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?

it's not obvious that they are thinking about sex

It's entirely obvious they are thinking about sex that's the whole point.

And as soon as its public it enters the public realm. "Not anyone's business" is the private realm.

Either that guy in the photo is thinking of sex or a ferret has run up his pants.

Exhibitionism is the yin to the yang of voyeurism.

They are fetishes based on violating the barriers between the public and the private, without the consent of both parties.

Prodded is about celebrating LGB(T) relationships. It's not about celebrating fetish

cripes

what part of 'demonstrating sexual domination and submission in front of children is inappropriate and potentially damaging' is hard to understand?

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.

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act for very good reasons.

Getting your kink on in the high street is not.

If you want to campaign for that then fill your boots but be honest about it and expect strong resistance.

Being lesbian, bisexual or gay should be normalised because it is normal and it harms nobody. LGB people are just like everone else. Making everybody else join in with your exhibitionist BDSM fetish whether they like it or not, whether they're aware of what you're up to or not, whether they're adults or children, is not normal. It's grim as fuck, abusive and dangerous.

The people advocating for kink at Pride are saying Pride shouldn't be advertised as suitable for children. Why aren't they taking this up with Mermaids?

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/solidarity-and-pride

ReanimatedSGB

@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...

No, I mean the gay and lesbian couples whose children used to be part of Pride but who no longer believe Pride a place for those children.

Do study your history: the right for gay and lesbian families to raise children has long been a battle. Shouldn't those families who have or who are fighting that battle be a part of Pride?

I'd think the parade was more about their rights and lives than it is about straight kinksters in pup masks or ball-gags.

Like I said, you want a kink fair, start your own version of the Folsom Street Fair. DO THE WORK.

What on earth is 'grooming' about a child seeing someone in a funny costume, noting that it's an adult in a funny costume and moving on? People who like to dress up don't automatically pose a threat to children. Adults who like BDSM or other more niche forms of sexual activity don't, on the whole, have any more sexual interest in children than 'straight' adults. It used to be the case that gay people, purely by virtue of being gay, were seen as potentially more dangerous to children than straight people.

Because dog masks and rubber are sexual fetish gear. Father Christmas & Wonder Woman fancy dress is primarily not.

I have nothing against people's fetishes - but children should not be exposed to it. Children should not be sexualised, and fetish gear should not be normalised to children.

The difference is that gay people were not performing sexual acts in front of the children, any more than straight people were.

Wearing fetish gear isn’t symbolic of kink in the way the rainbow flag used to be symbolic of homosexuality or dancing around the Maypole is symbolic of fertility, it is performing the sexual act itself.

What on earth is 'grooming' about a child seeing someone in a funny costume, noting that it's an adult in a funny costume and moving on?

Again and again you come back to the argument that children’s ignorance of the sexual pleasure these adults are enjoying somehow makes it okay.

Sheesh. Kids may well not know what brightly coloured silicone butt plugs and dildos are, but I'm still going to think there's a problem if an adult is encouraging the kids to enjoy learning to juggle using them.

Human pups, pup play and furries aren't always a sexual fetish, esp the latter.

For the majority of people, it's escapism, likewise being a 'little' which most often involves no arousal at all and is about a role in which you have a care giver, are free of responsibility, to be silly and express parts of yourself that have no place in adult day to day life.

I don't think the men where paedophiles, although I do think it was a bad decision to have them running the kids tent, considering how they're viewed generally.

It used to be a huge part of the gay community, I'm sure this is where it originated, which is probably why they where there at all.

IT'S ABOUT SUBMISSION AND DOMINATION. THAT'S NOT A HEALTHY DYNAMIC TO MODEL TO CHILDREN

sorry for shouting, but I feel a bit like no-one can hear me

I went and had a look at pupplay.info. from the site:

do you think you may smile holding a leash around a human pups neck, feeling in control of someone’s power like that or do you wish someone had a leash on you to lead you around, to be proud of having you as their pup? If you think you may, there may be a glimmer of Pup play in you in some form or another

and you're gonna tell me that's not sexual?

This reminds me of the new NSPCC definition of abuse, which apparently only counts as abuse if the child is worried or upset by it. Abuse is abuse, because children cannot consent to it, whether they feel bad about it at the time or not. Wearing fetish gear at a public event because it arouses you either to wear it or to have others seeing you wear it is abusive of other people. Wearing fetish gear and providing facilities for children so that they will join in your 'play' because it arouses you is abusive of those children.

I'm getting kinkier with age myself but I don't do it in a park with a fucking colouring table.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly
I'm hearing you - and agreeing.

It's only in these porn soaked days that we find adults (including on this thread) complicit in eroding the safeguarding boundaries of children.
It is sinister and totally inappropriate to involve children in adult fetishes like this. There is NO excuse. We used to call it child protection and children need protecting from people without sexual boundaries.

A friend of mine who is a dog walker keeps hearing a story going round the dog-walking community about a "human pup" and "owner" trying to engage the services of a dog walker. She is equal parts convinced it's a story and terrified it will happen to her.

If people really want to wear doggy masks for sex and it turns them and their partner on, fair enough, in the privacy of their own bedroom. It's not the sort of thing you want to find out suddenly about a work colleague or your child's teacher.

It's not the same as being homophobic. I'd have been happy to take DD to a same-sex wedding or to visit gay friends with their partners in a normal social way. This is more like taking DD into their bedroom to watch how they pleasure each other.

A fetish can be non-sexual and so can a Dominant and Submissive exchange. A collar and lead can be entirely symbolic and have nothing to do with sex.

Oh come on

You must think we were born yesterday.

Seriously, have you seen some of the things these guys have on their twitter accounts? There's a bloody good reason they've all suddenly protected their accounts. Keep it in the bedroom and away from kids.

Do we want children to think in an intimate relationship someone has to be in control and someone has to submit? Obviously not. Adults can do nuance. We protect children because they can not.

Just a costume. Ffs. An SS uniform is "just a costume" but it means something. Some costumes are not benign.
And no, the obliviousness of small children is not a free pass for adults to cavort in fucking fetish outfits with (forgive me) boners! Apart from anything else, childrens memories are formed by days like these. I'm sure we all have memories of childhood we wish we didn't. Imagine leather dog masks and erections being part of your memories.
Pride has always had an element of leather guy/sparkly thong type stuff going on. I wouldn't take a small child (I wouldn't go at all now lesbians are not welcome) but "pup play" ..in a kiddies tent..get a grip SGB.

I have suddenly had a lightbulb moment. Is this why every month in the city centre I see groups of people dressed in furry dog costumes? My DD waves at them are they part of the group? It is in a gay village but I visit local theatre with DD.

You must think we were born yesterday.
I thought it was pretty common knowledge nowadays actually.

Do we want children to think in an intimate relationship someone has to be in control and someone has to submit?
No of course not, which is why I find the idea of handcuffs and such to be far more inappropriate than dressing up as a dog. But the dynamic a 'pup' and 'owner' have isn't evident in a costume so I don't think children would have thought too much about any deeper meaning it might have.