I mean the idea is just public areas that people (who aren't you and that you didn't have prior contact or forms of communication with) are in.
Basically as you start hurting other queer people, you need to rein your behavior in. Small things like collars or saying "sir" are fine, but more elaborate displays violate consent and hurt others. As a followup as well, there was an interesting example someone gave of how even some of the kink spaces they participated in didn't allow active play in the social areas since the level of consent (and what the consent was towards) is unclear, and that even some of the more kinky folk need a space they can retreat to. https://www.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/79htlt/at_what_point_do_you_consider_public_displays_of/dp25jnm/
No I think it's clearly a bit different, music with gay themes has specific meaning to the queer community that it does not for cishet people. If this was a celebration of particular LGBTQ+ celebrities who were into kink or something that they created with an inherent meaning directly relevant to queer people, this would be different. Most kink expression is not that way, it is quite literally "Some gay people were into BDSM" for the majority of the argument which means nothing to me.
People being into BDSM is different than "We used it as a way to express ourselves", we know that it's not integral to queer history the way that LGBT focused music and history like Stonewall is due to the fact that cishet people can enter into the conversation of BDSM and kink without a single thing not applying to them the same. That can not be said of the Stonewall riots, or music that talks about dating other men or whatever else.
If its just purely “I am gay/bi/trans” then how are you gonna celebrate that aside from literally just stating that out loud or on signs over and over?
Yeah, kinda? Not everyone really shares the same histories and culture within the "LGBTQ+" space. There is some amount of shared history like things such as Stonewall or music by/for the LGBTQ+ community, but I don't think "Some of us were into BDSM" counts much, cause well, there are LGBT people into basically every single fetish in the world. I wouldn't say things like foot fetishism is integral to the community but there's certainly a lot of people who were into that historically too.
But most of this stuff isn't integral to the LGBT+ community. In fact like I just said it comes off as very offensive to argue that it is because it's basically implying that anyone who isn't into it is "less gay" or "less involved in queer history and tradition" or something, when it's actually just a type of fetish that people have across sexualities.
Not every LGBT+ person is into kink, in fact nowadays a lot of kink is specifically for cishet communities but ok.
The conflation of the two to me feels more like the homophobic argument of "LGBT people are all sexual deviants!!"
Which while I don't think of kink of being bad, I do think it is highly disrespectful to act as if that's the "gay experience"
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."
She has been to a drag show before right? They're not a bunch of people saying "Ooo imma suck your dick" and stripping themselves, oftentimes it's the opposite way around even and they cover themselves up in a lot of hyperfeminine clothing. It's not a fucking strip club, it's more like a fashion show, that's why you can have stuff like Rupaul on TV.
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.
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.
What I've done for the queer places I mod/help in is say that you can use it for yourself but not for other people or for the community as a group. So if you want to call yourself a slur I won't really stop you, but if you say "Us slurs deal with a lot of shit" or whatever then no, you're including other people now who don't want to be called 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.
I don't want to be hateful or off-putting with this but I really just can't stand the large majority of men, it's obviously not some inherent feature in them but there's some part of all the socialization and shit that they go through that makes the majority of them fucking intolerable to be around.
I can name maybe like three dudes in my life who I don't consider to be creeps and one of them is considering if they're non binary! Women are often shitty too but not in the same way and not in the same amount. And when they are, it at least tends to be toned down a lot more (once again likely due to socialization) so it's more tolerable compared to the Dudebro who will fling slurs and make sexual comments about you. Like talk to any woman in your life and you'll hear endless stories of harassment by men, but you won't hear it the other way around from women, the worst you'll (often) get is that one time some chick was a bit rude.
There's a mixture really, but I chose the final quote specifically because it was one of the main comments I saw that addressed kink as a spectrum of behaviors/appearance and not just as a singular thing. But that is one of the major problems with "kink at pride" discourse, there's not really any specification of what that means so for some it's as simple as a dude wearing leather or someone being shirtless and for others it's to the extreme of wearing leashes and flashing your genitals both under this same word all dependant on who is saying it.