could you please explain to me like i’m a child why kink should be at pride? i’m asking this very genuinely as someone who is relatively new to pride and gets overwhelmed by this discourse every year. i feel like the arguments against it are very clear but the arguments for seem to just be “well it used to be allowed and i want to continue that, so deal with it”. i don’t mean that dismissively, i’ve just never really seen someone explaining why pride should be inclusive of kink without it becoming very defensive and difficult to discuss.
The rights of kinksters and the lgbtqiap+ communities have always overlapped. Acts are considered "kinky" and "taboo" when they deviate from the expected heterosexual norm - two men kissing was once considered extremely abnormal, disgusting and overtly sexual in the same way that someone in a puppyplay outfit getting petted on the head is today. Neither act is inherently abnormal, disgusting or sexual. Our communities have worked together and continue to work together to increase understanding and empathy over affectionate acts.
When bodies, sexualities and lifestyles outside of the white cis normative patriarchal nuclear family are being targeted we need to stand together for our collective needs (respect, keeping the state out of our consensual sex lives, the right to wear what makes one feel connected to oneself regardless of assigned or perceived gender, a freedom of expression) and we should also stand together in celebration that there's a place for us. Leather bars and other kink spaces have often been safe havens for the LGBTQ+ communities to express ourselves without judgement, and they still are today. Also - there are many kinky queer people. If queer knitting groups are "allowed" at Pride, why not queer kink groups? Sexuality can be a big part of someone feeling connected and celebratory of their sexuality. If Pride has to at all times remain "family friendly" to the standards of the state or general public, then no Pride would ever happen.
In practice, "kink at pride" is not like, people having an orgy on the main stage or whatever it is the more nervous among us are expecting. It would be: people in fetish gear (already a mainstay of pride events), maybe people in fursuits with front zippers (stay cool and hydrated in there, babes), talks and demonstrations of safe/sane/consensual good practice, people in cute collars/leashes (also reasonably common in the pride events I've been to), nonsexual nudity, leather/kink pride flags, maybe some stands sell sex toys.
What is "acceptable sexual expression" and what is "unacceptable/kink" is entirely a cultural norm. There can be huge advertisements of heavily sexualized women's bodies in everyday life, but my friend can't show off her strap at Pride? Why?
In trying to find arguments against to rebut, I found this Vox article which discusses the inherent respectability politics at play, and also This OUT article has the powerful quote:" If Pride is to be a "family-friendly" space, I would ask: for whose family?" which are definitely worth a read for more!
For the sake of argument, let's go through some scenarios, if the things people are scared of happen:
a child at a Pride event does see someone mostly nude aside from a bandana over their privates, and they are doing a sexual dance
Nudity is not inherently bad for a child to see. Children regularly see sexual dances in music videos. This does not negatively impact them.
a child at pride is approached by someone in a puppy mask on a leash, and is asked to pat their head
This is not a sexual act. It is patting someone's head. The child goes 'ah, someone is pretending to be a puppy' and can choose whether to not to pat their head. This does not negatively impact them.
a child sees sex toys and asks what they are/a child hears an adult call another adult "Daddy" and asks why
The responsible adult they are attending with explains that they are toys/games for grown-ups that kids would find very boring. "That's not really her daddy, they're just playing pretend". This does not negatively impact them. (Why parents are apparently so afraid at the very idea of having a conversation with their child is beyond me...alcohol also isn't appropriate for children but it's pervasive in "normal" culture as a "drinks for grown-ups").
a nonconsenting party is involved in a sexual scenario against their will
This would be awful! I agree! This would be an assault, and is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is also, unfortunately, something that is a danger at pretty much all crowded events, kink-friendly or otherwise. This, however, would not be kink at Pride, this would be assault at Pride and should be reported to a trained authority. Banning healthy, joyful sexual expression does not and never has prevented sexual violence.
However...now, don't boo me, but there can be some nuance on this point. What is the line of "involved in a sexual scenario" and "being an audience member"? Am I "involved in kink against my will" if I go to a drag show and they do a shibari routine? Or if they recreate a simulation of a kinky scene that happened to them of shining someone's boots? Or if someone dresses up as a robot and says they want to fuck their laptop and grind on it? Or if they pull out their comically long strap-on and rub it in a willing volunteer's face? (All of these happened at local drag events, all of them fucking RULED!!!! in my opinon haha). I don't think so, but, would that opinion change if they'd visibly climaxed during those performances while staring me in the eye? I don't know!
But also - am I "involved in a sexual scenario" if I go and watch Avenue Q and there are puppets simulating sex acts? Or if a performer makes intense eye contact during Cabaret's opening number? There are contexts at play - most pride events that contain overtly sexual performances are going to be appropriately signposted, and all of the above examples are from 18+ shows. This one podcast talks about having seen a (fully clothed) flogging before the 18+ hours (which they highlight as unusual and unexpected, and this appears to be their only personal example of having seen it something they consider over the line at Pride) (I think this is an interesting conversation they have, worth reading the whole thing), were they being involved in a sexual scenario? As spectators to a fully clothed scene, not at all invited into it? I don't know! It's something I'll be thinking about...
I do know! That basing "what is acceptable" on "what makes me and my friends personally uncomfortable" is not a great basis for community organization and event policy. Because what if my friend gets a new friend who is 'uncomfortable' with hijabs. Or fat people. Or trans people. It's not a good way to run things.
a queerphobic person sees and points to it as an example of why all queer people are degenerate freaks who want to sexualize everything and should be locked up
These are people we are resisting WITH our pride. Locking out those who do not fit into their idea of acceptable helps none of us and is harms more of us, because to them, we are all minor-abusing, sick, disgusting freaks who should be locked up no matter how innocuous our expressions of affection and love. If we let fear of what other people might think of our movement leave members of OUR community out in the cold, then our movement is doomed. Kick out the kinksters -> kick out the gender non conforming -> kick out the people of colour -> kick out the disabled -> etc.
To finish - I fully understand why people are defensive around this subject. No one likes being called a horrible freak who wants to inflict their deviant nasty sexuality on the innocent for being or standing up for kinksters. From the above podcast: "People have...this big, emotional reaction to kink. Because again, most people consider it to be very sexual. Most people are very uneducated about it. Most people don’t know what it is, or what it looks like. So, kink where there are children sounds bad to people who don’t really know what that means". Extending grace and listening to the content of someone's argument even when their tone doesn't line up with what you feel is warranted in these discussions will be helpful for reaching understanding. The same respectability politics that seek to limit queer expression can also be used to ignore voices that don't fit a demand for meekness, friendliness or approachability. Which I'm not saying you're doing, it's just something to watch out for.