Furries & gimp masks at Surrey Pride

[wheresmymojo]

It was Surrey's first Pride recently and yet again people with sexual fetishes are latching on.

I consider myself fairly liberal - I don't give a monkeys if people want to be Furries or wear gimp masks with their own consensual sexual partners.

But nobody is discriminated against on the basis of wearing a gimp mask in their own home

Why has this suddenly become a thing? What does it even have to do with Pride anyway?

This made me laugh, how do you explain men wanting to be dogs for sexual kicks, to kids?

I'm imagining the conservation:
Okay Lizzy, some men get really turned on eating dog food, crawling around, and wearing a collar, and being shoved in a cage. It apparently helps "deep depression and severe anxieties".

Do what you want at home, but if you getting any sort of sexual kick from acting out your fetish in public, then you are dodgy as far as I'm concerned. I guess this bit depends from individual to individual.

I think pride should be more about love than sex.

What does heteronormativity have to do with anything? Many fetishists are heterosexual. Hetero men with fetishes seem to be more welcome at Pride than many actual LGBT people.

I thought companies such as Sainsbury's had media savvy people working for them. All these corporations displaying the rainbow flag, do they not realise they are promoting fetishists, paedophiles, MRA? The information is freely available and so obvious just by looking at pictures in mainstream media such as the BBC with its adult male dummy sucking photo.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense I can't think how to word my thoughts as I'm so angry. It's the erosion of safe guarding on an industrial scale.

do they not realise they are promoting fetishists, paedophiles, MRA?

They realise, they just don't care.

It's totally sinister CaptainKirk.

It's so pervasive and insidious that it's not possible to boycott companies supporting this nonsense. I switched to Nationwide as they didn't appear to be so entrenched in the Pride stuff only to see their picture on twitter is a Pride flag.

Wouldn’t want to upset the men would they!

Where they displaying predatory behaviour? Or were they just dressed like that?

I'd say that dressing in scary costumes like that in public places is predatory, actually - and certainly aggressive.

I'd say that dressing in scary costumes like that in public places is predatory, actually - and certainly aggressive

I find the dog masks scary and that's just from the photos. I've never seen one in real life. The scariness is not because I connect it with a sexual act but because the masks are aggressive in themselves.

There is uniformity of style- there are the odd variations in ear colours, but they are uniform and a uniform. People wearing uniform who are not members of legitimate uniformed occupations are, in my mind, often suspect.

Secondly, there is the complete obscuring of faces. Even if one supports the right of women to cover their faces in public (which personally I don't) this is easily distinguishable. The potential for crimes to be committed in a gathering of thousands of people is high and there should not be masked, unidentified people at large public gatherings.

Yeah, they look just like the fetish wing of Antifa.

Suspect that there is a fair bit of commonality in those two groups.

These were the "supporters" of Tara Wolf outside court. Wolf was convicted of beating Maria MacLachlan.

"fetish is often an intrinsic quality of LGBT+ folks identities. Asking people to avoid these things goes against the history and tradition of Pride."

What an idiot.

Like everyone else he is free to celebrate fetish culture privately with no children present.

That photograph is extremely scary. It also clearly shows "Antifa" and "Fascism " are synonymous.

And poor real life dog.

What does heteronormativity have to do with anything?

Exactly. Fifty Shades of Grey is the best selling book of all time, but apparently marching around wearing fetish gear is a daring rebellion against heteronormativity.

So "fetish" is an identity now?

Like "woman" is an identity for some men?

So masturbating your penis in front of women and girls in a women's toilet won't be a crime but an integral part of your identity? The police are already celebrating sexual fetishes at Pride - this would just be a short step. Presumably anybody who objected to it would be prosecuted for hate crime.

I'm guessing that you'll be able to self-ID your fetish identity online (as the government proposes to do with self-ID of sex) and insist that everyone respects it.

Because if you can have your feeling of womanhood validated legally then why can't you have your fetish validated legally? Why is one identity ranked above another? What's the difference exactly?

Because that is exactly where all this is going. It is never going to stop at self-identification of biological sex; that's just the start.

Because that is exactly where all this is going.

A couple of years ago, I would have said you were crazy, but I agree: this is where we're heading.

This will not end well.
These pride events are pushing the idea that homosexuality is associated with fetish. The general public see only the pictures of the pups and the men with their dicks out and think that is what lgbt is.
Pride should exist only to demonstrate that we are perfectly normal boring people with jobs, just like everyone else. We just need protected in law from discrimination and homophobia.
If someone wants to have a fetish parade, go for it, just keep the LGBT out of it. Public support is very easy to lose.

It is why self-ID is so important to the trans lobby.

Stonewall talking about it as "just a bit of admin".

But what it does is set a precedent that self-defined feelings (that anybody can merely claim to have) trump material reality in law.

So for example, if we take the case of the NSPCC guy who was wanking in the NSPCC offices in a rubber gimp suit and put in on the internet to brag about it.

He would be able to legitimately claim that his fetish identity should never be grounds for dismissal. That his identify is part of who he is and that he should not be discriminated at work for it. Indeed, he can take legal action against NSPCC for victimising him if they invoke disciplinary proceedings against him. That's what would happen if we enshrine self-declared identity in law.

Hell, he is probably already claiming that now.

If Philip Bunce can present as Pippa Bunce at work then why can't NSPCC guy wear a rubber gimp suit and masturbate at work? That is his fetish identity. Bunce brings one identity to work and NSPCC bloke brings another. How does the law distinguish between the two? The sexual element is absolutely core to this guy's fetish identity, so why should he be less protected in the eyes of the law than Bunce?

As a wider point, let's ask ourselves where does that all that leave safeguarding of children?

Individuals and organisations will be effectively prohibited by law from taking any action whatsoever against any individual who self-identifies as woman or fetish. Even asking a question will be a hate crime.

Society will still be able to prosecute those who abuse children. But it will be prevented from taking any action to stop it happening in the first place, indeed society's new laws will facilitate the abuse.

I thought that for years, gay people fought to try to get people to accept that their sexual orientation wasn't a fetish.

That is exactly what I was going to post when I saw the thread title.

Talking of the Bunce I was reading a twitter thread that claims he has separate work emails for each 'persona' and cannot be sacked as one person because technically there is two of them!

twitter.com/farleycharl/status/1159958332872040448

This is Pippa Bunce for those who don't know.

At Credit Suisse's office in London.

Got to respect the identity, right?

Look, Pride is just a day to celebrate male sexual rights. We need to forget about Pride as a celebration of being able to love who you choose, it's now a day where men get to tell everyone who they are allowed to love and in what ways they're allowed to do it.

That’s Pips at work? Bloody hell

Luckily I assume there tend not to be any naked flames at the Credit Suisse office

That outfit is a fire hazard if ever I saw one

This is Mr Leather Wales on twitter.
twitter.com/MrLeatherWales/status/1157180281759182855

Pride isn’t for children and it isn’t really for allies. If you cannot accept the lgbt community as it is, then that says something about the limits of tolerance.

But Rhondda Pride wanted to put on a family friendly event. So what is Pride supposed to be - an event for everyone, including children, or an adult-only, LGBTQ+ only event, all fetishes welcome?

If Pride isn't appropriate for children it should not take place anywhere children are likely to be, such as town centres on a weekend afternoon.

If you want an adult only event try an industrial estate, or hold your march at midnight with appropriate noise restrictions in place.

Stop demanding to be in public places if your march isn't suitable for vast swathes of the public to see. Idiots.

As a wider point, let's ask ourselves where does that all that leave safeguarding of children?

'P' for paedophilia is constantly trying to edge its way into the LGBTQ alphabet soup. Children, along with their parents, are being groomed to accept fetishes being displayed in public as normal, and children participating in them as normal (see the pups at pride thread here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3619623-pup-play-fans-dance-for-children-at-pride).

PIE never really went away, did it?

mobile.twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1152630276784304128

India Willoughby is spot on here. Yes, she may primarily be concerned that it affects her personally but I can't quibble with what she is saying.

Should anyone follow through on the links please be aware Pupchester has pictures of his/her genitals on his/her/ thread.