#it becomes clear they dont know what those things mean lol. in the 60s lesbian was not used as it is now
Text
(cw) i lied about no discourse..
theres just so much fallacy from what I've seen about "m/spec" l/esbian d/iscourse, first that nonbinary people "should be included" in lesbianism as if nb people haven't always been a part of lesbianism both historically as the term found its place in lgbt and up to now where nonbinary lesbians have basically always been a thing, and whenever it goes into the territory of whether men should be included in lesbianism i always just respond with a resounding Lesbianism Should Not Be About Or Involve Men In Any Way
tags important
#it feels like people are just being ahistorical in two very different ways when they argue those things#like ignoring the nonbinary-ness that was already present in lesbianism and also trying to say stuff like#''but trans men were lesbians'' ''many lesbians were bi'' ''sappho loved men''#it becomes clear they dont know what those things mean lol. in the 60s lesbian was not used as it is now#like people were literally just figuring out what any of those terms meant and their meanings continued to evolve#and the whole ''sappho loved men'' argumnent is like .#literally just identify as sapphic then LIKE??#there is a good reason why lesbian has become to mean someone with no attraction to men#this kind of discourse matters because men already constantly invade womens spaces (Not talking about trans women.)#(i partially am referring to stuff like trans men hitting on lesbians and other men who hit on lesbians bc they heard about bi lesbians)#(both of which are things i have seen with my eyes both online and irl dating apps)#and it also really shows when the people who talk about this the loudest are people who arent lesbian or people who are chronically online#cw discourse#i feel like i tried for a while to see where these people were coming from but there's not really much that makes sense about what they#tend to argue#i can understand that lesbians can be transphobic and terfs or otherwise exclude nonbinary people#but instead of arguing how disrespectful it is to ignore the role nb people had in pioneering lesbian culture#they decide to try and annex nonbinary onto lesbianism by saying stuff like ''mspec lesbian''#like it just doesnt track to me. i am not a part of that echo-chamber i think they are too far into an online discourse pov? /gen#for the longest time i was like ''maybe theres something im not getting''#but every time im exposed to their points im like. respectfully i think youre not getting it
5 notes
·
View notes
Note
About Pride- you aren't wrong, but there's a difference between someone wearing leather gear and someone practicing other parts of a kink. Wearing a collar is fine, being on all fours on a leash is really not for public spaces. Because that's involving non-consenting strangers in your kink. Sure, it's good for people to know kink isn't wrong, but something not being wrong doesn't mean it's appropriate for public spaces. Just like sex isn't wrong, but having sex where minors and nonconsenting (1)
(2) strangers can come upon you without warning isn't a good idea. If there's an area that's specifically designated as an area where there will be sex and full kinkplay, great! Mark it clearly and go nuts. But if it's somewhere people could just come up without realizing, that's not a good idea. There are people who don't want to see strangers engaged in sexual activity, and there are parents who would immediately snatch their questioning kid away from any event like that.
(3) There's nothing wrong with indicators of kink in public. Leather gear, badges, flags, that kind of thing. But actual kink /play/ is too much for places where someone could accidentally walk into it. And I really don't think Pride should be designated a place where you should expect to find people performing sex acts randomly scattered about. Not because it's shameful, but because it's something that you need to get people's consent to involve them in.
(4) And I know kink isn't innately sexual, but a lot of it is going to be interpreted that way to someone unfamiliar with the exact scene. Besides, even the nonsexual kink requires consent from all involved. In short: anything that says or demonstrates "I'm into kink" is great, good for people to see, and often stylish. Actually /doing/ that kink, except in areas that are (literally or not) surrounded by "here be kink" signs, is not so great. Because, again, consent. Nothing to do with shame.
-----
This is long, so I’m sticking a cut on it.
Okay, before I start I want to preface this with: I do actually see your point. I’m going to be arguing with you, but I really want that to be clear. For the most part, I agree with you. You’re just arguing a point that I didn’t try to make, and I kind of want to clear that up.
Second: my head is hurting worse than usual today (an explanation, not meant as points or to give me a pass if i’m wrong, lol) so if anything seems unclear or hard to understand, please point it out, and i’ll try and correct it/make it clearer.
Point 1: involving nonconsenting strangers in kink. I agree, that’s bad! But no one was actually talking about doing kinkplay in public at Pride. From what I understood*, it was more about having leather pride at kink, as in like- people wearing leather gear and/or kink gear that isn’t made of leather, and wearing leather pride pins and stuff. Not actually engaging in kinkplay. “There's nothing wrong with indicators of kink in public. Leather gear, badges, flags, that kind of thing.“ That’s exactly what I was referring to, in all honesty. Anything beyond that point is, as you said, involving strangers in your kink without their consent.
However, there’s one thing you said in there that I disagree with. “Wearing a collar is fine, being on all fours on a leash is really not for public spaces.“
I’d argue that a leash is fine, honestly. Maybe not to be at, I don’t know, a coffeeshop, but at a big busy festival like Pride with a ton of people around, I think something like that has a much higher chance of getting lost in the shuffle. Hands and knees don’t work because, crowds and being at knee height is unsafe, and if I were to take my sub to a place like that I’d be worried she’d get kicked in the face.
Point 2: “ And I know kink isn't innately sexual, but a lot of it is going to be interpreted that way to someone unfamiliar with the exact scene.“ Again, I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree with this either. There’s a lot of elements of kink that people connect with sex, but I think there are also a lot that the vast majority of people haven’t really thought about.** The vast majority of people are not very well educated on kink, and therefore there are a lot of elements of kink that absolutely fly under the radar to vanilla people.
Also, a secondary aspect of this is that queer people in general tend to be reduced to their sex lives as well, not just kinky people. Straight cis people- especially older people, from my parents’ generation and older- have a tendency to reduce gay men to ‘ew, they have gay sex!’ and lesbians to ‘but how do they have sex? there’s no penis’ and trans people to ‘but how do you have sex with them?’ Reducing kinky people to ‘but they have sex like that?’ is pretty much what they’ve done to the entire rest of the queer community anyway. So I don’t love that argument for the same reason I don’t like things like ‘trans people shouldn’t be allowed at pride, because what if parents of gay or lesbian or bisexual kids see those weirdos and drag their kids off’. It seems like it’s missing a very large part of the history of the community as a whole*** in that particular respect.
Last point: i just want to call attention to it, I’m not arguing.
“I really don't think Pride should be designated a place where you should expect to find people performing sex acts randomly scattered about. Not because it's shameful, but because it's something that you need to get people's consent to involve them in.” It’s also illegal to have sex in public. It’s indecent exposure in New York, my home state, and it’s classified as a misdemeanor in many others****. So, you’re definitely not wrong there.
However, there’s a difference between performing sex acts and making it clear you engage in them without actually having sex. There are a lot of posts around talking about people walking around wearing nothing but pasties over their nipples and thongs and nothing else, or people wearing shirts explicitly talking about sex, or whatever. If you google “pride NYC,” which is what I did because i didnt want to just google “pride parade” and get a ton of canned stock images, you see a lot of pictures of half-naked individuals wearing rainbows. I don’t think that if those people are perfectly alright to do that (and i do believe it should be allowed for people to do so! Pride is for having fun and being proud of your sexuality, so that kind of thing being policed would be a little weird to me) someone wearing a puppy mask or a leash and collar are also just following the trend in their own way. People making sexual assumptions about someone because they’re dressing in a sexual manner or wearing things that imply sexual actions are the ones making those assumptions. The people wearing those things could have chosen not to, but I don’t think they should be barred for choosing to wear them.
Again, I’m not sure I covered everything, so feel free to point it out if I fucked something up, and I also am not sure any of this is going to make even a little bit of sense to anyone that’s not me, lol, so if this is a whole bunch of completely confusing ramblings, feel free to let me know and I’ll take another stab at it tomorrow when my head hopefully feels less foggy.
----
*And I might have been wrong. I’m not discounting that. I can be wrong, I’m only human, and my understanding of things might not be 100% accurate.
**By this I mean like the difference between calling someone Daddy (overtly kinky overtones because it’s become a wildly popular thing in media) vs things like asking for permission for small things or waiting for their Dom to give them a go ahead before taking an action, which is more inherently kinky than just using a title (in my opinion, again, this is all in my opinion) but tends to just strike as a little weird
***i wasn’t around for very much of it. I was born in 2001. But I’ve spent a long time following a bunch of angry older folks on here who every now and again go ‘wow you guys clearly dont remember what it was like in the 80s/90s/are being incredibly reductive, read these pieces from the 50s and 60s’, and I feel like i have a slightly better view on some of these things than a lot of the people I see on here. Naturally, though, I might be wrong about parts, and if I’m misrepresenting something, feel free to send me reading materials
****I did a google search, and the first thing i saw said, verbatim, “ Public Sex is a Misdemeanor. In most states, the laws that criminalize public sex make it a misdemeanor crime. Some state laws explicitly criminalize public sexual activity. Other laws are broader and cover a variety of indecent or lewd conduct.“ The full source can be found here: [x]
1 note
·
View note
Last Seen Blogs
