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?

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

Precisely.

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.

Precisely. Plus the reaction when those tricks are pointed out is very revealing.

Precisely. Plus the reaction when those tricks are pointed out is very revealing.

And for those of us not participating, it's very obvious.

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.

Of course I was actually asking, there wasn't anything in the post saying the wanking person had anything to do with children.

As for I might want to reread, they didn't give a definition of child abuse. A definition of child abuse would be "this this and this and this is child abuse" etc, not what the poster said which was about PSHE lessons, whether what they said is akin to the new dangerous definition given by the children's charity, what the poster said still wasn't a definition of child abuse. Sorry if I'm being awkward but I don't get that part because nowhere did I see any defining

That poster said PSHE should focus on “consent, courtesy, and autonomy.” But.

Children cannot consent to sexual activity. They may not even realise a situation is sexual. This is why boundaries and safeguarding are so important. It is wrong to frame this as a “moral panic” and “evil merfs are attacking the marginalised kinksters.”

Lurkers: no one begrudges you kinking to your hearts content. Honestly. Just do it away from kids. Do these Pride events need a specific kids’ area? If there are no kids around, they can’t run into the tent. Everyone is happy.

Also, “courtesy” (rather than boundaries) seems a strange thing to focus on in PHSE. Many children suffer abuse because they don’t want to hurt a nice grown-up’s feelings. Courtesy is overrated in my opinion.

The new (concerning) definition of CSA was discussed on another thread recently.

I think, when you're discussing sexual activities, it's important to be clear about what you mean by 'normal'. Whether the majority of people like or engage in a particular type of activity is no big deal: what's important is whether your preferred type of activity is ethical. As in: are you harming the other people you want to engage in it with? Are you taking advantage of the fact that they have less power/authority than you? Are you putting pressure on others to engage with you when they would rather not?
That is why it's profoundly wrong for adults to seek out any kind of sexual activity with minors: because it's an abuse of power. (It's also why it's wrong for HCPs or police officers to seek or engage in sex with patients/clients etc).
Costumes, props, roleplay etc between people capable of giving informed consent are just... stuff.Some people like some stuff, others like other stuff.

Also, WRT this thread, there's a fairly important difference between people who are participating in the parade and those who are having stands or whatever where the general public can, or are expected to, interact. The former is no big deal (a few specific 'kink' outfits in among the huge mass of people wearing anything and everything from jeans and t-shirts to glitter and fairy wings all blurs into a big mass to the anyone watching from behind the barriers) - any kind of stands or stalls need to be regulated sensibly.

Maybe they should live in some of the states in America where sex with animals is still legal 🤬🤬

Reanimated I’m confused. What age group are you talking about? Consenting adults can do whatever they want in private.

This thread is about adults being sexual in public where children are. Are you recommending that people assess their own intentions?

Because many offenders would sincerely answer “No, No and No” to your three questions, because their boundaries and judgment are horrible.

Safeguarding imposes rules that everyone has to follow. If someone breaks them they need to be pulled up - even if they were well intentioned, even if there was no apparent harm. That person might be harmless, but they are normalising behaviour which is not.

That poster said PSHE should focus on “consent, courtesy, and autonomy.” But.

Children cannot consent to sexual activity.

But they can, 16/17 year olds are legally still children but can consent to sex with anybody of the same age or older, including adults. And children also consent to sexual activity with each other.

We learned about consent in secondary school, before the age of 16, should we not have learned about consent because ''children cannot consent'' ?

But they can, 16/17 year olds are legally still children

Good job that's irrelevant to this thread, which is about an incident involving pre-pubescent children at a Pride event and the safeguarding issues surrounding it.

It lets you see how the trick is done.

Good job that's irrelevant to this thread, which is about an incident involving pre-pubescent children

But the poster said children cannot consent to sex in reference to PSHE lessons involving issues knowledge of consent... that' factually wrong, it simply isn't true that children cannot consent. Children under 16 cannot legally consent to adults or each other, but two 14 year olds having sex together can be consensual. It was a false statement.

Pre-pubescent children of course cannot consent to anyone, even each other, but that isn't what the poster said.

No child should know what consent is until what age, 16 the legal age of consent (even though some will be having sex before this? so will need to know about consent)

But the poster said children cannot consent to sex in reference to PSHE lessons

Because the context of the thread is an incident involving pre-pubescent children at a Pride event and the safeguarding issues surrounding it. And the PSHE lessons refer to the context of similarly pre-pubescent children at primary school, for which the NSPCC has altered its definition to something that allows a child to consent to abuse. As Reanimated knows perfectly well and, presumably, agrees with, because that is how they phrased their comment.

It lets you see how the trick is done.

It lets you see how the trick is done.

**

It lets you see how the trick is done.

**

No need to imply I'm some kind of sick pedo that wants to lower age of consent or get rid of it completely, (twice) like Gayle Rubin and her ilk. I take things quite literally, and if someone says 'children' and not 'primary-aged children' then to me that means all the way up to age 17, because that's the definition of a child. 'Children cannot consent to sex' sounds like a blanket statement to me, and an untrue one, on the basis I have just told. Sure, this is my fault no doubt because I have been told before I can be like this with words, but it matters to me and my brain doesn't feel right when I read things like that as it contradicts the definition of the word they are using.

I cannot stand the whole 'boy-lovers' (aka child abusers) group of so-called 'scholars' but if you and Datun want to imply this is all some ruse for something else, fine.

No need to imply I'm some kind of sick pedo that wants to lower age of consent or get rid of it

I'm not implying that, don't be ridiculous. I'm saying that you are deflecting from the topic and context of the thread by adding straw men and defending the straw men added by others.

This thread is about an incident involving pre-pubescent children at a Pride event and the safeguarding issues surrounding it.

It lets you see how the trick is done.

^^

This is me agreeing with Datun about the strawmanning.

Two part comments, do you see?

I cannot stand the whole 'boy-lovers' (aka child abusers) group of so-called 'scholars'

That's good to hear. Let's talk about them and how they pertain to safeguarding frameworks and how an incident involving pre-pubescent children at a Pride event warrants serious examination from a child protection perspective.

But they can, 16/17 year olds are legally still children

Not really. In the UK we start acquiring the right to act autonomously at varying ages for different purposes but a 16/17 year old is not "legally a child".

16/17 year old is not "legally a child".

Adulthood is defined in the UK as someone who has reached their 18th birthday, anything below this age is still seemed a child, you do not become a legal adult until 18.

The fact that we attain different rights to act at different ages is irrelevant to whether they are defined as children lass. It just means we give people who are not adults yet (and therefore are children) rights to do some things before they are adults (driving for example at 17, they are still classed as a child). I moved out of my family home at 17, and I was still legally a child - even my family worker said so, that they had to find me alternative accommodation before my 18th birthday because after that I wouldn't be a child anymore and would cease to get help from their service. They are legally children, except in some court cases such as family hearings with social workers in which case they may define the child as anyone under 16, but that's a particular circumstance.

Also because I had sex for money with adults aged 17 (only about 5 months away from 18) they said it's classed as child sexual exploitation, if I wasn't legally a child that wouldn't be the case. I could prostitute myself all I want, I mean 16 is the age of consent right and you can sleep with a 50 year old if you want, but just because money is involved and I'm 17 I'm a child that's been exploited. You are wrong.

it lets you see how the trick is done.

**

This is me agreeing with Datun about the strawmanning.

Two part comments, do you see?

Ah, I see. I thought "the trick" was obscuring boundaries with children from adults regarding sex, and how it's done, to which you wrote it twice after you replied to me? The only people who would truly want to do that are child abusers and pedophiles so sorry for taking that as the implication.

Adulthood is defined in the UK as someone who has reached their 18th birthday, anything below this age is still seemed a child, you do not become a legal adult until 18

That applies to England, Northern Ireland and Wales. It does not apply to Scotland.

That applies to England, Northern Ireland and Wales. It does not apply to Scotland.

Ok, well I am in England, and unless they are in Scotland then yes they are legally children. Take it you are in Scotland.