I’m just repeating myself but people now are really so young that they don’t remember the 90s?

The time when people who saw two men holding hands in the park and kissing each other goodbye would say,

“Look, I don’t care what people get up to in the bedroom, but when they’re parading their disgusting bedroom habits in front of the non-consenting public with these gross sexual displays where impressionable children might see it, anybody reasonable ought to agree that we need to draw a line.”

2.  If you’re at all concerned, one of kink’s core principles is about consent.  Not just the consent of the two engaging in the scene but everyone in the scene.  This is why public acts of BDSM, petplay, etc, gets frowned upon by the community.  Because by taking it public you are including the public in the scene without their explicit consent.

3.  Conflating a bigoted+hypocritical statement of “homosexuals kissing is bad but straight kissing is fine” with “kink, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved should not be public” is a minefield you’re not prepared to walk through.  If we want to be treated like everyone else, then that means we have the same expectation to keep kink out of the public eye like straight people.

The fact that you conflated ‘kissing’ and ‘kink’ while skipping over that kink is not accepted publicly by/with straight people either seems to imply that kink is as intrinsic to the LGBT experience as a simple show of affection.  Which is fucked up on your part.

4.  If you’re claiming the 90′s, I was there too.  And you seem to be intentionally excluding the omnipresent, aggressive message that “The gays are deviants, degenerates and sex crazed”, which existed well into the 90′s and was in part used to blame the LGBT community for the spread of AIDS and was often used to attack the demand for the right to marry.

So why are you jumping off that slippery slope and trying, repeatedly I might add, to conflate Pride and the LGBT with kink?  Why, precisely, are you trying so hard to prove all those assholes right?

Because that’s what kink at Pride does, it reinforces those stereotypes that people like me hoped were dead and gone.

5.  Over the last 6 years LGBT acceptance has been going DOWN.  LGBT tolerance is at an all time low with young adults and teens.  A near 15% difference in tolerance is a MASSIVE step backwards and maybe we shouldn’t be embracing old, damaging stereotypes that fucks with our social image.

It’s fucking funny that you cite the 90′s like you were there, yet don’t seem to realize that ‘kink at Pride’ explicitly goes against the fucking ideals of the LGBT in the 90′s and 00′s, which was that we want to be like everyone else.

Everyone else is expected to keep their kinks to themselves.  We’re no different.

Don’t come to me talking about the 90′s when you not only ignored a major hurdle to our acceptance for the time AND you spit in the face of the chief goal of the movement for decades.

The argument is that a man kissing a man is obviously exactly the same as a man kissing a woman, but wearing a dog collar or a leather mask in public is totally different from wearing a bikini or a speedo and everyone knows this, it’s so obvious that nobody could even question it, only perverts or deliberately obtuse people could disagree to the point where nobody even needs to make a case.

In the 90s, you’d have a lot of people telling you that you’re nuts if you think same sex kissing is somehow the same as mixed sex kissing, and that everyone knows that except radicals like you ignore it.

Also “the point of Pride is obviously to convince people that gays aren’t perverts because if they were perverts it would be okay to oppress them” is… More contentious than you might think.

Also, legit and seriously, what the hell is “kink”?

A couple came into our restaurant, a nice steakhouse, and the guy was wearing a leather harness over a kind of fur coat. That shit was obviously bondage gear, but like, who fucking cares?

The entire point, which you seemed to have missed, either intentionally or out of sheer stupidity, is that the goal of the movement was to be treated like everyone else.  If a straight couple kissing in public was fine, then so should gay couples kissing.

What you are saying is that you want special exemptions for Pride, which makes us not like everyone else.  What the fuck is this bigotry of low expectations?  To not hold us up to the same fucking standard as straight people?

I also like how you didn’t address nearly every one of my points because we both know you couldn’t because I’m infinitely more knowledgeable than you in the matter of kink, consent, public opinion on the LGBT and the pressing issues of the LGBT in the 90′s.

It’s unbelievable to me that you ask “what the hell is kink?” when your entire post is about defending kink at Pride.  Why the fuck are you opening your mouth hole to air opinions you have ZERO understanding of? 

Also  “the point of Pride is obviously to convince people that gays aren’t perverts because if they were perverts it would be okay to oppress them” is not what I said you absolute cunt.

The idea is that we demonstrate that we’re just like everyone else and want to be treated like everyone else.  It doesn’t matter if your kinky or not, because just like straight people it should be something you do in private.

What absolutely low fucking standards and opinions you must have of the LGBT to make that stand.

Shut the fuck up.  This rhetoric makes it harder for closeted individuals like myself to even be taken seriously because we don’t live in “tolerance city”.  So the people around us see this shit and it just reinforces the opinions that we’re all degenerates.

Literally everything you posted tells me you don’t give a fuck about the LGBT in places where they might not be accepted.  And that you think that the LGBT can’t stand up to the fucking standards set for straight people.

Stop trying to conflate “love is love” with kink, a sexual activity and subculture you clearly have less than zero understanding of.  You blithering, Dunning-Krueger spewing shithead.

Edit:

And if you dare come at me with “I never said love is love in this exchange” I’m referring to the fact that you repeatedly bring up gay couples kissing.  Because if you actually paid attention in the 90′s, that IS the “love is love” argument that was being made.

The entire point of “love is love” was that straight or same sex love is the same and should be held to the same standard.  The idea that if straight couples can be married, we should be too, and if a straight couple gets visiting rights, we do too, and if a straight couple can kiss in public, we should too.  Because love is love.

And the you had the gall to compare that, the biggest fight in the 90′s for us, to be seen as “the same” and conflating it with kink, something that is NOT intrinsic to the LGBT and is NOT discriminated against unfairly based on sexual orientation, is disgusting.

I don’t understand this paragraph. Is Morlock saying that’s the argument of his opposition and mocking it?

We might accept a bikini on a billboard, (even tho quite a few people object to that, in fact, and make no bones about it.) or lingerie in advertisements, but it’s also very much of a note that these are not PEOPLE, and even if they are trying to be titillating, they’re not actually REAL. They’re images, not bodies.

If the problem is nudity and sexual behavior why are we focusing specifically on kink?

The answer I got was “because only kinky people want to walk around nude outside or wear sexy clothes at pride”

The same applies to day collars in everyday life, and signifiers of a D/S relationship, like ordering for your partner at a restaurant.

You can go topless there, becaude that’s spaces whrre it’s acceptable to do. Except Mardi Gras. But there it mostly happens at night and away from non-participants, so it’s at least a bit better.

My homophobic father doesn’t consent to seeing gay people, so back in the closet!

He especially doesn’t like gay people kissing, so none of that! And he’s really worried about “how do I expect this to my kids?” if they see a shirtless leather daddy and a twink wearing leather briefs and a harness.

It’s really not hard to go through the equivalences here:

Straight people get to shove lingerie ads in the face of drivers and young children on a daily basis? Okay, then clearly a leather thong isn’t across the line.

Straight people get to wear a big shiny ring to signify their Monogamy kink? I get to wear a collar to signify my submissive kink.

Straight people get to drag their kids and pets around on leashes? Well then let’s deal with the child rapists and bestiality before we get concerned about doing it with consenting adults, for fuck’s sake.

Gay people wear wedding rings. They also buy and wear lingerie. Both gay and straight people wirk in advertisements.

WHO SAID I DON’T WANT THOSE CHILD LEASHES GONE? Who said I wouldn’t wanna see a less sexualized society?

This is such a brainless take, trying to frame everything, every possible human action as something overtly sexual that this isn’t even a false equivalence anymore. I’d say this is just straight up bigotry.

Nice job with the uh, lesse, ZERO arguments against my analogies. It really rams home that you’re absolutely aware that the stuff kinky people do is absolutely equivalent to the shit straight people get up to, yet for some reason you spend all your time yelling at the kinky/gay people.

I didn’t mention many of your arguments, because they aren’t arguments.

Keeping children on leashes is horrible and no grounds to actually do worse. A lingerie advert isn’t a porno.

There is a difference between a child leash which is made to keep the child from running off and getting hurt or potentially being kidnapped (even if it is a questionable method of doing so) and someone wearing gear in public that is made to be used in a sexual context while they are on a leash and are getting sexual gratification from doing so.

However, let’s take the idea that it’s sexual if someone gets-off on it as a base. I think that’s totally fair. People can get-off on kissing or PG-13 PDA. Should that be banned as well? What about the fact that Orthodox Jews or religious Muslims could be walking-by and see it , and might be just as uncomfortable as you are with the idea of someone (not a child) on a leash. Should that change anything?

Likewise, someone can be told to wear a certain outfit that is not kinky in the slightest and get-off on that. That is an inherently sexual act that they are doing. How do we regulate it if the audience doesn’t know it’s sexual?

What about if someone is wearing fetish clothing for a non-sexual purpose? Not all kink is inherently sexual all the time. That’s not true for everyone, but there are some people who like being on a leash not because it turns them on, but just because it demonstrates their station or makes them feel possessed/owned and safe. The participants themselves aren’t feeling any sexual arousal, but the audience might assume that they are. Does the feeling of a prudish audience outweigh the feelings of the participants in this case?

When you start trying to dictate the mores of an event whose purpose is to challenge the mores of society (or at the very least initially was to challenge those mores back when LGBT+ love was not acceptable in any of its permutations), you are going to get questions as to why the norms and mores you want to subscribe to are superior/the best. If you can’t answer those questions, then you’re not really convincing anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

That’s what @morlock-holmes and others are trying to say. That there’s no particular reason why what society does or says is acceptable is the best choice for something like Pride. And furthermore, that just because society says something is or is not acceptable does not mean that Pride should be beholden to that standard.

They don’t want kink at pride because kinks are NOT connected to being LGBT. Pride has a specific purpose for being anti-status quo because it was made to make the statement “being LGBT is not wrobg”. In fact, consider that any kink is voluntary thus a choice, would that not imply the same as being LGBT which plays into the old excuse of ‘they CHOOSE to be queer so it’s okay to discriminate!’ I have actually seen people use this connection to say that.

Straight people aren’t walking around in BDSM gear. If they do it’s fucking WEIRD and not okay. Same if a gay couple walk around in BDSM gear, it’s fucking weird and not okay. This is why public nudity isn’t allowed. This is why fucking in public is illegal. God damned heathens, keep kink out Pride.

If you think that taking people around on leashes can obviously be non-sexual because we do it to kids then… why the fuck are you sexualizing it when I do it? Is this, like, YOUR kink? Because it’s not a sexual thing for me, and it has never been.

And if we’re clear that it’s okay when it’s not sexual, and it’s not sexual when I do it, then… well we’re at a reasonable agreement that it’s therefore obviously OK to do at pride, now aren’t we?

The comparison isn’t valid at all! You seriously think a kids harness, used to keep children from running off is the SAME as a nearly naked man on all fours wearing bondage being walked like a dog in public without others consent and infront of kids and the PUBLIC? Fuck you, you god damn pedophile!

This ain’t an argument, this is me being right and you being fucked in the head!

fandom is a hobby, not a form of activism

adult women aren’t inherently creepy for being in fandom and having hobbies apart from raising babies and doing taxes

the vast majority of people pushing back against the worrying trend of instigating harassment over fictional characters and relationships aren’t incest supporters or pedophiles, actually

liking a m/f ship doesn’t make someone a dirty heterosexual invading your space

preferring gay ships doesn’t make you ‘’woke’’ and good

no one owes you a disclaimer that they are a good person who recognizes that their favorite fictional villain’s actions are evil and that they don’t condone those actions irl

liking a fictional villain is in no way comparable to advocating abuse/murder/genocide/etc and you’re a fucking idiot if you believe that

just because a woman is attracted to a fictional villain doesn’t mean she’s promoting toxic relationships or going to end up in a toxic relationship. assuming women can’t tell fiction and reality apart stinks of internalized misogyny 

some rando’s a/b/o fanfics have none of the level of influence that popular tv shows and movies spreading propaganda have

no one owes you a detailed description of their traumas and mental health problems

abusive relationships are not the same as enemies to lovers ships

y’all need to chill the fuck out over people, relationships, actions and events that don’t actually exist and learn how to enjoy and discuss them like normal people

fandom is a hobby, not a form of activism