What I'm saying is that despite being about sexuality Pride isn't necessarily sexual, it's about expressing your sexuality and being proud of the way you are and there is no reason Asexuals shouldn't be able to do that
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
What's up with the recurring Pride Parade discourse on displaying kink?
- Thread starter Prax
- Start date
That's how I see it too. There are some recurring, valid discussions going on what the purpose of pride should be, like ones included in the OP. Whenever I see the discussion pop onto my timeline though, it virtually always seems to be people engaging with takes from bad faith actors who clearly just want to sow division, and give outsiders a way to weasel their way into the conversation so they can dominate it with further concern trolling. "Kink" especially is an easy way of forcing people play the respectability politics game, and distance themselves from "the weirdos". Like you say, other minorities should be pretty familiar with these types of tactics.
This has basically been my experience too. There is room for discussion around pride events, the kink community (of which I'm a part of), consent etc. - but this argument gets bought up mostly as a bad faith stick to hit the LGBTQIA+ community with from the usual suspects who hate us.
I've linked this in a few places now but one of the content creators that I follow recently did a video on the subject, and I mostly agree with their take - it's also a good primer for those who have never encountered this particular line of argument.
Mildly NSFW I guess:
I really dislike that blog post in the op. The writer makes many vague claims about being forced to be hypersexual but doesn't back them up with with anything. It also veers into terms like decadence and hedonism, which rests upon an implied natural moral order -- so just regular old conservatism. Take this paragraph:
First, constant? It's a month with some events. Second, I've seen plenty of "defenses" for it. This twitter thread (among many others I've seen during this "discourse") goes into the history of pride. The people who fought to not be killed by a society which hates them. The people who were killed. Who are still killed for expressing themselves in ways against the norm, which includes all of this so-called kink. The blog post makes a vague gesture to this history but doesn't seem to think that it matters. I guess it's all just "decadent" behavior.
Also, the blog hints at these pro-kink arguments mostly come from libertarians. I've mostly seen leftists of all sorts make them, which of course reveals which social circles I'm a part of. It's a minor point, but one that should be made.
Edit: finally, as has been mentioned already this recurring discourse is a conservative salami slicing tactic. There's also a lot of right wing trolls stirring shit up and spreading misinformation.
First, constant? It's a month with some events. Second, I've seen plenty of "defenses" for it. This twitter thread (among many others I've seen during this "discourse") goes into the history of pride. The people who fought to not be killed by a society which hates them. The people who were killed. Who are still killed for expressing themselves in ways against the norm, which includes all of this so-called kink. The blog post makes a vague gesture to this history but doesn't seem to think that it matters. I guess it's all just "decadent" behavior.
Also, the blog hints at these pro-kink arguments mostly come from libertarians. I've mostly seen leftists of all sorts make them, which of course reveals which social circles I'm a part of. It's a minor point, but one that should be made.
Edit: finally, as has been mentioned already this recurring discourse is a conservative salami slicing tactic. There's also a lot of right wing trolls stirring shit up and spreading misinformation.
Last edited:
So I checked out her Twitter and, among other revealing things, she retweets stuff like this:
There's a very particular vocabulary on display, being used in ways that I've only ever seen from bigots.
I thought the recent no kink at pride was a 4chan troll post that caught on on insta and tiktok.
Honestly though, Been to a few prides, haven't seen anything I wouldn't see at a literally any other large scale event, maybe more leather? but like, only marginally.
Honestly though, Been to a few prides, haven't seen anything I wouldn't see at a literally any other large scale event, maybe more leather? but like, only marginally.
as a bi person, I think the solution is really just to hold 2 pride parades: one during the day, and one at night. the pride I went to back in 2019 was already mostly like that
I think pride is important as a way for questioning young children to get some reassurance and feel good about themselves, and I think it's important that they're able to do that in an environment safe for them. my own mother would never have let me go to pride as a kid if it'd had naked dudes running around or being walked like dogs through the street and stuff like that
likewise, I think it's important that people with these kinks are able to express themselves and be proud of that, which is why I think there should be a second, 18+ pride at night.
I've always thought of it as being a bit like Halloween - the adults in their super sexualised outfits are usually sectioned off in their own private parties, separate from the kids going trick or treating with their parents
I think pride is important as a way for questioning young children to get some reassurance and feel good about themselves, and I think it's important that they're able to do that in an environment safe for them. my own mother would never have let me go to pride as a kid if it'd had naked dudes running around or being walked like dogs through the street and stuff like that
likewise, I think it's important that people with these kinks are able to express themselves and be proud of that, which is why I think there should be a second, 18+ pride at night.
I've always thought of it as being a bit like Halloween - the adults in their super sexualised outfits are usually sectioned off in their own private parties, separate from the kids going trick or treating with their parents
Re-read the article to try and figure out something and realized some things. This is probably more attention than it's worth, but it was interesting to me as someone who remembers reading her posts back when she was a tumblr blogger around 10 years ago as I mentioned.
1) Although half the article is ostensibly about kink at pride, the real drive behind this substack piece is the author's opinions on "pro-hedonism people". This is why the author shies away from any real specifics and is mostly philosophical in the part where she discusses kink at pride.
2) What the author is really interested in is how this Left that she has manifested. This manifestation, this monolith is incapable of self-critique, consumed by their passions, and driven to cancel everyone who expresses any concerns about it. An example being the paragraph
Do I believe people like who she's mentioning exist? Definitely. Do I think that they are the majority, the only option? In this forum, and on twitter and youtube there was a fair amount of pushback against things like Cuties which I recall pretty vividly. I can only shrug at the idea that there is this occupying force which, crucially, draws the line at the same spot with the same areas and has the same hyper focus on cancellation.
In a previous article she mentions the Vampire Castle idea directly, but her labeling is even less specific than the author of that article produced. It's interesting to consider with regards to this article and the one before (worth reading for more perspective if you're interested, it's a doozy) on her substack (2 out of the 3 she has published on it currently) who she considers enemies.
Now, this is a very particular account so I would assume these thoughts aren't her only concern. But it's interesting that she's created this one basically to rail against the aforementioned and exalt people like Glenn Greenwald, because I definitely recall that was kind of her defining trait even all those years ago on tumblr: getting into some bitter arguments with people who were left-leaning, despite herself being left and spreading a lot of left info. Almost makes me nostalgic.
Also I gotta say I hope she's consistent with her anti-cancel stance now bc I do recall her riling up her followers on the platform to go after someone after she had a personal falling out with them (for reasons unrelated to actually problematic and worth internet mobbing) lol
1) Although half the article is ostensibly about kink at pride, the real drive behind this substack piece is the author's opinions on "pro-hedonism people". This is why the author shies away from any real specifics and is mostly philosophical in the part where she discusses kink at pride.
2) What the author is really interested in is how this Left that she has manifested. This manifestation, this monolith is incapable of self-critique, consumed by their passions, and driven to cancel everyone who expresses any concerns about it. An example being the paragraph
Do I believe people like who she's mentioning exist? Definitely. Do I think that they are the majority, the only option? In this forum, and on twitter and youtube there was a fair amount of pushback against things like Cuties which I recall pretty vividly. I can only shrug at the idea that there is this occupying force which, crucially, draws the line at the same spot with the same areas and has the same hyper focus on cancellation.
In a previous article she mentions the Vampire Castle idea directly, but her labeling is even less specific than the author of that article produced. It's interesting to consider with regards to this article and the one before (worth reading for more perspective if you're interested, it's a doozy) on her substack (2 out of the 3 she has published on it currently) who she considers enemies.
Now, this is a very particular account so I would assume these thoughts aren't her only concern. But it's interesting that she's created this one basically to rail against the aforementioned and exalt people like Glenn Greenwald, because I definitely recall that was kind of her defining trait even all those years ago on tumblr: getting into some bitter arguments with people who were left-leaning, despite herself being left and spreading a lot of left info. Almost makes me nostalgic.
Also I gotta say I hope she's consistent with her anti-cancel stance now bc I do recall her riling up her followers on the platform to go after someone after she had a personal falling out with them (for reasons unrelated to actually problematic and worth internet mobbing) lol
I doubt children will be traumatised by seeing some sexual display, let people express themselves!
And family friendly events already exists if it's really an issue
And family friendly events already exists if it's really an issue
That article is absolute shit. Some posts here have already dug a bit into the reasons, but yeah. I understand why her friends (lol) call her a right-wing prude. (not that that's necessarily what she is, but it just FEELS right 😂)
Don't most places already have youth/child-centered parts of Pride?
Excluding kinks is against everything pride stands for. It's about Pride and fucking liberation lol, it's not that hard to understand
"libidinal excess", lmao
Don't most places already have youth/child-centered parts of Pride?
Excluding kinks is against everything pride stands for. It's about Pride and fucking liberation lol, it's not that hard to understand
"libidinal excess", lmao
It definitely seems like the author is applying her own moral hangups to other people, concealed in an air of faux academia.
It reminds me of the college composition papers I used to tutor people on – rambling, trying really hard to sound intellectual, and lacking a logical thesis. It's just "this stuff is bad because I think it's icky!" run through Google Translate to "Academic."
It reminds me of the college composition papers I used to tutor people on – rambling, trying really hard to sound intellectual, and lacking a logical thesis. It's just "this stuff is bad because I think it's icky!" run through Google Translate to "Academic."
Fair call. In my defence I think I'm just used to using that word when discussing things online.
But kinks are specific, how is a BDSM night going to help me if I'm into balloon popping?
This is basically my thoughts too. It's complicated and the straights need to stay out of it.
Yeah, fighting a defensive battle is the wrong play here, we should be arguing over more kink at other public events, not less kink at Pride.
As more and more youth (kids and under 18s) are embracing their LGBTQ+ identities at younger ages, I do think this sort of thing needs to be scaled back. Keep it in an alleyway at pride events, it shouldn't be just all over the place. I say this as a gay male who wants pride to be more inclusive of different ages and points-of-view, and when pride leans too heavily into kink stuff it puts up too many barriers for others.
A youth seeing someone in some leather gear at pride? Some of that should be expected. But be honest here... they are going to see a heck of a lot more than that because there's a ton of people who have no interest in containing themselves and push a lot of extremes at pride. That's more what I'm talking about.
So yeah, I have seen these conversations come up all the time and they are getting more and more common. So I think something is going to give at some point.
There is lot of discourse from left-leaning individuals on this recently. I know Vaush has talked about it more than once, for example.
A youth seeing someone in some leather gear at pride? Some of that should be expected. But be honest here... they are going to see a heck of a lot more than that because there's a ton of people who have no interest in containing themselves and push a lot of extremes at pride. That's more what I'm talking about.
So yeah, I have seen these conversations come up all the time and they are getting more and more common. So I think something is going to give at some point.
There is lot of discourse from left-leaning individuals on this recently. I know Vaush has talked about it more than once, for example.
Last edited:
Someone wearing a puppy hood or a leash is not in any way "more" sexualized than someone wearing a bikini or a speedo at the beach. If you think it is, step back and reflect on why that might be
No-one is saying your kid has to watch anyone have sex. The examples of "runaway kink at pride" that people trot out are always the tamest shit imaginable.
No-one is saying your kid has to watch anyone have sex. The examples of "runaway kink at pride" that people trot out are always the tamest shit imaginable.
That's basically what I came into this thread to say. I absolutely do not trust the premise that this discourse started. After a year of hell it seems like we're capable of having a somewhat normal pride and now suddenly everyone wants to invoke respectability politics. I can right through that shit.
I'm gay and I agree with all of this. It's not a black and white discussion, but I'm not interested in what straight people have to say and I'm wary of the bad faith actors.
LGBT people have kids, and kids can also be gay. I've known a few LGBT parents and it's created some awkward moments where they don't want to bring their kids to a thing because the fetish crowd is out in force. But then are you telling your kid you aren't proud to be who you are? Why can't they come see you at Pride?
It's a tough call. I don't want kids so that part doesn't affect me but I also have no interest in participating in someone's kink without any choice
Yeah, great post. If part of your kink is other people watching you, then they're participants and you need their consent for that.
The thing I'm curious to hear thoughts on as even beyond the humiliation focused folks aren't many involved in Pride Parades still participating in a form of exhibitionism which much like the mentioned humiliation kink involves an audience. I guess I'm curious where one draws the line or maybe I'm looking about it in the wrong way.
While a portion of it comes from young people who've made themselves extremely sex negative due to various circumstances, most of it is reactionaries looking for a new wedge issue. Just being gay is growing somewhat more accepted by the broader culture so they seek out something to draw a box around and point at as a source of what they would call degeneracy.
I'm not saying that people in this thread are doing it, but "kinky people existing anywhere near me means that they're forcing me to be a participant in their kink and I do not consent" is 100% going to be weaponized against LGBT people and that's probably what this whole debate is going to be framed as in a few years. For people who want pride to meet their standards of decency, it's the perfect cover — you're not trying to police what people do at pride, you're just trying to protect yourself from others involving you in their kink without your consent, and who can argue with that? And then the list of things that kinksters do that non-consensually involve bystanders will just grow and grow until it basically just encompasses all kink at pride. Oh, you want to be out and proud? Well, that means you're involving others in your exhibitionism!
People can be kinky and can want to be out and proud and kinky for reasons that have nothing to do with any other person. People can even want to get on all fours and be walked by their handler for reasons that have nothing to do with a public humiliation fetish or anything outside of the relationship between those two people.
People can be kinky and can want to be out and proud and kinky for reasons that have nothing to do with any other person. People can even want to get on all fours and be walked by their handler for reasons that have nothing to do with a public humiliation fetish or anything outside of the relationship between those two people.
Last edited:
Didn't it start from straight posters saying "we accept you but this isn't ok" which is complete non acceptance of pride / LGBTQ+ lol?
regardless, the most kink you're going to see is leather daddies, women in harnesses, maybe a whip. There is nothing grotesque about pride parades that it becomes a fuck dungeon.
regardless, the most kink you're going to see is leather daddies, women in harnesses, maybe a whip. There is nothing grotesque about pride parades that it becomes a fuck dungeon.
Well, no. "Exhibitionism" has a sexual aspect to it that doesn't just mean "being outside." I'm not getting off when I walk down the street.
I'm not really concerned about the people with whips or whatever, but there have absolutely been people around me at Pride who are straight-up engaging in exhibitionism for the purpose of sexual gratification, and that's where I draw the line. I do not consent to being part of that experience. If you just have the gear on, then it's whatever.
I agree OP in the sense that some of the issues of the world and society are likely best "solved" one step at a time rather than multiple, no matter how hard of a fact that may be. Marginalized groups will likely reject that kind of thinking and say "no, we have waited long enough" and that's totally valid and I respect that, but in some ways a lot of issues are like those slide puzzles, and you just have to move some of the pieces out of the way and focus on getting one tile in place at a time.
I probably butchered that concept when translating into text on a screen but I guess if tackling multiple aspects to a problem at once either slows down progress to a crawl or actively blocks other aspects from getting better, than it just seems like a way better use of time to focus on one thing at a time.
I probably butchered that concept when translating into text on a screen but I guess if tackling multiple aspects to a problem at once either slows down progress to a crawl or actively blocks other aspects from getting better, than it just seems like a way better use of time to focus on one thing at a time.
Much like my bisexuality I can go either way on the idea.
Like, I guess there's a level where the inherent link between Queer sexuality and the actual act of sex bugs me? Because that's something we get thrown at us all the time, that talking about us at all is a PG13 topic. But like, that's kinda the same thing with the Queer label, right? They called us that to demean us and we tore it from their fucking hands and empowered ourselves with it. They're gonna go "oh you're being sex weirdos that's why we hate you just cut it out and we'll be fine" but they'll just find some new deviation to stick us with, they only want us to exist if we look, think and speak just like them.
I don't know how to approach this overall, I think there's too much nuance from within the Queer community (bluntly, the only people whose opinion matters) for me to say yes or no in any particular direction, and I think the only thing I can say definitively is that I'd rather freedom of expression over it being silenced, especially at Pride.
Like, I guess there's a level where the inherent link between Queer sexuality and the actual act of sex bugs me? Because that's something we get thrown at us all the time, that talking about us at all is a PG13 topic. But like, that's kinda the same thing with the Queer label, right? They called us that to demean us and we tore it from their fucking hands and empowered ourselves with it. They're gonna go "oh you're being sex weirdos that's why we hate you just cut it out and we'll be fine" but they'll just find some new deviation to stick us with, they only want us to exist if we look, think and speak just like them.
I don't know how to approach this overall, I think there's too much nuance from within the Queer community (bluntly, the only people whose opinion matters) for me to say yes or no in any particular direction, and I think the only thing I can say definitively is that I'd rather freedom of expression over it being silenced, especially at Pride.
Being a straight cis male myself, take my opinion on this with a grain (or mountain) of salt.
Pride never was "for the children". That doesn't mean we should say that children can't know what Pride is or anything like that, or be included if they are LGBT, it just means I don't think we should be "Please think of the children"-ing Pride. So yeah, kink should be allowed at Pride.
Echoing the other sentiment of this thread, it also seems very likely of some right-wing chuds moving the goalposts on this shit. Totally unsurprising.
Pride never was "for the children". That doesn't mean we should say that children can't know what Pride is or anything like that, or be included if they are LGBT, it just means I don't think we should be "Please think of the children"-ing Pride. So yeah, kink should be allowed at Pride.
Echoing the other sentiment of this thread, it also seems very likely of some right-wing chuds moving the goalposts on this shit. Totally unsurprising.
That is what kinda what you're saying Reclib said. Be honest. Zero people said "kinky people can't exist around me" (not to mention you have zero idea about anyone and their own kinks). Just to consider that some things should be left to situations where everyone can consent to participate. And fwiw, in my experience I don't think there's a huge problem with disregarding consent at the Prides I have attended, however I also don't think requesting people be conscientious of consent are the same as "no kink at pride". Honestly, I think it might just be one of those situations where people's definitions are different and it's always going to be gray and complicated.
Also, like some to a lot of it is certainly straight people being straight but there are a lot of queer people who have been forced or goaded into doing things they didn't want to do and so the concept of consent is pretty important for a chunk of the community and they're not being disingenuous about it now that it's finally a topic people care about.
I guess my question then is how do you do even know who is just walking around dressed up and who is getting off. It just seems very nebulous.
This is literally the opposite of what Pride is or should be about.
Be prideful, just, not where I can see it. Keep your pride on the inside, hidden, in the dark alleyways perhaps...
----
I'm going to echo what a lot of friends of mine have had to say on this debate this year: how many of the people raging in these debates have actually been to a Pride? I mean, it's hard to know, and I will admit that I'm not an authority, but I have been Out and participating in Pride events since I was 17. I'm 35 this year. I have been to Pride parades in Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, Atlanta, and DC. And I can honestly say that based on my experience it sounds like people are describing events like Folsom Street Fair when they're talking about Pride. Sure, there's some decadence (mostly because it's Summer, there's decadence and skin being shown everywhere. I hope you're not taking your children to the beach if you're concerned about this); sure, some people with breasts go topless (which, really, shouldn't be scandalous at all). Sure, you see "kink" and some folks in leather (which, again, if you live in a major city is not that scandalous)...
But so many people in these conversations describe Pride like you're going to be tripping over people fucking in the street. And, uh, I have yet to go to that Pride parade. These descriptions sound so unlike what Pride parades actually are. Hell, most older Queer folks I know have come to loathe Pride parades not because they're too hedonistic, but the opposite! They seem to be the place to go these days if you're want a new Checking and Savings account more than to showcase pride in your identity.
I am actually quite terrified by the form this conversation has taken this year. Because a lot of these arguments about Pride and propriety I'm used to hearing from the right. Only they're being parroted from the Left now. And this has been the case for a few years in general. You're starting to see a lot of conservative and puritanical arguments dressing themselves up in "progressivism" and "inclusivity" when really, when you think about it, who does this serve? Who benefits from Queer groups policing each other this way?
Hint: it ain't the Queer people.
And this is why history is important.
Pride started as a riot.
A lot of the arguments come down to "Pride should be accessible, please think of the children" vs "Fuck your comfort"
and, to be blunt, fuck your comfort. Pride is abrasive, the history of the pride movement is riots. To sanitize it is to strip away the sacrifices of the people who fought for what we have today.
and it goes without saying, but no cops at pride either.
and, to be blunt, fuck your comfort. Pride is abrasive, the history of the pride movement is riots. To sanitize it is to strip away the sacrifices of the people who fought for what we have today.
and it goes without saying, but no cops at pride either.
I live in San Francisco, and used to live near civic center where Pride is anchored. It's BECAUSE i've been to pride (and not just once) that I feel how I feel.
It's fine, there's enough people who want to keep pride how it is that they will have it their way. I'm too old to care anymore. I just wish it were more accessible, but since it's not, well, some people will have to celebrate in their own way elsewhere.
No, I'm not, I'm just saying that we should be cognizant how other people could adopt that framing and misuse it. I can see it becoming the pearl-clutching playing-the-victim power move for people who want pride to fit their idea of appropriate, because of the way it assumes intent and the way it frames the opposition ("oh, so you're saying that people should involve others in their kink without their consent?"). Anyone who tries to disagree with someone disingenuously pulling this out is going to be immediately on their back feet and in an unsympathetic position. And I think it will basically become the "acceptable" way of trying to police people at pride.
Language matters, and I think it's worth considering how language can be used against us.
I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is doing this. As I stated, in the very beginning of my post. I'm not sure how I can be more clear than "I'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but..." So please don't put words in my mouth.
Not to discount how you feel (because who am I to tell you how to feel?), I just think this debate of "Pride vs Accessibility" is kind of wrong on its face.
Basically every pride has all-ages events. This is a solved "problem" that people are pretending isn't.
Seems like a good way to tackle this. If there are people in the LGBTQ+ community that want a more inclusive event, then hold something separate like this (sounds like this is already pretty standard). I could understand if you are in the community and not a very sexual person that it could be annoying that that's what people immediately think of (overt sexuality) when thinking of pride.
If you are straight then who cares what your opinion is. It's not really needed.
Fair enough. It came across that way because your post basically engaged with the points she made without actually addressing her directly. If that was not your intention then I apologize for taking it that way.
And I see what you're saying, I don't think awareness is bad. However, I feel like just because straight people might weaponize conversations the queer community is having against us is not a reason to not have those conversations. This is something they will always inevitable do and we can't escape it, so I agree that being conscious of it is good but also that we should just engage in the discussion anyway.