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?

What people get up to (with consent) in the privacy of their own homes is completely up to them... of course it is!

No one here has said otherwise AFAIK.

But anyone who brings their kink into the public domain and intentionally or otherwise encourages children to interact with them?

They should be judged. It’s not okay.

Thanks ReanimatedSGB for keeping this thread bumped. It's so important for parents to see precisely what is happening.

Little has changed since the PIE days when men claimed to be liberating children by enabling them to have sex with adults. This case is another male sexual rights movement that performs their fetish in public, specifically targeting and inviting young children to share their it.
All the whataboutery in the world can never disguise those initial actions - so thank you - let's keep this thread bumped and expose what is happening.

And those kids would not have realised there was anything wrong with trying on a rubber mask which a “nice man” in a dog mask (with a raging boner) gave them.

It’s not moral panic. It’s basic safeguarding.

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.

NO, Reanimated. NO.

What children need is PSHE that focuses on consent, courtesy and BOUNDARIES and a culture that shows them they will be listened to when they say that someone is behaving inappropriately around them AND WHAT INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR IS.

You are paraphrasing the new and dangerous redefinition of child abuse by the NSPCC, which has been spoken about here recently. It puts the onus on the child to recognise abuse when we know that grooming often makes it impossible for them to do that.

Again: this is queer theory thinking. It is antithetical to safeguarding and the protection of children.

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'.

No, you seem not to understand child development, Safeguarding & Child Protection.

extended article by Shelley Charlesworth is important reading for all parents & adults concerned with Safeguarding primary age children:

'No Outsiders : Queering the Primary Classroom'
www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/

The 'No Outsiders' is an anti-bullying initiative, and I'd take the anecdata in that article with a large pinch of salt as it's just more trans-panic.

Yet again: having a 'pup play' stand and encouraging minors to interact with it was a stupid thing to do, whether the instigators included predatory individuals or just idiots who don't have any children, know anyone with children, or ever really think about children - so their reasoning was all 'I should be accepted for who I am' not 'I want to access victims'.

This doesn't mean that people with unusual sexual tastes are automatically dangerous to children (or to other adults).

This doesn't mean that people with unusual sexual tastes are automatically dangerous to children (or to other adults).

Just as well this thread is about child protection and not that, then, isn't it? Despite your efforts to paint it otherwise, which include, rather alarmingly, insertion of a dangerous definition of child abuse.

The 'No Outsiders' is an anti-bullying initiative, and I'd take the anecdata in that article with a large pinch of salt as it's just more trans-panic.

The article is evidence based.

A number of issues with the 'No Outsiders' program & resources were identified & discussed on a number of threads. Many posters had taken time to look at both the books & resources.

Knee-jerk rejection of serious study is always disappointing though can be useful to note.

The issues with 'No Outsiders' will impact girls especially & particularly girls who are same sex orientated.

It has been said elsewhere on MN, I know, but my mum warned me about strange men with puppies and sweeties.
Now it seems that the same ilk are being openly encouraged to have public displays aimed at children and parents are not allowed to say anything negative.
Government, safeguarding charities and police are all joining in.
It is grooming on a massive scale.

so their reasoning was all 'I should be accepted for who I am' not 'I want to access victims'

Why do they need to be accepted for "who I am" to the extent of public validation of their sexual link?

but some posters seem to be more fixated on types of adult sexual behaviour being inherently bad or wrong

Has anyone said that? Do I think pup play is inherently bad or wrong? I have no idea- possibly if there is coercion. Do I think heterosexual intercourse is inherently bad or wrong? No - unless there is coercion.

Do I want to see either carried out in a public place where there is unlimited access for members of the public of all ages and spectators,over the age of 18, have not consciously and deliberately chosen to see it? NO.NO and NO

This man's Twitter feed is very educational.

[He worked with particular men in US prisons for years and is an expert in certain behaviours]:

twitter.com/JonKUhlerLPC

so their reasoning was all 'I should be accepted for who I am'

Adults' needs for validation & acceptance of their sexual practices do not ever trump the Safeguarding needs of children or vulnerable adults.

Any adult who believes their need for validation should trump Safeguarding frameworks represents potential risk.

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.

But none of this is private. If it was private, no one would know about it, would they? I am really starting to think that a lot of people don't actually know what private means.

Ultimately sexual norms are never completely private, that's what makes them norms, there is always an intersection between what's culturally normal and what people do in their "private" lives. People do not just "privately" come up with the idea of focusing their sexuality on giant fake fur animals, along with 20 other people in a club. Sexual fetishes are developed through experiences that happen at formative sexual periods, and a lot of these group ones are through porn or exposure on the internet.

Is it good for society overall to have large numbers of people with fetish focused sexualities - not particularly. It's not good for a lot of individuals either, it represents an interruption of what would have been their normal sexual development in a way that will narrow their opportunities, and in a lot of cases encourage escalation.

Those are good reasons to have a social norm whereby fetishes are in fact private, not something you do in public or a public setting, and that includes the media. No one is coming into your bedroom to check on this stuff, but Pride, and kink festivals, and porn, are ultimately communal spaces not private ones.

article today,
'Meet The Londoners Who Masturbate At Work'
by Samantha Rea
(extract)
"I once did a cam session in the disabled toilets, with a girl watching me wank," says Harry, who works in the City in human resources. Harry, who went through a phase of masturbating at work, explains that on this occasion, "it was quite late and no one else was around." However, that wasn't always the case.

"It started when I was feeling very horny in the office. So I went into the toilet. After that, I went through a stage where I wanked in the toilet every day for two weeks." (continues)
londonist.com/london/features/meet-the-londoners-who-masturbate-at-work

Those poor office cleaners.

What's the relevance of wanking in the office toilet at work to child protection?

Goosefoot: if adults, in private, enjoy 'unconventional' sexual activities, what the fuck has it got to do with you or anyone else?

The entire point of this thread is that this is not being done in private though isn't it?

Sheesh!

a dangerous definition of child abuse.

They didn't give a dangerous definition of what child abuse is. They spoke about what they thought PHSE should focus on, which may be wrong and problematic but they didn't try to define what counts as abuse.

That twitter thread that JackyHolyoake posted is very instructive. The writer works with sex offenders and has some very clear evidence about the techniques that they use to access children - including using public libraries and encouraging parents to bring their children directly to them under the cover of 'reading stories' (as opposed to petting puppies). Remarkably successful techniques it seems.

What's the relevance of wanking in the office toilet at work to child protection?

Someone who works for the country's most prominent child protection charity allegedly did it and uploaded the results to a porn website, then invited a celebrity who asks minors to contact them privately online as a brand ambassador.

If you really were actually asking.

Storkbloom you might want to re-read

They didn't give a dangerous definition of what child abuse is. They spoke about what they thought PHSE should focus on, which may be wrong and problematic but they didn't try to define what counts as abuse

The point being made was that an important part of what to tell children is what actually counts as abuse, not just ideas like consent. The latter are in a way irrelevant to kids until they are older, and if you focus on that instead of, these are the things that aren't appropriate, you could easily risk giving kids the impression that as long as they don't feel something it is wrong, they have agreed to it and it is ok.

There seems to be a tendency these days to teach kids about abuse the same way you would teach university students when their needs are quite different. And it seems to be coming from people who don't know how, or don't want, to establish clear boundaries around kids and sex.

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

That is a ridiculous comment. No matter how odd/boring/pointless or weird one might find these activities there is no sexual factor.

They might be "unconventional activities" (although one would have to live in a limited sphere to think so) but they are neither sexual nor harmful. At the very worst using astrology might be an odd way of making decisions about your life, but there are no harmful effects from the other 2- either to participants or observers.

What's the relevance of wanking in the office toilet at work to child protection?

Someone who has such little understanding of the boundaries between public and private; who demonstrates no regard for the effect it might have on others (eg cleaners who have to clean up after him or fellow workers who don't want to see or hear a colleague masturbating would not be my first choice to be involved in child- safeguarding.

It all comes back to boundaries.

Safeguarding is all about boundaries while queer ideology is all about transgressing them.

It's useful to have a thread with so many clear examples of the topic we're discussing. It lets you see how the trick is done.