53
Kink at pride discourse sucks
(64.media.tumblr.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2023
53 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6167 readers
5 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My guy, you're assuming absolutely everyone at pride is into the same kinky shit you are. Just because you're gay, doesn't mean you're kinky and just because you're kinky doesn't mean you're gay. You're putting them together as if they're the same and that if you don't support kink in public then you don't support gay people at all. This is incorrect.
No, I am not. You are assuming that kink is an affectation that can just be taken off like a rainbow flag button. I'm not saying that you don't support gay people, I'm saying you only support them if they are not kinky! Tell me otherwise.
You're both welcome to have your own opinion, but please do not insult each other because you have a differing opinion on what behavior is acceptable in public
I wasn't insulting anyone. I forget exactly what the comment said, but I have not targeted any specific person in my responses. If it was one where I said "you" I was not specifically talking in regards to the person I was replying to, it was likely an example and not intended to target any specific person.
Things were getting a little heated between you two. Your removed comment is accessible via the modlog if you want specifics (moderation is transparent here), but mostly I just want to be sure we're keeping things around here nice
I read your comment in the modlog. My response would be that no one's boundaries are violated merely by seeing a person who is visibly kinky in public, any more than they are violated by seeing someone who is visibly queer in public. For more in-depth reasoning as to why, I would refer you to this Tumblr post: https://i.imgur.com/ZuTbOq0.png
To be clear about something, I am responding to most of the things you say here because, well, you're a gay furry. I'm a queer kinkster. People like you and I need one another, because if we fringe weirdos don't defend one another, who will? I'd like to believe that we're on the same side. I know I'll fight for your rights when it comes down to it. I would do it without reciprocation, but I hope you can be convinced to do the same for me.
I never claimed I was being forced to participate, only that it does, in fact, violate boundaries to do so.
There's a massive difference between "furry" and "kinky." Walking around in a dog costume does not immediately mean it's for kinky or sexual reasons, and to assume so, while not a huge leap considering how much of the fandom is pretty open about their sexuality, is just largely incorrect. I'm personally not one to engage in a lot of that behavior, so I don't appreciate the comparison. The same can not be said for blatant kink gear.
Again, I want to reiterate: you do you. I won't stop anyone from going out like that, freedom of speech and expression and all that, but I certainly won't respect or associate with them.
Seeing someone wearing kink gear tells you absolutely nothing about their sex life. There are plenty of people who participate exclusively in nonsexual kink. Your assumption that seeing someone in a leather harness means you know how they fuck is akin to someone who only knows about the furry community via pop culture assuming that they know how someone in a fursuit fucks. In both cases this is a mark of ignorance about the subculture, and the solution is greater visibility and education rather than expressing disgust that someone dares to participate in a subculture you don't understand.
You are, of course, allowed to disrespect people who are visibly kinky. But I am also allowed to believe this makes you rather shitty at supporting sexual minorities and is probably rooted in internalized sex negativity and queerphobia. There is nothing more sexual or violating about seeing someone in BDSM gear than there is in seeing a lingerie commercial. Furthermore, your willingness to respect someone should not depend on whether they do things that cause you discomfort but are ultimately harmless.
I have met many, many people who are too traumatized to engage in "normal" sex, who have found sexual expression and healing in BDSM. Lots of people practice kink without having anything close to what someone else considers sex -- but it might still be sex to us.
The guy you're talking to is over the line. People are telling him about their lived experiences that contradict his ignorant expectations, and he's just tuning it out and continuing with his thing. He has some kind of damage that's playing out here and it's shitty that he's getting it all over us.
That's also a very good point. Even kink that in no way involves genitals can be sex for some.
I'm hoping this person can be reached because they're queer and belong to a vilified subculture, but they've clearly swallowed a lot of conservative propaganda. That won't be undone by one conversation, unfortunately.
They're willing to be queer under a fursuit and a pseudonym. I wish them acceptance.
You're really going far to ignore the entire reason "kink gear" exists or was created in the first place and labelling me the weird one for acknowledging this reason.
Okay, sure, let's say the only reason kink and kink gear have ever existed or could ever exist is for boning. So? Who cares? Lingerie exists primarily for sexy reasons, but no one cares about lingerie commercials. Even things as mundane as wedding rings imply that those wearing them fuck regularly. People only care about leather harnesses and pup masks because they're weird. The sex bit doesn't matter. Sex is shoved in our faces all day every day by advertisers, and heavily implied by many of the social signals we send one another, yet it only becomes problematic to most people when it's implied someone is doing a sex thing they find strange.
I don't think you're weird at all. I think you are, tragically, quite normal. Your attitude is a pervasive one even among people who really should know better. Like, for example, gay furries. And there are any number of queer kinksters out there who think furries are disgusting zoophiles flaunting their fetish in public whenever they wear fursuits. Sadly, vilified subgroups often hold the exact same prejudices toward one another that outsiders hold toward all of them. Why they can't see it's all the same bullshit is beyond me, but there you go.
Your personal feelings of disgust are not a basis for morality. You are, naturally, perfectly free to not respect people who wear kink gear in public. But I think that's pretty inexcusable. Harmless but weird behavior is not a good reason to disrespect someone. But perhaps the more salient point is that anti-kink rhetoric is nigh indistinguishable from queerphobic rhetoric. Both equate feeling uncomfortable to being harmed, and both are used to bludgeon people into conformity with social norms. You may think you are expressing a harmless opinion, but the fact is that whenever you complain about kinky people daring to exist too loudly you are reinforcing the precise kind of thinking that will be turned against you by homophobes.
What's the difference between you seeing someone in a pup mask and immediately envisioning a BDSM orgy and a homophobe seeing two men kissing and immediately envisioning them rimming each other? Both actions imply the people involved may have sex but do not guarantee it. If you can't look at someone of a certain proclivity without imagining them committing sexual acts you find vile, not only is that you problem, but the revulsion you feel is identical to the revulsion a homophobe feels toward queerness. Identical. I hope you think about that.
He's not interested in changing.
Rationally I know that, but I nevertheless feel compelled to try. And I'm not just arguing for their sake. I'm arguing for the sake of any undecided onlookers.
Yeah, that's fair. I certainly appreciate it, I don't have the patience to continue but it's nice to feel represented.
You said that you would not respect me because I am an inconsiderate asshole. The discussion is over, but I'm not about to let you lie about it.
When the word "you" is used in a sentence, it can have different meanings depending on the context. While it typically refers to the person or people being directly addressed, there are instances where "you" is used more generally as a way to represent any individual or individuals, often as an example. As you may not know, this usage is known as the generic "you."
The generic "you" is a way of speaking that addresses people in a broader sense, without specifically targeting any particular individual. It is often used to discuss general truths, common experiences, or provide advice or instructions.
If you need further explanation as to how English conversations work, do let me know!
In future you can prevent needlessly calling people assholes by using the pronoun "one". It is a way of speaking that addresses people in a broader sense, without specifically targeting any particular individual. It is often used to discuss general truths, common experiences, or provide advice or instructions. I offer tutoring.
You know, an even better way to avoid that situation is just to not call people assholes in veiled insults. This was your opportunity to apologize. I'm blocking you.
I don't appreciate your "holier than thou" attitude and your insistence on ignoring how English is commonly used in order to label me an asshole. Good riddance, "jerkface." (Thats me using your name, not calling you one.)