I've seen a lot on people in twitter discussing wether people should do "kinks"(?) in pride because they might scar the children for life and other arguments. Also calling people like the youtuber Big Joel pedos for thinking this is not a huge deal.
What happened? Maybe this is an american thing but since when have kids been brought to pride?
Echoing what I wrote on another thread about this, Pride basically is forced to contain every single aspect of the LGBTQ+ community because its the only goddamn thing the cis lets us have, which means kids and kink-oriented stuff have been forced into the same space.
This is a valid concern, what is not valid however is that the kneejerk reaction from people is to purge kink from Pride, limiting the public expression of gender and sexuality, rather than expanding outside of pride. If all of these people crying about kink at pride organized separate shit for kids like "drag queen story hour" or whatever, that would be much better than trying to appease the cis via pearl clutching.
Also on a separate note, kink belongs at pride because it makes advertisers uncomfortable, fuck sponsored pride shit, its a sign that we are being turned into a novelty rather than having forced society to accept us. There is pride parades goddamn everywhere and at every one its like half the city wears rainbows. But despite that every country in the west is waging fucking war on trans people, pride growing bigger does not mean acceptance or advocacy from the cisses, it means we're becoming a new reason for shitty cis people to party. Every goddamn yank wears green for St Patricks day that doesnt mean they are suddently interested in Irish culture or history.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a big percentage of the people being mad about kink and kids coexisting at pride currently are just goddamn fucking cowards who wont advance the LGBTQ+ struggle cause they saw Drag Queen story hour get attacked and now everything is too scary.
99% of Twitter discourse can be safely filed under "pay no mind."
IDK how it is in other countries, but in the US, historically leather was a major part of gay culture, and I'm pretty sure some variation of this argument has been going on since Stonewall -- whether homos should Act Normal for fear of being branded degenerates by hegemonic straightness, or whether pride means pride. Nowadays most American pride parades are corporate sponsored events with nice straight liberals bringing their families to gawk at Alternative Lifestyles, plus on Twitter I'm pretty sure there's a lot of virgins who think being a weirdo in one's line of sight constitutes a violation of consent.
I'm a cis het white man, so I don't speak on this type of thing. That's just my philosophy on it. I see it as an internal debate of a marginalized community I have no innate understanding of.
Personally I find the commoditization of sexuality by corporations to be the most offensive aspect of Pride. But that's like the only opinion I even have formed on the entire event.
All I know is I worked at a hotel that was on a Pride parade route and a gay men complimented my ass, and another gay man told me I was gorgeous and it was the most validated I've ever felt in my life and I still think about it all the time.
Not gonna specify too much but I was in europe as well back then. I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only kid there.
Bruh I was a kid brought to pride. There are kids at pride outside of the US. I remember asking my mom why a dude was walking like a dog and her answer being a bit odd. Certainly didn't scar me (but I hate petplay, leather and spandex shit now, for sure, not sure if that was the reason to it) but it was probably painful for my mom lol. It's not to say I didn't think it was odd. To see someone treated like an animal seemed like the opposite of the egalitarian ideals I was raised with.
I dont see how kinks need to be expressed in the same way sexuality and gender does, however. Kinks don't define us as much as gender and sexuality does, which is why it's seen as such a hedonistic thing not needed expressed. Not very familiar with the kink-discourse tho so there are probably more things to say about that.
Also sexuality isnt just purely the question about "who" you are attracted to, to frame it that way is basically to just define ourselves by the way that the cishets have oppressed us which is a big mistake.
Who I am attracted to categorically is just one part of my sexuality, kinks are other parts of my sexuality. If pride is to be a celebration of sexuality and gender it should not be celebrating watered down and essentialized versions of sexuality and gender just cause thats the way we have been categorized by the cishets for centuries, it should be a free and radical celebration of all that IMO.
My thoughts on this
- All pride events are not the same, nor do they have to be. You can have different events catering to different people with different objectives. Violently dismantling cishet patriarchy, normalising LGBT people by making them visible in public and just having a party for LGBT people are all valid objectives.
- Queer kids exist. LGBT people doesn't start out as blank slates until they reach the age of sexual maturity and suddenly someone flips the gay switch. Kids can identify as LGBT although they've not reached the age where sex and dating becomes relevant. These kids grow up feeling different and insecure. Going to pride events and seeing that you don't have to be cishet and that there is a community for people like them can be a huge experience for them.
- Queer parents exist. Obviously. They should also feel welcome at pride events.
- Family stuff is really lame. I'm a parent myself so I know. Being inclusive to families shouldn't mean that everyone else is excluded.
- Kink in public can mean a lot of things. Are we talking about wearing a collar with your normal clothes or are we talking about a gangbang in the streets?
- There is a point where expressing your sexuality in public, be it straight or gay, vanilla or kink, crosses the legitimate boundaries of other people. You shouldn't bow down to every bigot angry to see people kiss in public but at some point you are including people in your sexuality without their consent.
- Things like this is best handled in a constructive way. Organise Drag Queen Story Hour instead of demanding that the manager of LGBT gets rid of people.
- Everybody should chill. Kids are not going to be traumatized by seeing two men in leather pants kiss. And nobody's sexuality is being oppressed if they can't swing their genitals around in front of the kids.
- Practical solutions that gives space for everyone should be found. Maybe there should be different events? Maybe having an event that starts out family-friendly in the afternoon and then turns more adult-oriented in the evening?
- Rainbow capitalism is a fuck, obviously. So is cishet people going to pride events to gawk at LGBT people as if it were a zoo. This doesn't mean that families should not be welcome though.
I think it depends on what we mean by "kink" here too. Someone just wearing a BDSM collar out without anything else and it just looks like a fashion accessory to children is clearly on a different level than say, someone walking around near naked.
The latter is the type of thing that I believe to be wrong even if pride was entirely adults because other adults deserve to be treated respectfully and not exposed to without prior consent (and gay men/bi women are not all horny addicts who want to see every man naked), where as something like the first one isn't even pushing the line yet for me and I have no qualms.
But that's how I tend to view what should be acceptable for pride, as an issue of consent involving others around you. Involving them in sex play, exposing your nude body to them, etc are all consent breaking and therefore not really what people should be doing. Pride isn't for every single individual, but a communal event so if you aren't respectful of other queer people and their rights to consent than you can fuck off.
Or the beach for that matter. Is someone wearing a speedo in a pride parade more offensive than someone wearing a speedo on the beach?
Speedos are often seen as inappropriate too if they expose too much.
Oh god, no, not a human body. What if someone sees a genital? Considering only 100% of us have them, it could scar children to learn about the existence of something so rare!
Yeah I mean who cares about all the people who don't want me exposing my genitals in their face /s
How dare checks notes a community for vulnerable and often abused people not want me to expose myself to them without consent.
No one needs your consent to exist exactly as they are without shame. No one should have to cover up any part of their natural human body because you don't like to see it. If we operated under that logic all the time, fat people would never be allowed to leave the house no matter how covered up they are.
How about you think about it for a second and realize there's an obvious difference between someone being fat, and someone exposing themselves in public.
Would you throw out those same defenses of "natural human body" if it was some cishet dude swinging his dick around at a group of women at a pool? No, that would be sexual harassment. Some asshole chud getting angry that fat people exist is completely different than that.
What about dick pics? "oh that's no different than sending a pic of their face, it's all the human body"? No, it's sexual harassment and not appropriate unless they consent first.
How about you think about it for a second and realize there’s an obvious difference between someone being fat, and someone exposing themselves in public.
Sure, the difference is the way you're framing it. A person being naked is not doing anything morally wrong, but you frame it as though the decision not to cover their body is some kind of inherently malicious act. They're not just choosing not to hide their body, they are "exposing themselves." As though the natural, normal state of a human is to be covered and ashamed, and that by choosing to take off their clothes, these people are going out of their way to do some kind of harm.
Do you notice how in both of your examples, the actual harm being done is that the naked person is harassing someone? That is because even you cannot adequately describe how being naked is an issue, so you must invent something actually harmful for the naked person to be doing while they are naked. Why can't the naked person just, you know, not swing his dick around at a group of women at a pool? Why can't he just hang out inside the pool like everyone else? Well, because then it would be obvious he's not doing anything wrong and you wouldn't have a point.
Can't a clothed person also harass women at the pool?
Yes exposing yourself to non consenting people is harassment. A dick pic is harassment because it's not consented to, if it was the mere sending of an image of your body without asking first than selfies and face reveals would be considered harassment which they are clearly not. It being the genitals is an inherent part of why dick pics are considered wrong.
Also sure, he could just be sitting around naked in public but that's still inappropriate to be doing since no one around you is consenting to that. It is inherently harassment.
This is different than, say, a cis woman not wearing a shirt because cis men can do that too and they're fighting for equal rights on the measure. But your genitals are a different question and revealing them in public isn't ok.
There's a specific context behind a dick pic that makes it harassment though. I don't think that the fact that it's genitals that makes it inherently wrong, it's the intent behind it, and it's the fact that you are sort of virtually putting an erect penis into someone's face expecting a response. If exposed genitals themselves are inherently wrong I don't see why flaccid penises on marble statues in a public park or museum wouldn't be considered wrong as well.
When you say "revealing them in public" it makes me think of a public flasher/predator or something and that's not how I'd personally categorize the vast majority of "near nudity" I see at pride events.
This is different than, say, a cis woman not wearing a shirt because cis men can do that too
But by your standards, it is entirely reasonable to say that both are wrong and that men should also be legally forced to cover their nipples because I don't wanna see any nips.
Anyway, to cut through all the bullshit that this conversation could descend to, I have a simple question: Why do I need your consent when deciding what I want to wear?
Why do I need your consent when deciding what I want to wear?
Because it's a public space, and there are things that you don't do in public. Same way you don't have sex in public because it violates the consent of those around you, regardless if it's also a "natural" thing. Let's not kid ourselves here, the majority of skimpy clothing and displays of nudity are meant sexually, this is different from something like a mother breastfeeding her kid.
Once you start involving others in it, especially with sexual displays, you don't get to just focus entirely on your own rights.
Not every single one is, but we shouldn't act as if the majority of them aren't being done in that way. Especially in the broader topic of "kink" for public displays of nudity.
IDK, saying that they aren't is kinda like saying "Well what if they sent the dick pic to get a spot on it checked and not as a sexual reason?", Like sure it's possible but also you'd have to be willfully blind of most people's motives to say that.
Of course nudity isn't always sexual, but we're talking about kink, the entire discourse of this is around sexuality and displaying it.
And at the end of the day, if you're being sexual with people who don't want it, you are violating their consent. It doesn't matter if you can say "Well not all nudity is sexual based" if it's obvious to anyone with half a thought that you intended yours to be now. No one would accept that BS excuse for anything else, why should I accept it now as one?
Now honestly I don't think the problem is even that relevant for pride to begin with, Cishet society (especially cishet men) are basically sexual harassment and consent ignoring machines and pride marches are 95% just people with rainbow flags in normal clothes so the entire conversation seems rather unimportant to begin with but at least within this discussion that did occur, no one is going to be stupid enough to accept "No I'm not streaking for sexual reasons, I swear!"
Some dude's desire for exhibitionism doesn't let him ignore the rights and consent of those around him. And the amount of good faith queer people (not homophobic cishets) in this discourse who say that they would feel their consent is violated should be acknowledged.
no one is going to be stupid enough to accept “No I’m not streaking for sexual reasons, I swear!”
There's a naturist group that marches in our parade every year, and I have seen numerous people nude with messages on their bodies such as "still not asking for it." Am I "stupid" for believing those people aren't doing it to get their jollies at my personal expense?
I just don't see how every state of nudity or semi-nudity at pride has to be someone performing some exhibitionist kink, and if we're going to be upset at people for showing off, I don't know why we don't shame people for wearing thongs or push up speedos or tassels or mesh tops or leather shorts. Or maybe that is how you feel since you mentioned "normal" clothes. Not everyone who is not dressed in "normal clothes" is "some dude" trying to shove their junk in your face but it feels like that's the dichotomy that exists in your mind.
Now I suspect you'll say that those things are okay as long as they "don't show too much" or "too see through" but I don't even know what that I means because again, that's very subjective. People can show off and dress very provocatively without being fully nude, is it the second I can see an inch of skin in the forbidden areas that my consent is violated? Is that when something changes from "normal" to someone being an exhibitionist? It doesn't really make sense to me tbh. I can think of several instances where I saw someone nude that was clearly not sexual and when I saw someone covering up their naughty bits that was exuberating sexual energy.
We can acknowledge that people feel their consent is violated and I agree that the hypothetical man shoving his erect penis in people's faces should be shamed, but given that pride is an event attended by thousands and thousands of people and it is an event that, in part, is celebrating people's sexuality, it's hard to imagine that you'll be able to cover every ground in terms of consent when it comes to people in various states of undress (especially given that these events are often occurring on very hot days with thousands of people packed into a small space). There are a lot of folks who might feel uncomfortable from displays of sexuality that don't involve nudity because of past trauma, who also may feel like they didn't consent to that display, but it's hard to get a crowd that large and diverse to cater to every individual. It sucks but I don't know what the solution is, you can't just ask everyone to dress and act "normal."
Thankfully though there are plenty of family friendly events for folks who want something more PG.
There’s a naturist group that marches in our parade every year, and I have seen numerous people nude with messages on their bodies such as “still not asking for it.” Am I “stupid” for believing those people aren’t doing it to get their jollies at my personal expense?
That's an entirely different discussion than "kink" discourse. We can't start a conversation off about sexual actions, and then try to be like "well ok but some of those actions aren't sexual" in response to people critiquing the original claims. I've never said that all nudity is bad, but display of sexuality can be depending on how it's involving others into it. This is discourse that isn't just about queer people either, but also cishets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnyn7WtD-hw. And that the discourse is also centered around cishet people should also be a pretty big sign that being gay is not the same as being kinky, they are two different spectrums all together. And not every queer person is comfortable with or wants to be involved in another person's sexual displays, because not all queer people are always horny, despite what so many arguments try to present us as.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I've seen several posts where you are arguing that nudity in public (or near nudity) is inherently sexual, inherently harassment and inherently consent breaking, e.g. you argued against sitting nude in a park. I'm not sure how that can be true while naturists in a parade or nude political activists are fine. To me that says that clearly nudity isn't the issue but the intent behind the nudity, which is something we would both agree with... and maybe pride is different where you live, but I just don't see the dudes running around shoving their junk in people's faces tbh.
IMO if I don't care about naturalists walking around nude I don't see why I should be concerned if someone wants to wear a speedo or leather and a collar if they're minding their own business. I don't think everyone who does that is doing it in the exhibitionist sense either, it can be an expression of self. If the argument is that the involvement of people as spectators makes it morally wrong, I'd think that argument would apply to virtually any display of sexuality.
To be clear, I don't mean think kink, public nudity and queerness are synonymous. That doesn't mean that kink and queerness are mutually exclusive though, so I'm not sure a pride event ought to only represent people who act and dress "normal" and there are family friendly pride events for people who are concerned about their children or have traumas that make it difficult to see certain displays of sexuality.
Nudity is not inherently sexual, but it's asinine to pretend as if most of the time when a bunch of men are going around with their dongs out that they aren't doing it for sexual reasons, especially in a discussion of kink. "Kink should be allowed, our sexuality should not be shamed" "ok but I don't think we should display sexuality in front of people who don't want it without consent" "WTF it's not always sexual", it can't be both depending on what benefits the person wanting to walking around nude in front of others.
Again, I'm just not seeing the gangs of men running around shoving their dongs in people's faces at pride events. Maybe I'm going to the wrong ones, I don't know.
"I don’t think we should display sexuality in front of people who don’t want it without consent" is a more coherent argument IMO but it's pretty far reaching and it's not too different from arguments I've heard from my old conservative friends who, coincidentally, also used language like "normal" to describe queer people who dressed and acted modestly.
I mean I don't think so, the idea that public kink is disrespectful and violates consent is one that many members of the kink community themselves argue https://www.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/loguci/leashing_in_public/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/79htlt/at_what_point_do_you_consider_public_displays_of/
Arguments like "There's a line, of course, where it's kind of silly. Wearing an obvious collar in public, IMO, isn't a problem. Calling someone "Sir" in public is fine. But if you get into things like public humiliation and very obvious and intense D/S dynamics, you have to remember that Joe Nobody walking down the street didn't give informed consent." That's the opinion I hold on the matter too, a few simple things ok but when you get to obvious sexual behavior there is no such thing as informed consent for the public and you are thus violating it and are acting unethically. You even see people making similar points like "Don't conflate homosexuality with a kink. It's extremely disrespectful.....two gay people exisiting in public is NOT inherently sexual and people who hold the perception are either extremely misguided, uniformed, or just plain ol homophobic."
“Don’t conflate homosexuality with a kink. It’s extremely disrespectful…two gay people exisiting in public is NOT inherently sexual and people who hold the perception are either extremely misguided, uniformed, or just plain ol homophobic.”
When did I do this? You keep making this point even after I explicitly said that I don't think these things are synonymous. If you think something I said was homophobic please point to it.
And I really don't think walking down the street on any average day and going to a pride event are synonymous. That doesn't mean that anything goes in the latter but lets not pretend it's the same thing to go to the grocery store in your BDSM gear, where subjecting strangers is the thrill of it, and going to a festival where there is a more relaxed attitude towards sex and you are doing it as an act of self expression.
Sorry for the double reply, I just don't think we see eye to eye on this, or maybe I'm not fully understanding your argument. I might be a bit more defensive about this because I've heard these arguments used cynically by conservatives. I don't want you to feel like I'm just trying to pile on you or whatever so I'm going to step away from this thread. Thanks for your perspective and have a lovely day.
And some people think bikinis are inappropriate. It's not my place to tell someone at a beach what they can or can't wear.
As long as the bikini (or speedo) properly covers things up then fuck the complainers, but if it's too small and shows things or is see through in some way tan it's not ok.
Those are pretty subjective measures though. What's "too small" to one person isn't going to be to another... like some people will think thong bottoms are way too far and some people think it's no big deal. I even think the "see through" thing is kind of a grey area. A lot of bathing suits get a little see through when they get wet. Hell, lots of people don't like wearing bras and don't feel like they need to cover themselves up if, god forbid, an outline of a nipple is visible.
Breasts and nipples are completely different than genitals, there are double standards around people with flat chests vs breasts (mostly men vs women so it's very misogynistic based) but genitals aren't acceptable for either.
But a lot of people do think overly tight speedos are too revealing. I don't mean near naked as in "wearing a bikini", I mean wearing see through/lace underwear, or things that fit too small.
I mean I agree about that, and I do think there is a lot of selective puritanism involved here (especially by Cishet society) despite the fact that they will parade around kids as sexual attractions and make statements like "Wow you're going to be so hot when you grow up" to young girls and the like, but I personally don't see that contradiction in society being a good defense of it. If anything it's the opposite and sexualizing everything is a disturbing trend in society that victimizes and harasses people who don't want it, a societal trend of Cishets that queer culture shouldn't be joining because it's filled with misogyny and pedophilia.
The latter is the type of thing that I believe to be wrong even if pride was entirely adults because other adults deserve to be treated respectfully and not exposed to without prior consent (and gay men/bi women are not all horny addicts who want to see every man naked), where as something like the first one isn’t even pushing the line yet for me and I have no qualms.
Not everyone who is "near naked" is doing it for sexual gratification or for exhibitionist purposes. I wonder if you feel this way about people who are marching for topless equality or people who are using their body to convey a political message (e.g. my body my choice).
Topless equality is a different thing than running around with bottom genitals exposed.
I’ve only been to one pride but we came home with a bunch of shit like am Exxon coozy that was rainbow, and a rainbow fan that had bbva compass on it. Also there was a whole police section of the parade with the local sheriff literally standing on a police float campaigning for re-election.
I remember being a kid going into Toronto in the middle of Pride. Let me tell you, I thought it was silly.
I still think it’s silly, Pride should be a riot.
There are a lot of family friendly pride events in big cities if you wanna go!
Moral puritans who want to think of themselves as progressive people have to come up with a moral pretext for why they are offended by things they see at Pride that aren't any more sexual than something a kid might see in any other parade, so they've been weaponizing language of "consent" to imply that being made uncomfortable by sexuality is the same thing as being assaulted. Can't just end there though, than they gotta go "what about the kids" and make anyone who thinks that queer people shouldn't have to hide their existence are exposing themselves to kids. It's just blatantly old school reactionary shit, but it's still very prevalent even on the "left." Ffs, people here and in the discord still do that shitty Volcel Police meme.
Idk I dont want to see people actively playing in dynamic or having sex but idc about other stuff. Like sure, walk around like a dog with a leash and collar on with only a bikini and nipple tassels knock yourself the fuck out.
I'm not LGBT so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt but I don't see how this is different than the bog standard conservative "but think of the children" argument?
Please don’t characterize asexual people as wokescolds who shatter into a million pieces at the sight of affection + want to go around making sure nobody fucks.
I’d even argue against making people keep things PG / PG-13 as Protestant payment processor moralism, and something that should be dismantled. We already live in a deeply sex-negative culture, there’s no need to assist our enemies in making it more psychotic.
My point exactly: those picrew folks are at best, misguided. To what extend they DO represent a constituency (which I have my doubts about as well), it's one that would hurt the movement if we started catering to it.
I don't think their viewpoints are worth repeating, and certainly not worth bringing up as a rationalization to police sexuality / expression at pride.
