while in later years you'd see the crowds, plenty of gay men, a few drag queens and hear lots of whistles, sure, but you wouldn't be especially likely to see serious fetishists or kinksters, though sure, you might see like one bare arse if you were unlucky. It's really not "pearl clutching" or prudish to notice the difference and how it's changed over time.

@JaneEyre40

’Jesus, this thread is scary.’

You are right, but not in the way I think you meant

It’s interesting that some people think that enjoying Pride is done for personal gain

does it mean they think hating Pride is the natural human state and anything else must have an ulterior motive

or is hating Pride for personal gain as well

This is bullshit

Lots of gay people still love and attend Pride. They haven't "all" moved away at all

Because lots of us still feel that being anything but straight makes us less equal. Threads like this prove it.