• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Pride discourse.

Intolerant people will, indeed, find excuses to attack the LGBTQ+ community whatever you do. But I'm thinking more about the people who are on the fence, who have the potential to become tolerant. The presence of kink and sexually deviant behaviour at Pride isn't going to help to win those people over. It'll just make them confused about what being LGBTQ+ means.




I accept all forms of diversity, including kink, but Pride is specifically about celebrating LGBTQ+ people. It's really important that every minority group is allowed to have its own dedicated space, so that its voice can be heard. You don't have to focus everybody all of the time in order to accept them.

Take the Black Lives Matter movement, for example. Its message isn't that non-black lives don't matter, just that it's important to give black people a voice. If non-black people started turning up to Black Lives Matter events demanding that they be given a voice too, black people would then be denied their voice.

It's the same with the LGBTQ+ and kink communities. They're two separate communities, each equally deserving of having their voices heard. LGBTQ+ lives matter, and that's what Pride is about, but that doesn't mean kink lives don't matter. By all means organise a Kink Pride event and give a voice to those people, but please don't piggyback on LGBTQ+ Pride and take away my voice.

That still doesn't make a lot of sense. Pride isn't about getting people to join our side. Obviously, that's a perk, but that isn't the design. Pride is about celebrating who you are without the concern, foibles or hang ups of bigots. Winning people over, changing their mind, that's activism, that's work. We're not on the job at pride. We're celebrating.

The issue with excluding kink from LGBTQ spaces is that its ignorant. We owe solidarity to them because we receive hate and discrimination for the same reasons. Our community has had a track record of wanting to exclude people and succumb to infighting, from discrimination against bisexual people, asexual people, denying the validity of non binary and trans people, etc. Being queer, being part of this community, is about loving and protecting all sexuality and sexual identity that does no harm to others, and that includes our kinky brothers and sisters. They're part of the family and I won't hear otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Zora

perpetually tired
I'm like a whole two days late to this conversation and my Arceus there's a lot I need to get through. Before I go onto specific quotes y'all really need to understand this argument:
  • Sexuality is harmful to youth
  • We must curb exposure of sexuality to youth
  • Ergo, jettison kink at pride (and all queer expression outside of specifically 18+ spaces), because think of the children
is a.) completely BS and b.) weaponized against LGBTQIA+ folks. And I pre-emptively apologize for beating several dead horses because it feels like I'm talking to a wall, but anyway...

"Sexuality" is just so broad and entangled with society, even for youth, that you cannot describe it as harmful or anything really. Even your Disney film uses themes of sexuality; all those Princes and Princessess are some artists' idea of sexy. So you need to ask what aspects of sexuality are harmful, and do so critically. As in, why is THIS considered harmful, but THIS is not? Why is THIS considered harmful, but THIS is not? Why is THIS considered harmful, but THIS is not? You can look through this thread for more examples, but let me state the obvious: people use "harmful" as a euphemism for "transgressive (i.e. queer) sexual expression that makes cishets uncomfortable." Pride ain't about your comfort; being transgressive is the point because queer folks can only compartmentalize themselves or be transgressive. And yes, compartmentalization is very much the point of "think of the children," look no further than Anita Bryant, professional anti-LGBTQIA+ PoS and founder of "Save the Children," who was literally using children as a prop to ask us to compartmentalize as far back as the 70s:

I repeat my belief: Homosexuals do not suffer discrimination when they keep their perversions in the privacy of their homes. They can hold any job, transact any business, join any organization- so long as they do not flaunt their homosexuality and try to establish role models for the impressionable young people- our children. I will continue to fight the attempts of Metro, and the attempts of a few Congressmen who on February 2 presented a similar type of bill in the Congress of the United States to legitimize homosexuality. Homosexuals cannot reproduce- so they must recruit. And to freshen their ranks, they must recruit the youth of America. I shall continue to fight against that recruitment. Those who do not share my conviction may continue to blacklist my talent- but with God's help, they can never blacken my name.
How this really all that different from what y'all are saying now? At best, i see a goalpost moved from "[recruiting] the youth of America" to "harming the youth of America" (by means of not keeping their "perversions"/kinks/etc. in the privacy of their home), but it feels the same.

also, it's not about the children, let's drop that take. Many of the same people who say "think of the children" when it's about kink in pride have for some totally not hypocritical reason stopped thinking about the children when it comes to, say, Florida's ability to let teachers have unfettered access to the students' genitals. Again, this discussion isn't about harm; it's about transgression.

-------
on second thought, what I said in the spoiler below wasn't too relevant to the discussion at hand.

One more thing, and maybe this is a hot take: A reason why I'm so adamant that queer sexual expression/imagery must be available to young folks is because healthy sexual expression/imagery is just downright formative to growing up. Queer folks need something to figure out who we are, and unless you want that something to be pornography (which it often is), said sexual content needs to be created with a <18yo audience in mind. I'm not going to say pornography is healthy, lmao no, my 15yo ass watched way too much twink porn because that was all I effing had. We don't get outwardly gay CW series, gay romantic MCU B plots, or gay Disney "happily ever after" endings. And if "kink at Pride" is too much for you, pray tell, what is is queer, sexual, but isn't too much?

anyway, onto to responding to specific claims made in the past two days.

------
Whew so many things to take in here. First I believe pride should be used for whatever the LGBTQ+ community is prideful for which includes expression of sexuality. However I'm not going to let you say that adult's expressing their sexuality doesn't do anything to children mentally not when there are 400x articles describing the effects of porn on youth minds that can be found quickly with a Google search.
Please stop with "just google it." Yes, there's a lot of academic studies as "effects of porn on youth" is an active area of research, but the lot of them (e.g. this one) basically say "we need more research on casual links;" google isn't providing much (here's a less academic article on the same topic). "Pornography is correlated with sexual violence, kink at pride looks like pornography, ergo kink at pride might cause sexual violence" is not a good take. And when we say adult sexuality, we're not talking about pornography; infer context please! We're talking about the entire spectrum of ways adults show sexuality.

I do not believe that adults should be expressing their sexuality in front of children however if children decide to experiment with OTHER children it is what it is.

Children and youth will see adults (e.g. celebrities) expressing their sexuality because it's effing everywhere. The question is what sexual content they see, not if. See top of post. "I do not believe," means nought when it's an everyday occurrence.

You also need to show clarification of what exact “kinks” are you talking about. Yes obviously someone in a custome (depending on what it is) isn’t comparable to some porn scenes but you didn’t clarify what type of kinks are you discussing so don’t get upset when your readers looks at this and assumes things you never touched on.

We're talking about kinky outfits you find at Pride. Again, see top of post for examples.
---------------------------------------
See I knew someone was going to equate this with saying “all gay men are predators”. As someone who is apart of the community I can say that this a reach and projection. Arguing that children shouldn’t exposed to sexual things involving adults is in no way implying that all gay mean are pe**’s. Especially with the social climate we are in with all of the trafficking and grooming allegations going on with children these days I’m not even sure why this is a discussion hetero or homosexual.
no, peter quill is right. This rhetoric is just "all gays are pedos" version 2.0. Compare with Bryant's quote at the top. And to continue beating an eternally dead horse: children are exposed to sexuality daily but people for some reason only get concerned when it's queer. Minors can go to Hooters, I don't see people making a fuss about that.

Also, if you want to actually examine the harm of traffickng and grooming, you need to start with real people and work backwards from there; behaviors you see at Pride are not consistnet with warning signs of grooming or trafficking at all.

You seem to have no problem with children being exposed to adults having sex
PEOPLE. AREN'T. HAVING. SEX. AT. PRIDE.

If the issue was people having public sex that'll be a completely different discussion, but that's not what's happening.

------
However, I do feel - and I'm sorry if this offends anybody - that there is no place for kink at Pride. Not because of the kids (although that's a valid point too), but because it gives people a false perception of the LGBTQ+ community. If I were taking part in a Pride march and some people behind me were all decked out in leather gear, it would make me really uncomfortable. I wouldn't want passers by to assume that I'm into that too, or that all LGBTQ+ people are.

There's nothing wrong with kink, as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm anyone. Anyone who finds that it enriches their life should embrace it and be proud of their sexual identity. I don't really understand what kink has to do with the LGBTQ+ community though, not when it's something that is, to my knowledge, equally popular with straight people.

This is just respectability politics, and respectability politics never worts. It only eschews the most vulernable members of a community. If cishet folks are only cool with us when we're compartmentalized, that ain't liberation.

It's the same with the LGBTQ+ and kink communities. They're two separate communities, each equally deserving of having their voices heard. LGBTQ+ lives matter, and that's what Pride is about, but that doesn't mean kink lives don't matter. By all means organise a Kink Pride event and give a voice to those people, but please don't piggyback on LGBTQ+ Pride and take away my voice.

asdf

Kink communities and LGBTQIA+ communities have huge overlap! WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR Y'ALL TO EFFING UNDERSTAND? I'm just linking to this twitter thread because I'm getting tired of beating this dead horse:


And two more reasons not mentioned in the thread: 1.) most kink communities center the purpose of sex as pleasure and not reproduction, which can be liberating to queer folks and 2.) a lot of queer folks need to see very kinky sex to realize they're LGBTQIA+ bceause mainstream images, to whatever extent they can apply to a queer experience, don't do anything. Y'all keep talking as if these kinksters who show up aren't LGBTQIA+ themselves when they effing are.

I'm not even going to flirt with the analogy to BLM; my advice is always always avoid comparing marginalized groups to each other because nuance makes these comparisons damn near impossible.

Intolerant people will, indeed, find excuses to attack the LGBTQ+ community whatever you do. But I'm thinking more about the people who are on the fence, who have the potential to become tolerant. The presence of kink and sexually deviant behaviour at Pride isn't going to help to win those people over. It'll just make them confused about what being LGBTQ+ means.

Also, the LGBTQIA+ movement became stronger because by making noise and showing ourselves shamelessly, more people realized they were queer and came out. It was that power in numbers that made us stronger; not respectability politics. Kinksters are part of that process.

------
I do think that the “for the children” argument has at least a tiny amount of validity. When I was a kid, I was (unintentionally) exposed to stuff on the internet. It was traumatizing. So I understand the concern that certain sexual things at pride events would have a negative impact on kids. However, I don’t think the people into sexually explorative stuff would be having sex with each other or discussing it with the kids. I suppose that a parent taking a kid to a pride event with some sexually explorative content would go to another area of the event, where the explorative content wouldn’t be visible.

I'm sorry that happened to you. However, and sorry if this sounds dismissive, but if what you saw on the internet was worse than what you see passively in advertisements (e.g., cw: sexual themes), Superbowl halftime shows (e.g. sexual themes), or a music video (e.g. sexual themes), then it's probably more explicit than whatever is being discussed. Again, see top of post that compares pride outfits with oufits found in other contexts (i.e. teenage halloween party, mardi gras event, and a swimsuit advert).

-----------------------

dear arceus that was a long post.
 
Last edited:
I think the subject of pornagraphic material was a purposeful attempt to take me down a worm hole. As I mentioned and you did as well, it's far out of context and an extreme example compared to kink outfits. While I do still hold the opinion that pornographic material may not be inherently or uniquely damaging to youth (unrealistic body standards, power fantasies, etc are harmful to adults as well) and it would depend on how its portrayed, that's a discussion that deserves it's own topic and is too complex/far removed from the conversation at hand to be having both at the same time.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
It's the same with the LGBTQ+ and kink communities. They're two separate communities, each equally deserving of having their voices heard. LGBTQ+ lives matter, and that's what Pride is about, but that doesn't mean kink lives don't matter. By all means organise a Kink Pride event and give a voice to those people, but please don't piggyback on LGBTQ+ Pride and take away my voice.

Kink within the queer community is not the same as kink outside of it. In fact, my straight friends don't even refer to it as kink, but rather 'fetish' or an umbrella 'BDSM.'

There is a long-standing cultural tie to kink within the queer community, and it is incredibly important, at least to me, to ensure this part of queer history is acknowledged. Thus, it cannot be separated from LGBTQ+.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I think the subject of pornagraphic material was a purposeful attempt to take me down a worm hole. As I mentioned and you did as well, it's far out of context and an extreme example compared to kink outfits. While I do still hold the opinion that pornographic material may not be inherently or uniquely damaging to youth (unrealistic body standards, power fantasies, etc are harmful to adults as well) and it would depend on how its portrayed, that's a discussion that deserves it's own topic and is too complex/far removed from the conversation at hand to be having both at the same time.
Let's not talk about pornography then, since it's not related.
 

Teravolt

cilan lives forever in my heart
I'm sorry that happened to you. However, and sorry if this sounds dismissive, but if what you saw on the internet was worse than what you see passively in advertisements (e.g., cw: sexual themes), Superbowl halftime shows (e.g. sexual themes), or a music video (e.g. sexual themes), then it's probably more explicit than whatever is being discussed. Again, see top of post that compares pride outfits with oufits found in other contexts (i.e. teenage halloween party, mardi gras event, and a swimsuit advert).

-----------------------

dear arceus that was a long post.
thanks for pointing that out! i’ve never been to a pride event, so i don’t have firsthand knowledge of what kinky things are displayed there. when i hear people talking about kinks, my mind automatically goes to graphic stuff. if the kinky content at pride is just people in leather suits, i don’t have a problem with that. the stuff i saw on the internet was pretty awful stuff, far more so than generic sex on TV (which really creeps me out).

by the way, i appreciate that long post of yours. it was informative and well-thought out. thanks for sharing!
 

Bill the Typhlosion

Well-Known Member
Kink within the queer community is not the same as kink outside of it. In fact, my straight friends don't even refer to it as kink, but rather 'fetish' or an umbrella 'BDSM.'

There is a long-standing cultural tie to kink within the queer community, and it is incredibly important, at least to me, to ensure this part of queer history is acknowledged. Thus, it cannot be separated from LGBTQ+.

Would you say that a larger percentage of LGBTQ+ people are into kink, compared to straight people? Or is it just that the LGBTQ+ who are into kink have a different relationship with it than straight people do? Maybe there's an aspect to all of this that I'm not understanding - this community is, after all, a lot older than I am.

For me, I think what it really all boils down to is this: I don't like it when Pride perpetuates the misconception that LGBTQ+ people, especially gay men like myself, are all obsessed with sex. I said earlier that there's no harm in being "a little bit sexy" at Pride and I stand by that, but I worry that it could send a bad message to the public if it goes too far. This applies to all kinds of sex, but I find kink at Pride especially problematic because it's a lot more conspicuous, and thus far more likely to have a negative impact on the public's perception of our community.

If kink is intrinsic to the LGBTQ+ community, there are far more appropriate places to acknowledge the relationship between the two - for example on Grindr, in dedicated social groups, and in 18+ sex clubs. We can discuss and enjoy sex and kink amongst ourselves as much as we wish. But at Pride, a public event, do we really need to put our sex lives on display for the whole world to see?

I'm not for a moment suggesting that kinky LGBTQ+ people aren't welcome at Pride. I'm simply suggesting that, while at Pride, we all exercise a degree of public decency and keep our sex lives private.

I'm all for challenging the status quo, and if kinky people want to be publicly indecent at a kink-themed event, all the power to them. But at Pride, not everyone is willing to participate in such a radical endeavour.

I think this article makes a compelling case for why kink shouldn't be included at Pride events. There are a few flaws in the author's argument (he doesn't acknowledge the fact that kink is an identity for some people, nor the fact that people in the kink community can experience discrimination) but overall, the points he makes resonate with me. I think these two paragraphs are especially important:

Overtly sexualized displays — or in more extreme instances, public sex and nudity — breech the boundaries of good taste and decency even as Pride stretches what is and is not acceptable. It alienates members of our community who are modest, who have ethical or philosophical objections (as many feminists do), who have children, or who simply do not want to participate in your sex life as unwilling voyeurs. BDSM and kink displays deter many of us from attending, including LGBT friends of mine with small kids. Pride should be for everyone in the LGBT community. In order for that to be possible, boundaries must be set and respected.

Pride should keep its focus on LGBT folks and our rights, equality, and liberation — not on a fetish that can include straight people and ostracizes some members of our own community. Every member of our community and all of our allies, from children to pensioners, should be able to celebrate their sexual orientation or gender identity without being forced to participate in someone else’s sex life.
 
Last edited:

Peter Quill

star-lord
There's something deeply funny about that second paragraph saying that pride should focus on "liberation" while also suggesting that LGBT people cannot express kink - how is that full/true liberation? I don't understand it.
 
I'm tired and working a 20 hour shift so I'm not doing a full response right now, but no one is having public sex for the billionth time.

Equating people in kink displays to being the same thing as having sex right in front of you is some really bigoted ****. Seeing kinky people merely exist isn't "involving you in their sex life" the hell?
 

Sceptile Leaf Blade

Nighttime Guardian
Would you say that a larger percentage of LGBTQ+ people are into kink, compared to straight people? Or is it just that the LGBTQ+ who are into kink have a different relationship with it than straight people do? Maybe there's an aspect to all of this that I'm not understanding - this community is, after all, a lot older than I am.
Doesn't matter. LGBTQ+ as a whole is a minority, the point is that they should still be allowed to be themselves regardless of that. How many percent of people in whatever group is also into kink is simply not relevant when establishing right to be present. Just like it's not relevant how many percent of trans people are also gay compared to how many cis people are gay, etc.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that kinky LGBTQ+ people aren't welcome at Pride. I'm simply suggesting that, while at Pride, we all exercise a degree of public decency and keep our sex lives private.
So you're essentially saying that kink itself is indecent. Do you realise that that very premise is what's being bigoted here?
I'm all for challenging the status quo, and if kinky people want to be publicly indecent at a kink-themed event, all the power to them. But at Pride, not everyone is willing to participate in such a radical endeavour.
Nobody forces those that don't want to participate in the "radical" endeavour to participate. If you don't want to do that you can show off your gayness in a way that's comfortable to you.
 

Peter Quill

star-lord
Nobody forces those that don't want to participate in the "radical" endeavour to participate. If you don't want to do that you can show off your gayness in a way that's comfortable to you.

That's what's so funny to me about our internal community fighting. I straight up hate pup masks and personally don't want to be around them so I just... don't engage with them at pride lmfao. I don't go around saying that they're indecent and have no place there even if I'm not personally comfortable with them.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
Would you say that a larger percentage of LGBTQ+ people are into kink, compared to straight people? Or is it just that the LGBTQ+ who are into kink have a different relationship with it than straight people do? Maybe there's an aspect to all of this that I'm not understanding - this community is, after all, a lot older than I am.

Percentage is irrelevant; it's the meaning behind kink culture that is important.

In the 1960s, many closeted queer men convened via leather bars, for these venues allowed them to express their masculinity the way they truly desired. These men formed a strong brotherhood-like bond that still exists today, and they would ultimately become one of the first major groups to lead gay rights protests in the 1970s.

The contribution of the kink and leather members is a powerful one, their attire holds a paradoxical symbol of freedom: "They are bound because they choose to be." To remove this from the LGBTQ+ community would be removing a large chunk of our history. It would be like removing Ballroom culture, another powerful community within LGBTQ+.
 

Bill the Typhlosion

Well-Known Member
I'm tired and working a 20 hour shift so I'm not doing a full response right now, but no one is having public sex for the billionth time.

Equating people in kink displays to being the same thing as having sex right in front of you is some really bigoted ****. Seeing kinky people merely exist isn't "involving you in their sex life" the hell?

It's not sex, but it is sexual behaviour. There are many kinds of sexual behaviours that most people would find uncomfortable to witness in a public place, despite not being actual sex. I don't think that being made uncomfortable by kink outfits at Pride is much different than muttering "Get a room!" if you see two people passionately making out on a park bench.

There's something deeply funny about that second paragraph saying that pride should focus on "liberation" while also suggesting that LGBT people cannot express kink - how is that full/true liberation? I don't understand it.

LGBTQ+ liberation is about being able to marry whoever you want, and live as your true gender. The idea that people can't be liberated unless they can bring their sex lives into a public space seems nonsensical to me.

It could be argued that all of us are sexually supressed by society, and that we should be more open about sex, but that's a whole other debate. Within our current societal structure, sexual behaviour in public is deemed inappropriate, and it makes most people uncomfortable.

So you're essentially saying that kink itself is indecent. Do you realise that that very premise is what's being bigoted here?

I was referring to sex in general, not just kink. No form of consensual and safe sexual behaviour is indecent in the bedroom, but it is considered indecent in a public space.

Nobody forces those that don't want to participate in the "radical" endeavour to participate. If you don't want to do that you can show off your gayness in a way that's comfortable to you.

The thing is, though, I wouldn't feel comfortable showing off my gayness at all if I could only do so alongside people who are wearing kink outfits in public (the key word here being "public". Wearing kink outfits in the bedroom is fine by me). Taking part in Pride implies that I endorse everything it represents, not just the way I'm individually expressing myself.

Percentage is irrelevant; it's the meaning behind kink culture that is important.

In the 1960s, many closeted queer men convened via leather bars, for these venues allowed them to express their masculinity the way they truly desired. These men formed a strong brotherhood-like bond that still exists today, and they would ultimately become one of the first major groups to lead gay rights protests in the 1970s.

The contribution of the kink and leather members is a powerful one, their attire holds a paradoxical symbol of freedom: "They are bound because they choose to be." To remove this from the LGBTQ+ community would be removing a large chunk of our history. It would be like removing Ballroom culture, another powerful community within LGBTQ+.

That's interesting, I didn't know about the history behind it. I do appreciate the way that the leather community can put gay men in touch with their masculine side, something which isn't often seen in mainstream media.

I wouldn't have a problem with seeing this or even this at Pride, because it's not inherently sexual. They just look like bikers. It's really only garments that are specifically designed for sex, such as collars and harnesses, that I would take issue with - I don't think those are appropriate for an all-ages event.
 
Last edited:

AshxSatoshi

Ice Aurelia
So which is it? Is kink and sex apart of the gay community and a huge factor in homosexuality/queerness OR are we more than just sexual deviants and just like anybody else and being gay isn’t all about sex because you can’t have both. No I do not think kink is at the center of queerness. Straight people don’t center their sexuality around their kinks and sexual interests. And then on top of that where does that leave our asexual counterparts? This alienates people with no/low sex drives who probably have no particular interest. Another user claims that seeing kinky LGBT sex is somehow going to make people realize they’re gay? I’m not sure about the rest but it didn’t think watching grown adults having sex for me to realize anything and furthermore even if kink is sexually liberating to LGBTQ+ people why is can’t it be sexually liberating to them as a person? Why must it be the core focus because it liberates SOME people? Not all gay people are the same.
 

Gamzee Makara

Flirtin' With Disaster
So which is it? Is kink and sex apart of the gay community and a huge factor in homosexuality/queerness OR are we more than just sexual deviants and just like anybody else and being gay isn’t all about sex because you can’t have both. No I do not think kink is at the center of queerness. Straight people don’t center their sexuality around their kinks and sexual interests. And then on top of that where does that leave our asexual counterparts? This alienates people with no/low sex drives who probably have no particular interest. Another user claims that seeing kinky LGBT sex is somehow going to make people realize they’re gay? I’m not sure about the rest but it didn’t think watching grown adults having sex for me to realize anything and furthermore even if kink is sexually liberating to LGBTQ+ people why is can’t it be sexually liberating to them as a person? Why must it be the core focus because it liberates SOME people? Not all gay people are the same.
The asexual "trump card" is played.

Asexual =/= sex-repulsed. Know what you're talking about before you assume you can speak on behalf of somebody.

And the classic "#NotAll logic.

Why take it away? How can you be sure they do it all the time, and aren't just doing kink as a performance? #NotAllQueerPeopleIndulgeTheirKinkOutsideOfPride, after all...

The whole event is corporatized anyway. We don't need it becoming a political rally and photo op, if we're allowing #NotAll. Because #NotAllQueerPeopleArePolitical.

Any more #NotAlls you want to deploy?
 

AshxSatoshi

Ice Aurelia
The asexual "trump card" is played.

Asexual =/= sex-repulsed. Know what you're talking about before you assume you can speak on behalf of somebody.

And the classic "#NotAll logic.

Why take it away? How can you be sure they do it all the time, and aren't just doing kink as a performance? #NotAllQueerPeopleIndulgeTheirKinkOutsideOfPride, after all...

The whole event is corporatized anyway. We don't need it becoming a political rally and photo op, if we're allowing #NotAll. Because #NotAllQueerPeopleArePolitical.

Any more #NotAlls you want to deploy?
I’m ace so yes I can speak on it. I never said asexual people are sex repulsed because that would be stupid and even more stupid to assume. How about you stop adding in your own words to make a nonexistent argument okay?
 

Peter Quill

star-lord
LGBTQ+ liberation is about being able to marry whoever you want, and live as your true gender. The idea that people can't be liberated unless they can bring their sex lives into a public space seems nonsensical to me.

What of LGBT+ people who are kinky but do not wish to get married? Does your definition of LGBT liberation really apply to them if their goal in life is to live with kink openly rather than be married? It's more a question of "Are we really liberated if we have to start censoring ourselves because the larger audience is uncomfortable?"

So which is it? Is kink and sex apart of the gay community and a huge factor in homosexuality/queerness OR are we more than just sexual deviants and just like anybody else and being gay isn’t all about sex because you can’t have both.
Yes you can have both lol. What are you going on about?

The biggest difference between myself and a straight person is that I am exclusively sexually attracted to the same sex while they are not. Like this is Gay 101 (So yes, sex is a large factor of homosexuality). At the same time I am someone who is a collection of my various different experiences. I have hobbies, dreams, goals, friends, family, laughter, sadness... and sometimes I also have sex!

Straight people don’t center their sexuality around their kinks and sexual interests.

Straight people also weren't persecuted on the sole basis of their sexual orientation. It's almost like straight and gay people are categorically different in regards to their sexual identity... wait I might be onto something here!

And then on top of that where does that leave our asexual counterparts?

The absence of sexual attraction is different than being same sex attracted. I personally think that the asexual community is its own distinct community with its own distinct challenges.

This alienates people with no/low sex drives who probably have no particular interest.

There are many parts about pride that is welcome to them and geared more towards them. Like I said earlier I think pup hoods are ****ing weird so like during the one part they show up in the parade I usually just look at my phone or talk to my friend.

Another user claims that seeing kinky LGBT sex is somehow going to make people realize they’re gay? I’m not sure about the rest but it didn’t think watching grown adults having sex for me to realize anything and furthermore even if kink is sexually liberating to LGBTQ+ people why is can’t it be sexually liberating to them as a person? Why must it be the core focus because it liberates SOME people?

People aren't having kinky sex in the middle of the street lol this isn't Folsom.
Not all gay people are the same.

You're like so close to understanding the point lol.
 

AshxSatoshi

Ice Aurelia
I don't have any actual commentary, I just want these statements to sit here, together. The rest -- whatever you said or didn't say -- doesn't actually matter here.
I’m confused what did you think you were doing there? I said I can speak from an ace perspective since they accused me or not knowing anything not that my views represent the entire LGBTQ so again what did think you did there?
 

Gamzee Makara

Flirtin' With Disaster
I’m confused what did you think you were doing there? I said I can speak from an ace perspective since they accused me or not knowing anything not that my views represent the entire LGBTQ so again what did think you did there?
I was referring to the seeming conflation of the asexuality and sex repulsion, which is a common misconception. I couldn't have known your sexuality.
 
Top