Who Belongs At Pride? (Cops, Kink, A-spec)

Hello Internet: my name is lucky sander and it is

pride

, we are talking about

pride

because it is pride. I'm not sure I've talked about pride before because talking about pride is one of those things that's expected and I generally don't do that. I don't normally make a trans Remembrance Day video. I did one I think last year, just talking about my general thoughts on it. I'm going to talk about pride, but I'm going to talk about that. As you've seen in the title, I want to talk about who is welcome at Pride, what Pride means, those two things are related to each other because what is Pride for where it started and what it means informs who should be at Pride and that's it. discourse that's been going on on Twitter, so I want to talk about it because this is the conversation we're having right now, but yeah, as a general statement, first I just want to say happy pride to all the queer people out there, pride . event happening near me I didn't actually go, it was last weekend as of this recording, it was the first weekend in June and I had to work and then I decided I didn't want to go just on Sunday because it was never hot outside I had been to Pride before.

I want to talk about the discourse around pride right now. The narrative is that basically there are some sticking points where some people say that

kink

y shouldn't be in Pride or like leather daddies. make them uncomfortable with pride and then you have people saying

cops

shouldn't be at pride and then you have people saying asexual or aromantic people shouldn't be at pride and that last one is at least a question. Not only do these people belong to the pride, but it is also analogous to whether these people belong to the community. I've seen a lot of conversations about whether or not asexual and aromantic people are part of the queer community I want to start with. the question of whether or not police officers belong to pride because for me this is one of the easiest questions to answer if you know something about the origin of pride, we have pride in the summer because it commemorates the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. which of course was a situation where police presence in queer communities in New York City was actively destructive and the first pride was a riot we are trans women of color through bricks to the police the existence of pride is based on the adversarial relationship between law enforcement officers and the queer community and their ability to exist peacefully, to some extent any organized public event must have a police presence there to ensure that nothing scandalous happens. .

I admit that I'm afraid of the idea of ​​there being a shooting at Pride, but I can also say that I don't feel like the presence of police would make the situation feel safer, literally, unless there is a mass shooting at Pride. The only thing the police do there is essentially pose a threat of imminent violence towards our community, so the city where Pride is held will probably insist that officers be present in the area, but I don't think the police should be there. in Pride in the sense in which there should be. I don't think it's a float for the local police department and I don't think they should have armed, uniformed officers walking through people.

I don't think that's a good thing in any way because the nature of pride is inherently based on the adversarial relationship that exists there, so yes, the short answer to the question of whether police officers belong in pride is no, no, unless who are in civilian clothes and refuse to participate in any police violence that may occur at the event. I also want to address the idea that Ace or Aro people can't be proud. I'm going to be the person to come out and say unequivocally that asexual and aromantic people are part of the queer community and if you don't think that's the case, I disagree with you and I think you should actually talk to certain people about their experiences because they are also subject to things like people telling them that they simply need to try to have a relationship with someone of a certain gender, like many other lyrics in the queer community.

I have also dealt with what seems very clear to me that some people also experience the same type of confusion and depression. I really don't understand why people think they're not part of the community if you're anything like that. not straight and/or cisgender so you're queer and asexual people aren't straight and aromantic people aren't heteroromantic so I take it they're LGBTQ I thought that rhyme was cute I was going to say queer but then I thought it was It's going to be cute, right? it was nice? Tell me my short answer on whether or not asexual and aromantic people belong in Pride is obviously yes, and if you don't agree with that, then I think the best thing you can do would be to seek out romantic and asexual people's per

spec

tives on the topic. , listen to their experiences and I think you'll find that in many cases their experience is not that different from the experience of growing up with any other non-normative sexual or romantic orientation. guidance Let's not forget that these are two separate things, it's a little more difficult to talk about the latter because I don't have much personal experience with the history of the movement, much of which I'm learning about this recently.

I'm learning about this recently and I'm learning it from older people in the community who have been here longer and that's the question of whether or not

kink

has a place at Pride. I know it may seem something like that. absurd because when we think about the right thing, when I think about the right thing, at least leather daddies are on the list of things I would expect to see and imagine seeing when I'm proud, the idea of ​​gay men who are perverts stir up wearing their strap-ons and all of that wearing their puppy masks, all of that is something that I consider an inherent part of the package when you go to pride, pride to me is a semi sexual event because part of it has to do with the ability to express yourself sexually in the way that feels most comfortable to you, but the narrative is essentially that overt displays of sexuality are inappropriate and perhaps triggering for people who don't have positive experiences with those things or who may feel that they do. being drawn into a kink such as voyeurism and exhibitionism that they may not agree with or some people have been abused in kink contexts in the past and therefore being exposed to the team could be a potential trigger for their past experience and their trauma I don't know if it's possible to reconcile people who need a safe space from sex and pride, which to me is inherently an expression of sexuality and sexual freedom.

I'll see if I can find some of the Twitter threads I've been reading to help inform me where I am mentally with this. I follow this gay king on YouTube and Twitter, I think his name is amp and he has this channel called what's the safe word. He wrote a thread on Twitter about the presence of kinky and leather daddies at Pride and what it means for his identity as a gay man that those kinky things are an expression of his sexuality and his perversion and so it's part of his personality and who es and their lifestyle, I think for a while.

For many gays and gay men in particular, the kink scene is part of their sexuality in the same way that their homosexuality is part of their sexuality, it is part of how they express who they are and he explained that him being in his harness in public is not that him to be inherently sexual in public because kinky is part of his personality and wearing the strap-on is a way of saying hey, this is who I am as a person, it is not in that moment and in that context an explicit expression of sexuality, miss. as if it's not the same as performing an exhibitionist sexual act in the hope that someone will come because you have an exhibitionist perversion because what you are doing is wearing an article of clothing and not engaging in a sexual act.

I also saw this other Twitter thread. which I don't know if I'll be able to find that there's kind of a generational difference with older queer people who are informed by a mindset of freedom to do something and this person described the younger generation as being more formed around the freedom of something like freedom from oppression, basically, whereas the previous generation had fought more for the freedom to be expressive in this particular way, so there would be kind of an obvious dichotomy there where the older King flails and the queer people who have been part of the community for the longest time I say that I have the freedom to express myself in this way and particularly in this context is when I should feel freer to express myself in this way, whereas there may be younger people coming into the community and I think It would be fair to say that this new, younger generation of queer people is much more in tune with the idea of ​​people not wanting to have sex as I think the queer community has possibly in the past been like oh this is who we want to have sex with.

Sex is who we want to love and then there's this more recent thing where asexual and aromantic people are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the conversation, so we have these younger people who are more aware of the fact. that there are people who will want to move away from sexuality but who are also queer and come from this with a frame mentality that I have freedom from these things that are hurtful and that may be too reductionist and I'm totally stealing that idea from someone else, but this is just trying to understand where the conflict of interest comes in, but personally I don't think I can land on anything other than the King agitators who belong to Pride and wearing a strap-on is not an inherently sexual act it's almost to me like do you think that a woman wearing a low-cut shirt to expose her cleavage is going out in public forcing you to engage in voyeurism or her exhibitionism because her clothing is inherently sexualized?

I do not think it is like that. I don't think you can say, "Oh, a person who wears something very revealing or something that I consider inherently sexual is forcing me to engage in sexual activity that I didn't consent to. I just don't do it." "I think that's a sensible way to look at it, and I think kinky moves have been so basic and common in Pride that I don't think there's a way to tell King that you can't." Don't wear your harness out of pride or that there shouldn't be a leather float. I think a lot of these older queer people would say that we're the ones who started this, we're the ones who have fought for the ability to be perceived as acceptable in society, I think all along King's hype has been thrown under the bus because There have been such desperate attempts by the general gay population to appear as harmless as possible, so you'll have a gay couple appearing in a commercial to normalize a very nuclear sort of normal family, while as the king it moves people who are still called monsters and all that kind of stuff, people who want to express their gender in non-normative ways, as another example, are still treated like, oh, those are those.

They're weird people, those are abnormal, we're normal, we're like you straight people, we just want to have kids and buy a house and all those things like re

spec

tability politics are certainly part of it and the people in the kink scenes have been there all the time. time fighting AIDS and fighting against the same oppressions is there, they are not separate from our community, gangsters are part of our community and I am not the one who says that people who engage in perversions and who otherwise are not homosexuals They are suddenly gay. It doesn't mean I'm talking about queer people who are also kinky and for whom those identities are very intertwined.

The only way I can think of to rectify this is to have separate events that are less sexualized for the people who find it bothersome. the presence of I don't want to say sexual equipment or anything like that because, to me, wearing leather is not in itself inherently sexual, you would have to be performing a sexual act, but people who are uncomfortable with overt displays of sexuality, so that the answer to the King Stirrs

belongs

to pride. I would say that they are part of the basis of pride and you cannot remove them from pride without it essentially no longer being the same and without blocking a not insignificant portion. community participation that doesn't mean I think asexual people who have been traumatized by vice should just stay home.

I just don't have a good solution in my head. I just don't think you can say King Stirs doesn't belong in the pride. I don't think that's possible or valuable or makes any sense. I skipped Pride this year, but that doesn't mean other people won't have fun, and I hope you did. Have fun whenever your local Pride Parade happens if you have any other thoughts on this, especially if you can help inform me, for example give me additional information that I don't already have that has led me to this point I've reached . these conclusions on who

belongs

to that pride, please comment below and let me know what yourperspective.

I'm always open to readjusting my way of thinking about these things, that'll be all for me today, although if you like this video please give me some pretty nice analyses. to watch and comments to read find me on patreon subscribe to this channel ring the bell for notifications and I hope you have a good day goodbye happy Pride Month and a special thanks to my sponsors especially the gay ones.agenda amber music David Wolter Jenni scams Gretchen Becker Wellington Marcus Nicolette Classen Jess Hendricks and Mr. Atheist you all are truly amazing and I appreciate your support