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 kinksters want a Folsom Street Fair, they should organise that.

Folsom Street Fair makes it very clear it’s not a place for children. It doesn’t take place anywhere near where children are likely to be.

Really sick of the effrontery of those who take over something instead of building their own.

I agree Bernard the dominance/submission message it asserts is the antithesis of healthy relationships. Adults can play with the nuance of such things because they're adults. Children process things differently which is why we protect them. They shouldn't be thinking someone has to be "in charge".

So it's 'immature' to reject a very narrow, corporate version of what is acceptable 'gay' behaviour (nothing scary, love and unicorns and dancing pixies and no nasty sex stuff)? Plenty of gay people are unhappy with the idea that everyone should just be respectable and monogamous and then they can have their equal rights. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to resent the way a lot of the presentation of Pride these days involves this very fluffy rainbow glittery let's-all-be-naice material that barely even mentions, you know, sexuality.

No, what is immature is feeling upset because someting that previously seemed edgy but which you wanted to normalise now doesn't.

But what you are saying is that the Queer advocates are right - being gay is in fact intrinsically related to removing all kinds of barriers around sexuality, not just who you partner up with.

That's very much at odds with the idea that being gay is about being attracted to same sex partners in the same way others are attracted to opposite sex partners.
Plenty of gay people are not happy about the idea that sexual norms are generally to be removed or that private sexual behaviour should be brought into public. And plenty of straight people are quite keen on the whole idea. In that view Pride absolutely isn't about sexuality, it's about embracing of a particular view of sexual freedom.

By all logic the two approaches should be completely separate.

@BickerinBrattle "Really sick of the effrontery of those who take over something instead of building their own" - I take you mean all the respectable heterosexual couples whining that Pride isn't suitable for their darling children...

@goosefoot you seem to be very much saying that it's all right to be gay as long as it's about love and partnership and not anything as icky as sex. Some people, both gay and straight, prefer to keep their private lives private and good luck to them. However, what seems to be happening with Pride is that a lot of straight parents are asking for an event which is not for or about them to be altered to appease them and their children.

I take you mean all the respectable heterosexual couples whining that Pride isn't suitable for their darling children

I think if Pride don't want me to worry about whether their event is suitable for my children, they probably shouldn't take over my local play park for the day....

and I'm not 'taking over' the town where I live. I live here, I don't want to see BDSM on the street. I don't think that's unreasonable!

Today, TRAs are defending puppy fetishists interacting with little kids. Last week, they were defending a man who filmed himself jerking off in the toilets of a children's charity. This is where their ideology has brought them.

a lot of straight parents are asking for an event which is not for or about them to be altered to appease them and their children

a lot of straight parents are being encouraged by Pride to bring their children along. In my town it's a mini free festival, with past it 90's pop groups performing in the park and rainbow tat for all. Pride really needs to figure out what it's there for.

Children should not be exposed to adult sex play. Why on earth is this a controversial thing to say?

There are two key conflicts. First whether Pride should remain as celebrating and “normalising” gay relationships by showing gay and lesbian couples as being “like everyone else”, or whether it should be about celebrating the broader range of sexual interests as it is now starting to including the fetishes of straight and gay people.

Secondly the responsibility of organisers to say whether it is family friendly and restrict what people can do / wear at Pride in line with usual safeguarding OR to say that it’s come as you are and parents should be aware that it won’t be appropriate for children.

Pride will struggle to be both and organisers certainly cannot do both.

Agreed that it is going to be difficult to please both sides.

But it's also worth bearing in mind that many protests and demos will include imagery and slogans that are not all that suitable for kids. Not everything needs to be 'family friendly'.

Not everything needs to be 'family friendly'

100% agree with this

we just need to be clear what is and what isn't!

It's not about pleasing both sides it is about protecting kids from adult sex play. Sexual orientation is very different to that.

So if you like dressing up as, say an aardvark or whatever and are a man, and are attracted to a woman who also dresses as an aardvark - where the hell in LGB does that come?

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised about erotic morris dancing. It's a fertility ritual.

Molten There are two key conflicts. First whether Pride should remain as celebrating and “normalising” gay relationships by showing gay and lesbian couples as being “like everyone else”, or whether it should be about celebrating the broader range of sexual interests as it is now starting to including the fetishes of straight and gay people.

RSGB a lot of straight parents are asking for an event which is not for or about them to be altered to appease them and their children

Ok, I'm a little confused here.

So if Janet and Robin, a male and female couple in their 50s (you know, as in the old-fashioned definition of male and female) love to dress up in leather and latex and Janet gets off dominating Robin during sex.

ShouldJanet and Robin either a) be able to join Pride, cos 'queer'? so therefore they're not under the 'straight' umbrella?

or b) they're not part of Pride, 'cos straight, they'll need to set up/join a separate public celebration of their own heterosexual 'kink' activities?

Let's say the answer is b) and Janet and Robin have no place at Pride so they set up their own 'out and proud leather-fest' dom-tent celebration in the park. Lovely weather for a group of straight couples in full-on leather and restraints, whips, etc - oh, and some crayons and a kids ball-park in the 'straight-leather-kink-fest' tent.

So:

Do 'straight' parents' now get a say in whether Janet and Robin's dom-tent is fine around their kids?

But does that mean Janet and Julie, local parents who happen to be lesbians and live round the corner from the park and are concerned about the content, aren't allowed to comment about Janet and Robin's dom-tent, because they're not straight?

The rationale seems to be eating itself!

AndI know that some people, both straight and not-straight, enjoy pissing over each other as part of their sexual activity.

Is either OK at Pride?

If the answer is 'yay', I'm going to be asking 'where do boundaries end?'

If the answer is 'no' , I'm going to be asking 'why not, where do boundaries end - what makes one fetish OK, and another one off limits in public?'?

I always thought Pride was about who you love/want to fuck.

Not what you're fucking doing to them.

you seem to be very much saying that it's all right to be gay as long as it's about love and partnership and not anything as icky as sex. Some people, both gay and straight, prefer to keep their private lives private and good luck to them. However, what seems to be happening with Pride is that a lot of straight parents are asking for an event which is not for or about them to be altered to appease them and their children.

No, I am saying I hold everyone, whether they are gay or not, to the same expectations around sex and what is appropriate in public. I am not sure how you would twist that into some sort of anti-gay statement.

It is not a bunch of straight people asking for change to a clearly adult event. Gay people with kids, and gay people without kids, often feel the same way. My best friend is a gay man who is absolutely horrified and embarrassed by a lot of the stuff that goes on at Pride, totally apart from exposing kids. As you might have noticed are any number of gay women in this discussion. You really seem to be equating gay with kink.

And isn't presented as a adults only event. It is in a public space for one thing, often in parks or main streets where normally that kind of stuff would have you in trouble. They encourage you to bring kids by having kid events, they often describe themselves as family friendly, there is going to be a bleeding drag queen story-time at ours later this month. My 10 year old niece was in our Pride parade walking with our PM a few years ago with a bunch of other kids.

You can't have it both ways, if they want a sex festival they should do what sex festivals do and fund them another way and hold them in private facilities, and not claim to be representing a group that they don't, in fact, represent.

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised about erotic morris dancing. It's a fertility ritual.

It must be the outfits. Needs more sparkles and feathers. Maybe a codpiece.

There’s no non-sexual way to interact with children when you are wearing fetish gear.

There’s no non-sexual way to interact with fellow office-workers when you are wearing fetish gear.

The whole point is sexual stimulation.

You might as well defend interacting with children while you have an erection.

I'm not sure anyone is demanding the right to have oral sex with their playmates, or piss on them in public. Nor have I seen many demands for people to be allowed to expose their genitalia on the parade. Costumes and accessories are just costumes and accessories - to a child, someone dressed in a rubber puppy outfit is no more and no less wierd than someone dressed as Wonder Woman or Father Christmas. Some items of clothing and some accessories have a specific sexual connotation to the wearers and their friends, but could equally be taken by passers by to be rave wear - or Goth outfits. This all seems to be mainly scaremongering about 'weirdos' being a danger to everyone's children when they are just people wearing unusual clothes and walking in a procession.
If you take your DC to any event that isn't specifically designed for children, they may well hear expletives, perhaps see t-shirts with 'offensive' slogans on, see adults drinking, smoking and even snogging.

Look if a child drew a man dog picture for show and tell and said ‘oh that’s uncle Fred, he likes to dress up as a doggie on Fridays and aunts Fido takes him for walks. Funny thing is that his tail is at the front!’ social services would be straight over - but some stranger in a tent and that ok?

to a child, someone dressed in a rubber puppy outfit is no more and no less wierd than someone dressed as Wonder Woman or Father Christmas and thus ‘grooming’ is perfectly illustrated.

Also, people don't need to look strange to be sexually aroused in a public place. If they are not bothering anyone, and it's not obvious that they are thinking about sex, why is this any kind of problem, and how on earth is it anyone else's business in the first place?

to a child, someone dressed in a rubber puppy outfit is no more and no less wierd than someone dressed as Wonder Woman or Father Christmas.

That’s what’s sick about it.

Because children might not know the difference but it sure as fuck is different to the person wearing the fetish gear.

I guess dressing up as a leather dog on a lead isn’t quite the same as dressing up as General Robert E Lee for a battle re-enactment is it?

If they are not bothering anyone, and it's not obvious that they are thinking about sex, why is this any kind of problem, and how on earth is it anyone else's business in the first place?

NOMAP philosophy in a nutshell.