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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
No.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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."
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.