Pup play fans dance for children at Pride

[OrchidInTheSun]

How charming!

twitter.com/pupchester/status/1142449770893586432?s=21

When asked if he thought this was suitable entertainment for children before Pride, PupChester said no (see screenshot)

So if Pride is a celebration of fetish, why are our police and town councils supporting it so broadly? Why are we closing streets to parade BDSM fans?

If we expose kids to kink, even if it's in passing, or in "kid friendly" way like that photo claims to suggest (urgh) it becomes normalised in the children's mind, leaving them vulnerable to predators who may be part of a kink lifestyle, or even make them vulnerable to ending up in a lifestyle like this before they are grown enough to process and deal with it all.
After all we do tell children not to talk to strangers, to keep their guard up and protect them from that slight chance of things going wrong.
We know predators go to great lengths to Integrate into situations where they can get to their victims. Normalising and parading anything sexual (straight gay or kink) for children's consumption goes against all common sense and leaves children at greater risk of harm.

Show children healthy loving relationships either gay or straight, full of mutual respect, trust affection and care-leave anything sexual for adults only.

This idea that kids don't get a lot of sexual connotation so it doesn't affect them:

It's true that sometimes it goes over their heads. But I think that they do very often start to get ideas about something more going on a lot earlier than people think, especially if they are exposed to it on a regular basis. It's perhaps still mysterious, but they know it's something strange and adult.

And kids do also have sexual feelings at times but they aren't well understood by them and they have a rather undefined quality that can latch onto all kinds of inappropriate objects. This can happen at ages like 6 or 7 or 8, when they are clearly not ready for understanding adult situations. Exposure to so many sexual images and such in society generally likely doesn't help. I believe there is some evidence that this is how fetishes can start.

Certainly the kids will remember these events later when they do realise that there is a sexual connotation, and then there they are, remembering themselves in what were sexual situations their parents and other adults put them in.

I get the sense that increasingly people see these sorts of fetishes as innate, as if exposure won't make a difference to their development in young people, they will just develop them or not. This doesn't seem to be what the evidence says. They also seem to assume that there is no downside to a fetish focused sexuality which I would argue with strenuously.

There are potential downsides to any type of sexuality: straight, gay, kinky or non-kinky. People can be made unhappy or make themselves unhappy via sexual or dating experiences. It's extremely unhealthy, for instance, to insist that the only right way to conduct adult relationships is via monogamy (and if you're into anything else, conceal it or be punished.)
I don't think children should be presented with the gory details of adult fetishism, or expected to interact directly with people dressed in fetishwear (well, in any other way than perhaps giving some passerby in a funny outfit directions to the train station). Some discussion on who should/should not join in the Pride events that I have seen elsewhere has included suggestions that people with minors in their group join one end of the parade and those from the leather community be at the other end, for example. (All the while, the arguments about other groups some people disapprove of, such as the military and Disney corporation, keeps rumbling on...)
But there is a lot of conflating and dodgy assumptions on this thread - that people who look odd or wear funny clothes are automatically predatory, or that having an unusual sexual preference makes you dangerous to children - or to other adults. We're already in a social/political climate that's encouraging fear and hate for anyone seen as different: let's be careful about making it worse.

But there is a lot of conflating and dodgy assumptions on this thread - that people who look odd or wear funny clothes are automatically predatory, or that having an unusual sexual preference makes you dangerous to children

There really isn’t you know

But there is a lot of conflating and dodgy assumptions on this thread - that people who look odd or wear funny clothes are automatically predatory, or that having an unusual sexual preference makes you dangerous to children - or to other adults.

No, there isn't.

There are people talking about the safeguarding of children. From what I can see in this thread, outwith that nobody gives a flying fuck. If the safeguarding of children makes anybody feel defensive about their personal sex lives, the problem isn't with the safeguarding of children.

Have you actually read the thread re?

No one is saying anyone is necessarily predatory.

They are saying boundaries and safeguarding matter.

Because if boundaries and safeguarding are correct and strong, the risk from predators is greatly decreased (although not eliminated).

To me, the puppy tent scenario shows a lack of safeguarding and boundaries. The “pups” had the kids trying on the puppy masks, one guy has an erection (!).

For all we know they could be lovely guys - it’s not personal, it’s about boundaries.

If we expose kids to kink, even if it's in passing, or in "kid friendly" way like that photo claims to suggest (urgh) it becomes normalised in the children's mind
I think this too. Whether it's a sexual fetish or kink to the individual or not, I don't think it's a good idea to present these ideas to young children developing their own sexual identities, when there is already enough of that in society.

I don't however, think children seeing all sorts of different people in a huge parade and not having interaction is the same thing, or as likely to encourage them one way or another.

For young children, a sexuality parade of any sort is really something they need to be at.

A lot of people do feel as though their fetish/life style choice is akin to being LGB, so I suppose it's one of the few places they feel safe or appropriate in expressing it.

not something young children need to be at rather.

Not every child photographed with Jimmy Savile was abused by him but most of them will look back at those photos and feel sick.

Children might not recognise that some adults are getting sexual pleasure from being around them but they will know when they grow up and look back.

The issue with kink and boundaries comes down to two things:

People who show they have poor boundaries in one area of sexuality, like wearing sexual gear in public, are potentially dangerous because of those poor boundaries. Most people have, from time to time, or often, sexual desires that are in some way inappropriate to indulge. People with strong boundaries will likely be aware that they are inappropriate and able to control them. People who have poor boundaries in other areas, maybe not so much.

The other is that boundary pushing in itself is often sexually arousing to people. And as boundaries are more often transgressed or become socially accepted people need to go farther to get the same thrill. This is a significant problem with transgressive sexuality in general, it easily tends to move incrementally farther toward the forbidden, but over time it can lead to very questionable behaviour.

Societies don't put limits on sexuality just to be prudish, they put them on because when they don't it gets really ugly. It's one of the most powerful biological drives, maybe even more than food and drink in many instances.

But there is a lot of conflating and dodgy assumptions on this thread - that people who look odd or wear funny clothes are automatically predatory

No, that is not true.

But people who wear funny clothes because it gets them off and then invite kids in to interact with them when they are wearing said clothes that get them off, are definitely dodgy.

I don't think children should be presented with the gory details of adult fetishism, or expected to interact directly with people dressed in fetishwear (well, in any other way than perhaps giving some passerby in a funny outfit directions to the train station).

No child should ever be faced with a situation in which they are expected to help an adult dressed in fetish gear.

Maybe just don't wear fetish gear in public, eh?

I've read the human rights act and this is not in there. Neither is it in the equality act. We don't have to put up with this shit, it's nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Keep your kink to the bedroom and private events. Stop pushing other people's boundaries, especially children's boundaries. It makes you look extremely dodgy.

When you were fetish gear on public you are making everyone around you part of the show. If that includes kids, then well...

The problem with Pride* is that it's shifted from LGB to queer. Transgenderism is just one glaring symptom of queer but it's part of a wider agenda.

Queer is all about transgression and being against normative anything. Queer is antithetical to safeguarding.

Either Pride is a queer event where you can all dress in rubber and let your arses hang out - in which case Mermaids, NSPCC, Scouts etc. should not be part of it, everyone should be made aware it's not a suitable event to take children and ordinary people who live or use spaces on a pride route should be protected from having to witness your grim sex hobbies ...

Or Pride is about LGB people having the same rights as everyone else, a commemoration of those who fought for those rights, a celebration of rights gained and a protest against continued infringement of those rights, in which case it is absolutely suitable for children so just don't turn up in your rubber suit and doggy mask or any other fetish outfit. Put it away. Your fun-sex parade is not inclusive if it excludes ordinary LGB families.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

*This isn't the only problem with Pride, there's also the rampant lesbophobia which is another symptom of queer: lesbians must not be permitted any boundaries. Boundaries are bad, m'kay

One of the objections to the burka and niqab being worn in public is that in western societies we expect to see people's faces and expressions. Now that's a view I agree with (I would support a ban, but that's a whole other thread)

So , setting the (many) other objections aside how is it acceptable for groups of adults to be out and about fully masked in a public place?

I agree Lass. I think this needs to stop

I was picking my DS up from a theatre group when Pride was on and inside the theatre was a group of mermaids(I think) They were in a public foyer with lots of young children about with their arses hanging out it was bloody awful. The children and parents were really uncomfortable and equally the teenagers coming out of the group looked mortified.

Why was this major theatre in a city centre harbouring these people next to groups of young children? They had set a section for them which was directly next to this theatre group ffs.

** sorry not mermaids but fetish

So , setting the (many) other objections aside how is it acceptable for groups of adults to be out and about fully masked in a public place?

This.

I think most people don't have a very well thought out idea of what is and is not acceptable to wear in public.

You can see it with discussions of the burqua, but also whenever there are challenges to laws about whether people can go around naked, or discussions about whether there should be dress codes in schools or anywhere else.

So, is it ok for me to wear a dress that is totally sheer or looks like it is pined together with safety pins? Those are meant to be sexual, surely? So why not assless chaps?

I'm not suggesting there is a clear answer or the answer is the same for all of these, but most of the time the discussion about public display of sexuality seems to be about people's gut reaction more than anything. That makes it hard to lay out a coherent line of thought.

People wear masks on demos if they feel it might be dangerous for them to be seen/recorded attending the demo. There are some very good reasons for a person to choose to do this, along with some less good ones (if you are attending Pride but you have a family member/estranged family member who would wish to hunt you down and hurt you for being gay then you might want to show solidarity but not put yourself at risk. The same applies if you are a refugee from a country that punishes sexual 'deviance' with the death penalty.)

Are they wearing the puppy masks because it would be dangerous for them to be seen attending Pride?

There are far less conspicuous outfits they could have chosen.

Goosefoot: Very true. For instance, seeing a MAMIL (middle-aged man in lycra) might mean it's someone with a fetish - or a cyclist having a mid-life crisis. Some people think bare shoulders or bare thighs are in some way indecent. And some people find specific types of clothing erotic even though most other people would never think of those types of clothing as erotic/indecent/not suitable for public places (eg military uniforms or Goth-type clothing).

It's worth considering the essential weirdness of the idea that male nipples are OK to be shown in public but female nipples are not, though that's probably a topic for another thread. I think overall it's probably better to judge people by their behaviour than what they happen to be wearing.

There are some very good reasons for a person to choose to do this, along with some less good ones (if you are attending Pride but you have a family member/estranged family member who would wish to hunt you down and hurt you for being gay then you might want to show solidarity but not put yourself at risk. The same applies if you are a refugee from a country that punishes sexual 'deviance' with the death penalty.)

A poster mentioned a group of "pups" is a regular weekend occurrence in her local public park, so sorry I'm not buying this explanation for 1 minute.