132
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 28 Sep 2023
132 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6133 readers
137 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
So what? If BDSM folks feel represented by LGBTQ+ they have every right to be part of it. What's wrong with BDSM anyway?
Not like LGBTQ+ promotes anything at all besides that it is okay to be who you are.
I feel like the vast majority of LGBTQIA2S people would be upset by zoophiles and pedophiles* feeling included by LGBTQ+. Personally I don't care if they're included or not. They're definitely GSRMs imo, so I don't think they need to be included in LGBTQ+. But a lot of them have the same issues of realizing their sexual attraction is not like their peers at some point and dealing with the fear of ostracization and violence if people found out what thoughts they have.
*Not to be confused with people who practice bestiality or child molestation.
How did we get here? What a bad take. Consent is obviously required, it's that simple.
Neither children nor animals can consent therefore they are not welcome in any shape or form. This also excludes rape and other forms of abuse from any LGBTQ+ space/group/community.
Which is why I explicitly excluded those who engage in sexual acts with children or animals?
You did not, you said that you do not mind or care. No one wants them there except the pedophiles themselves.
The people have problems, but they need other help than acceptance. It does not work, it is abuse and the LGBTQ+ community always clearly distanced themselves from them.
Implying any connection at all is dishonest and a huge disservice to all people under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Hence it is a terrible take.
To quote myself:
I don't care if people eventually include them or not. I'm not backtracking on that. The two statements aren't contradictory. I'm also not saying I want that (I don't). Its simply not something I care about. Ultimately, language is whatever people want it to do be, so caring about changes is a waste. Even if it makes the language less useful or more confusing.
But sexual or romantic attraction to a specific group of people certainly has more to do with other categories of sexual or romanic attraction to specific groups of people than preference for BDSM. And even attraction to a non-human group of beings is a more similar. I'm not implying a connection though. My point is that they are separate and there's even less reason to make kink a letter in the LGBTQ+.
I think most of them consider themselves separate as well. Its just homophobes who want to group them together.
Bad take. No one thinks these people are part of the comm in any way shape or form outside someone terminally online who has never seen grass
That's my point though. We already exclude some sexual and romantic orientations. I'm not suggesting we change that or suggesting anyone (except homophobes) are doing that.
My point is LGBTQ+ isn't just a catchall for everything. I don't see why sex-act preference (or non-sexual BDSM/kink preference) would be included. Just like it doesn't include people simply for being jewish, neurodivergent, or every other marginalized group.
Still, even if LGBTQ+ did include the kink community, that still does not justify removing city-sponsored LGBTQ+ pride support. If anything, they should more explicitly state their support for kink community.