#bdsmpride

oh how i love you MOGAI and microlabels

i know the stripes don't line up i do not care

my 9ender is so complex but it rlly doesn't matter I'm not gonna rlly express it anyway €Xp

I've read a column on The Independent trying to explain why BDSM and Kink don't belong in Pride celebrations. What I found interesting is not only the lack of knowledge from the author, but the way he can contradict himself in the same article. I'll try to explain why based on my personal experience as a Leatherman.

Before anything I'd like to perfectly make myself clear: in the US (country where I live) showing your genitals or anus in public is illegal.

In the column, the autor tries to explain that BDSM and Kink aren't of good taste or decent enough for the public. And that could potentially alienate possible allies we could need in the LGBTQ movement. A lot of this type of arguments against the same LGBTQ community have been heard thorough our contemporary history, and most of the times have been used to attack and suppress us.

But contrary to what most of the readers think is the main error in the column, which is the wrongful denial of the presence of the BDSM and Kink collective based on their clothing or what they're doing in public, I think the main error lies deeper within the column.

The author tries to make a separation between sexual orientation and sexual preference. He states that where sexual orientation is of a permanent state, a sexual preference is a choice that can change. The author couldn't be any more wrong with this argument: BDSM and Kink people have both perfectly attached one to the other.

In my personal case as a Leatherman who has met diverse type of Leathermen around the globe, most of them coincide with what I think: a gay Leatherman can only be attracted to other gay Leathermen. That is the main characteristic of a fetish tied to a sexual preference. I cannot have sexual intercourse with a woman dressed in leather, or with a man dressed in casual clothing. My sexual orientation and preference are intimately tied one to each other.

The author makes a reference to his lack of knowledge from the subject when he tries to dismiss Leathermen, and most likely all Kinksters (rubbermen, pups, Levi, balloons, diapers, etc) and practicioners of BDSM to a simple case of a "preference", or a choice. He considers that at a certain point in my life I was given the option of liking Leathermen, a thing that never happened. There was a time when I was growing up (probably around when I was 6 or 7 years old) when I discovered that I like men dressed in leather. Before knowing that I was gay, or what being gay is, I was already a kinkster and I already had a defined sexual preference. If the author of the column had a minimum knowledge of the topic, he would have known that most fetish people are born with their fetishes in their blood: we cannot choose whether to accept or dismiss our fetishes, we have to practice them in order to be in peace with ourselves, to be our own true selves. In all my life I've met several diverse Leathermen and fetish people that cannot have a sexual hookup or a meaningful relationship with a person who does not share their sexual preference, or their fetish. That has happened to me. I've tried several times without success to have sex with a person who does not share my fetish. Having a shared fetish or kink is a basic requirement for me to have a good time with a man.

From that wrong argument on, the whole column loses its value. Thanks to his wrongful reasoning, the author falls into the same rhetoric that conservatives from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's and 2020's have long used to attack us: the BDSM and Kink collective (or replacing those with the LGBTQ acronym), which is nothing more than a bunch of people that CHOSE to get dressed in leather that day (or a bunch of people that CHOSE to love a person from the same sex) is not of good taste to mingle in a Pride celebration, or with the rest of the society in general. Other proof of his ignorance of the Kink and BDSM world can be seen in the same column: when the author mentions that he's practiced a fetish but no longer does. That implies that for him the fetish is nothing more than a costume he uses to make sex "more fun" and when he's over, he hangs it back in the closet and forgets about it until he needs it again. Unlike the author, I wear leather because that is who I am: a Leatherman. I consider that I use a costume when I go to work using casual clothes in a job that doesn't allow to wear leather garments.

Now I'd like to ask the author the specific type of Pride he's been going where showing genitals or anuses is allowed. Never in my lifetime as Leatherman I've been to a pride where people shows those. Any gay person (at least in the US) independently of whether if they participate in a collective or not, knows that showing the genitals or anuses in public is illegal. No matter how proud of being a Leatherman I am, I'd never do it, nor I ever will. I know the places where I can do that. Now, if his comments regarding the so called "sexual intercourses" he witness, or imagines, when assisting to a Pride event stems from the way we dress or act there, then I have the next words for him: stop reflecting your insecurities on us. I dress the way I do and act the way I do because that is what I want, that is who I am. If you have a problem with it, then that problem is yours and yours only to solve. I don't have to change my persona, nor I ever will, to accommodate to your insecurities.

Instead of attacking me, or the BDSM / Kink collective, the author should try to know me/us. He would get shocked to know that despite my preferences, I am a human being just like him: I have a job just like him, I go back home just like him, I go to bed just like him, and if someone attacks me I bleed, just like him. Maybe if he devoted more time to know us, or the different facets of the LGBTQ movement, he would spend less time attacking us. The attack to one of us does not minimize it's impact: an attack to one of us is an attack to all of us.

I also have some words for The Independent: shame on you for trying to legitimize voices of people that have no idea or knowledge of a topic you agree to publish. Rather than demonstrating the lack of knowledge and ignorance from the author, you're showing the null capacity from your editorial board to choose quality writers for your publication.