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?

Pmsl at "standard sex"!
For most women I know sex was a bit rubbish until we were about 25 and felt able to assert our wants ( instead of just going "ok" about whatever). But yeah, let's give younger teenage girls the message that if they are not up for wearing a leash they are frigid, eh? Ace.

Oh, and I think it's appalling that they know about Furries at 11/12 btw. The LESS kids are exposed to that shit the better. Hence porn blockers at home, hence no 4g etc.
I'm not daft. I know they will see stuff but I do what I can do.
Why ANYONE would be going "but..why should we deprive under 18s of kink" on a thread about safeguarding is beyond me.

Yes, accepting you can't prevent everything doesn't mean don't bother trying, or condone it.

but..why should we deprive under 18s of kink

Yes, this is exactly what some people here seem to be saying. ‘Why bother safeguarding young kids? That will prevent older kids from getting access to images of and information about kinky sex, and who would want that eh?’

LordProff to answer your question What’s the age for buying the porn pass they gvt is bringing in? I had read it'd been scrapped but on checking....

X-rated websites were set to be blocked on 15 July this year, but now the new laws have been delayed again.
It is still unknown how far the porn block implementation will be pushed back, with an administrative error causing an indefinite wait.

From inews.co.uk/news/technology/porn-block-free-website-ban-when-date-delay-how-ageid-law-explained/

Opps and the age limit will be 18 from what I've read.

I wish I could not believe that some people will defend or minimise this appalling and inappropriate behaviour.

I can't even find the words to write something more.

This thread thread took an odd turn. Somehow the question “should we deprive 17yos of exposure to kink?” has never crossed my mind before.

Now that it has: I think the less kinky / porny stuff they see the better. Younger women are reportedly feeling scared during sex because of men choking them without warning, or coercing them into anal sex - I don’t think more exposure to kink is the answer.

Oops - end derail \

Here is a fetishist on twitter (whose account contains "sensitive content") encouraging the BBC's new LGBT correspondent, Ben Hunte (who did the sycophantic Bergdorf / NSPCC interview and the recent trans 'hate crime' article), to do a "deep dive" into how "TERF's" are "targeting fetishists": twitter.com/BusterBDSM/status/1141045745073696769

Ben, do go ahead with this shocking exposé. I'm sure that public opinion will be firmly on the side of men dressed in rubber posing as animals masturbating in the loos of their workplace and their battle against evil safeguarding feminists.

To @LenizarLyublyu, @QueenOfAshes, @ReanimatedSGB and any other fetish-around-kids apologists... why not keep your fetish subculture in private clubs, away from people who don't want to see your private sexual stuff in public, and especially away from children? Why is it important to you to display your fetish this in public? What purpose does it serve, and what is your objective? Why is your fetish subculture increasingly colonising public spaces like parks and Pride parades?

Lisa Muggeridge comment:

'Social work training: Ever present risk of predatory behaviour'

All adults concerned with the Safeguarding of children & younger adults should consider this.

@Sunkisses . . I'm not a fetishist

I don't think fetish should be part of pride, it has nothing to do with it. Children should be able to go to pride without seeing that, so in answer to your question; it's not "my" subculture, I don't claim it. It shouldn't be in public places where underage children should be.

EverardDigby: Once upon a time lesbians and gay men were campaigning to be seen as just like everyone else, that our sexuality wasn't the most interesting thing about us and in the main wasn't worth commenting about. Now, who knows what the fuck has happened. This is not why I spent much of the 90s fighting for LGB rights and acceptance.

I could not agree more (except it was the 80s for me). I thought we had moved away from homosexuality/bisexuality being a seen as a kink. This is so regressive.

I remember back in the day when Pride was proper edgy. Would someone you know see you there? Would there be backlash - would your family, friends and colleagues be ok with it? Would you be beaten up or ostracised? Would you lose your job? Would your dad beat the loving shit out of you if he saw you on the TV marching along?

Now it’s ‘bring your kids and kinks, woohooo! Yay rainbows and sparkles for all! Fabulous! And if you don’t say you live it you are a hateful bigot and we will bash your head in (and get you sacked and hounded).’

Plus ca change?

Oh my word R0 that clip has blown my mind. That has to be seen by more people!! Fionne posted it too (God love her), hopefully Graham does too.

It's clearly true that as people get into the teen years they become more interested in sex and able to understand more as well.

It's also the case that a lot of them are exposed to some pretty wild things although I can't see that as n argument that it is a positive thing. Rather the opposite, there seem to be a lot of reports that it is harming them psychologically and even physically.

In many ways kids at that age, because of their increased interest and the fact that they are in puberty and so may even be physically attractive to older people in a way children aren't unless they are paedophiles, have an new kind of vulnerability. Where young kids can be taken advantage of through their innocence, young teens can be taken advantage through a combination of being both naive and sexually developing.

In an ideal world I think we'd minimise the chances fetishes would develop in anyone by making certain things socially inappropriate, and maybe even considered inappropriate in private.

That's queer theory thinking.

I despise queer theory, but I think considering where the line is where we consider people adults, or old enough to have some more exposure is not queer theory. There is nothing to say the discussion only has to be about 8 year olds. We generally do let 14 year olds, for example, to watch films with sexual content (not porn) that we would not let an 8 year old watch.

My answer is that ideally we'd have a much lower bar even for adults as to what is inappropriate, but I imagine many people would differ with me on that.

Oh my word R0 that clip has blown my mind. That has to be seen by more people!!

Lisa Muggeridge is really good on Safeguarding & what she describes was standard awareness when I was working in Social Care.

Its worth looking at Lisa Muggeridge's YouTube channel.
www.youtube.com/channel/UC9c2nFwyCdfgBG8BhFys3-A/videos

She has a lot of relevent comment & explanations to the NSPCC systemic Safeguarding failures etc

That video is so important.

"Well what is normal anyway?"

"Your job from now on is to have a very very clear grasp of what's normal and what is abnormal and what is in the parameters of normal, because you are going to be making decisions on that basis. And if you can't, you're on the wrong course."

All these people falling over themselves to 'live and let live,' to 'accept without exception' - to not 'kink-shame" - it's all completely losing sight of this ^ and child safeguarding.

It is NOT a normal thing to want to wank off wearing a leather dog mask, or be lead around on a lead. It is a sexual fetish - still defined as a paraphilia (although I'm sure they're working on that). It is certainly NOT normal to be aroused wearing a dog mask around children.

This stuff needs to stop being normalised - enjoy your kink in private with consenting adults - because if your kink relies on involving interaction with others - esp children - without their consent, or even without their knowledge - then it's not acceptable.

@LenizarLyublyu - then my apologies. I thought you were one of the ones on this thread who'd come on to defend this paraphilic attempt to transgress of the boundaries of children.

I despise queer theory, but I think considering where the line is where we consider people adults, or old enough to have some more exposure is not queer theory. There is nothing to say the discussion only has to be about 8 year olds. We generally do let 14 year olds, for example, to watch films with sexual content (not porn) that we would not let an 8 year old watch.

Again, this thread is about child protection and the events at Pride involving prepubescent children and adult kink attendees, not about whether childhood ends at a particular point post puberty or adult behaviours and pursuits become gradually more acceptable and when. Let's keep on topic and not obscure it, please.

Trying to obscure it is queer theory thinking. And this is where it leads:

I might say the child is traumatised from being raped but the pro-paedophile group may reframe that as my perception and that the child was only traumatised because society frames sex with children as bad.

(From the FPFW women article on critical realism here: fairplayforwomen.com/critical_realism).

"Your job from now on is to have a very very clear grasp of what's normal and what is abnormal and what is in the parameters of normal, because you are going to be making decisions on that basis. And if you can't, you're on the wrong course."

The course Lisa Muggeridge was on was Social Work.
The decisions though are Safeguarding decisions which all adults in society are obliged to make. That is we all have responsibiity to Safeguard children & vulnerable adults.

Safeguarding decisions are boundaries which protect children & vulnerable adults.

If adults can't establish these boundaries then children & vulnerable adults are not protected.

Goosefoot: if adults, in private, enjoy 'unconventional' sexual activities, what the fuck has it got to do with you or anyone else? Might as well claim it would be better to 'minimize the chances' of people developing a keen interest in train spotting, or astrology, or cycling.

Yes I know this thread is about concerns regarding how much adult sexual behaviour should be visible anywhere near children, but some posters seem to be more fixated on types of adult sexual behaviour being inherently bad or wrong just because it's stuff they don't fancy doing themselves. And there are attitudes extremely reminiscent of the way people used to talk about same-sex couples/relationships: gay people were thought to be naturally more dangerous to children; it was dangerous for children to be exposed to the idea that some people prefer sexual/romantic partners of the same sex because it might 'give them ideas', etc.

There are undoubtedly dangerous individuals around the fetish scenes(whether straight or gay). Just like there are dangerous individuals in religious groups, social clubs, political parties, charities, hobby groups - and even those working with vulnerable young people (just because you've passed a DBS check doesn't guarantee you're not a predator: all it states is that youve not been caught.) Many respectable pillar-of-the-community types, including those who make a lot of noise about how disgusting unconventional sexualities are, can turn out to be hiding their extremely dangerous true selves.

What children and young people need most of all is PHSE that focusses on consent, courtesy and autonomy, and a culture that shows them they will be listened to when they say that someone is behaving inappropriately around them. Not wave after wave of disjointed moral panics around some group of 'outsiders'.