42
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
42 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6200 readers
4 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
You're taking the worst possible caricature of the opposition and applying it to every single person on the spectrum of "right wing" out there. There are large swaths of people who are undecided and you're actively giving them reasons to not like us.
As I said, I couldn't give less of a shit about the religious who will literally never be "okay" with the community. My entire point is that there are millions of people who sit in the middle. Your actions sway them, and that's all that matters. You're spending your effort to get back at the people with the most hardline stance, and all you're succeeding in is alienating the people who could easily agree with you.
i guess my only further comment is: yeah, i am. what reason have i been given by any conservative since Stonewall—no matter how "open" they are to not considering us faggots—to not do that?
i honestly think this position is naive at best, and when it comes from a queer person it generally indicates a failure to look at the history of conservatism as it relates to queerness. i just don't think you should care about anything these people feel about us—nor should it ever be your priority to appeal to them, no matter how numerous they are. and even being apathetic to most conservatives is probably too nice, because they certainly do not turn the other cheek when it comes to how they feel about us.
but also: you have not demonstrated this "moderate middle" of sorts exists, much less cares about any of what you're talking about here—and i just categorically do not think what is allowed at pride should be tailored to a hypothetical person when there are very real people who get joy out of openly being who they are and have a long history of coexisting at pride with no issue.
There are lots of moderate middle sorts who accept gay men, but think that the trans agenda is a threat to their children. I suppose we should throw them under the bus, too. Maybe then daddy will love us.
You realize that conservatives aren't the only voting bloc that votes republican, right? You understand that, yes? Genuinely? You understand the concept of moderates?
Additionally, I can agree that they should be allowed at pride, but I don't have to like it. I'm not arguing in favor of banning it, just that I personally don't like seeing it.
I believe you are laboring under the misconception that moderate Republicans can be swayed out of supporting queer exterminationists by appeals to queer people's humanity and decency. This is not the case.
My dad loves me, his openly queer child. Like, really genuinely loves me. I know because he's forgiven me for doing some truly awful shit to him. He's an amazing dad in some respects. He does not think there should be any legal prohibitions on queerness, and I don't think he cares much one way or the other about queer people. He also votes for queer exterminationists on the regular.
It's not as though I've never tried to point out how this hurts me, either. I have made it very clear to him that I feel betrayed by him continuing to vote for people who want me dead. I have told him directly that it endangers me. He apparently does not believe that I personally am in enough danger to warrant him changing his voting patterns, or perhaps he believes that the alternatives are more dangerous to me somehow. I'm not entirely sure.
Granted, I don't know if my dad counts as a "moderate Republican." He considers himself a libertarian. But I believe he is the sort of person you are talking about: a fence-sitter. Someone who isn't really an ally but doesn't outright hate us either. And I think his response is typical of those people.
Some people will simply never, ever give a shit about something until it becomes their problem. This is how you get genocides: Not by the majority being violently bigoted, but by the majority being apathetic.
What do you do, then, if you can't appeal to their compassion? The only option I can see is to become a group that is Not To Be Fucked With. You hit us, we'll hit back harder. Bigots won't let us live and moderates won't help us thrive. All we have is one another, and we have to unite and rally around our shared interests in order to save ourselves. Respectability politics only divides us, and we can't afford that.
They would not be agreeing with us. They would be agreeing with a facile image that you would have us project in place of us. That's not okay. If we have to pretend to be something other than what we are for their support, then they are not our allies!
You seem to have the view that people are kinky just to be difficult or something. You don't accept people telling you that is what they are. So you're never going to see eye to eye with the people who are being marginalized.
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
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.)
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.
If someone is alienated by seeing a person in a pup mask marching at pride, they were never an ally in the first place and have a lot of work to do to deal with their internalized sex negativity/queerphobia before they can become one.
You do realize, don't you, that the people who don't necessarily want us dead but do want us to suppress ourselves are still homophobes, right? "I don't mind gay people, I just don't want them shoving it down my throat" is also homophobia. Those people are also our enemies who must be fought.
There's a secret the right knows that the left (or at least liberals) still haven't cottoned onto: Respectability politics is bullshit. You cannot push someone to the left or right by acting too radically right or left. (They'll claim that by being loudly left you are pushing average people to the right, but this a lie and they know it. They are merely trying to shut you up.) Moreover, the louder and with more conviction you say something, the more the general public will agree with you. Why do you think election lies are so popular? They're horseshit, but Trump says them with his whole chest. An unapologetic lie is more appealing than a meek truth.
If you still think that being "respectable" matters, consider, again, Trump. Everything about him seems like it should alienate voters. He breaks every norm of our political system. He says the quiet part loud. He's openly bigoted and got caught on tape admitting to sexual assault. He's a boorish, unpolished moron with no filter. And people fucking eat it up. People don't just not care about respectability, they actually respect people more when they flout it.
That's why we have to be loud and freaky and in-your-face. No movement has ever gotten anywhere without fringe radicals and militants pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable. To quote Assata Shakur, “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” Some ideas are not to be negotiated with; they are to be defeated. Queerphobia is one of those ideas.
The establishment knows the radicals are the dangerous ones, too. The ones who will actually change things. There's a reason you're taught about MLK in school but not Malcom X. But remember--even MLK, the most respectable and peaceable black man imaginable, was still too radical for white people. They still killed him.
It does not matter how respectable you are. It will not save you.