A celebration of sexuality not being about sex is perfectly conceivable in a society in which the connotations of sexuality have far outgrown its strict denotation, like when the concept of "two dads" can blow someone's mind; that's not sex, that's the family and yet it really does seem to have something to do with sexuality, doesn't it? And then there are the expectations of heterosexual vs homosexual affect and (non-sexual, normal everyday) behavior. These things are heaped together quite readily! And this heaping is a lot richer (for well or ill, often ill) than I'm capable of adequately describing.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have no problem believing that. There is this thing called "love", rather central to the human experience, which I think is the real underlying motivation behind Pride events. An emotion that one can feel without sex entering the picture.
Last edited:
But why? I understand the literal why, the cause and effect that goes into making these situations, but why perpetuate it? "My little boy has a feminine affect, better take him to the sex parade" is a hell of a situation. Some of these things should not be together, none of them have to be together, and them being heaped together doesn't mean the event isn't about sex.
So why isn't it called a love parade? Why propagate a language of identity warfare, of modern tribalism, that not only sets people against each other, it does it openly and brazenly, choosing a vice as its slogan?
I also don't like the implication of completely equating sexuality and love. It is one thing for a man to love another man and settle down together. It's a different thing entirely for a single person to declare themself gay looking specifically for a same-sex partner but then say its about love, like "I'm sorry, I can't love someone with the wrong genitals." Nah, that's not about love, that's about sex, and it's fine to want both, but either it's not just about love, or people are painting themselves as psychos incapable of love for half the planet.
Look that American journalist just happened to trip and fall unfortunately onto the Embassy's decorative bonesaw multiple times in front of an open suitcase, the fellas tried to take him to the hospital, you see, in the suitcase (while not the greatest look was still the most efficient time saving option at the time). And yes, getting completely lost, giving up and abandoning the suitcase in an as-of-yet still undisclosed location was poor example of on-the-spot decision making, they had only the best intentions at heart. If you have any doubts or questions, that's ok...just ask any of the mainstream comedians we paid millions to sign contract of totally legitimate honest disclosure agreement on their experience here! We'll find you discover them all quite intact and beaming with plump bank accounts!
Take it easy Frollo, they're called pride parades because they get to celebrate who they are without having to hide for fear of getting shamed or fired or arrested or killed. That's what they're proud of. It's not about "vice" any more than it's about superiority or tribalism. You're welcome to join them any time you like.
Sexuality affects a lot more than what someone does in the bedroom. It determine's someone's romantic life quite apart from their sexual activites. It affects legal protections, rights, discrimination. All of this contribute to create a loose social group with shared experiences and connections.
Just as a black history or black culture celebration is not literally about melanin levels. Neither is this just about the sex act.
Regardless, this is getting away from your original characterisation: you painted a picture of something explicit in a sexual way. You cannot just class anything related to sexuality as explicitly sexual to substantiate that. Saying "i'm gay" is not explicitly sexual. Kissing and wearing flamboyant costumes are not explicitly sexual. You haven't provided anything actually sexually explicit.
Ok, if you expand "elevated social position" to include all positions, then sure, that definition only covers elevated social positions. As does any definition.
Yes it is. That is a declaration of who you do or do not want to have sex with. All the other things you want it to mean don't need to follow. In the effort to stand with others in solidarity, you have not only tied together a thousand unrelated concepts into one mega-idea, you have let the perverts and supremacists have the loudest voices, and you follow their lead. You don't have to.
That's actually a great metaphor for what I'm saying here: the gypsies aren't good in Hunchback, excepting perhaps Esmeralda herself. Do not trick yourself in your resentment of Frollo into thinking that thieves and murderers are heroes. You can oppose Frollo without declaring fealty to the Court of Miracles.
You consider that explicit, do you? Lord, repressive religious sexual attitudes have really done a number on you, if even the mildest reference to one's romantic partner or prospect is considered "explicit" and thus improper in public. Should i make sure women cover their ankles, too?
The prejudiced are always going to say this is the case, no matter how we act. You have shown quite transparently that you have no idea what Pride is actually like or how its understood by the people involved, and show no willingness to learn. So why should anyone take your characterisations seriously?
Did you mean to say "sexually explicit"? I said it yes to it being "explicitly sexual", explicit meaning stated clearly as opposed to implicit being just implied. "I am gay" is not implying sex is involved, it is stating it, hence explicitly sexual. "Sexually explicit" is a contextually different phrase, used in content warnings to say a piece of media has direct sexual content in it. It, ironically, is itself a bit of a euphemism, as sexual euphemisms in media are often more "sexually explicit" than things that are explicit, but you have to say it right to make that connection.
Trump and Mamdani to meet in Oval Office on Friday after months of bickering
President has previously criticised the New York City mayor-elect, labelling him a ‘communist’ and threatening to deport him
www.theguardian.com
Semantics again.
Let's get back to your claim. That "Pride formed for visibly, expressively gay men to make public demonstrations about the things they did in their sex lives".
This clearly points to sexual exhibitionism, sexually explicit behaviour, making the sex act front and centre. It was a demeaning smear, born of ignorance.
And it wasn't the case. Something merely being about sexuality isn't the same, considering that sexuality affects a hell of a lot more than that. You can argue it shouldn't, in your opinion, but it does. That's a fact. Even in determining somebody's romantic life, it already spreads beyond the sex act.
When someone's only exposure to LGBT+ group is the porn they pretend not to watch, just existing is all it takes to consider them sexual
You calling it a demeaning smear is itself demeaning. You act as though it being about sex is an insult (and sometimes it is, cause it should be), but that's you making that same judgment.
Different people have different motives and different methods. Some people have the motives you ascribe, others it is about sex, specifically public expression thereof. The lineage of pride (and the pride flag) is from those who were all about the sex. That you wave their flag while treating their existence as an inconvenience is a contradiction.
It's called pride because the people naming it took a "screw you, I'm not just gay, I'm proud of it, I'm better because of it" attitude, and if you think that is repugnant, you should be renaming your movement.
"He's not a dictator, guys, he's just calling for his political opponents to be killed! That's okay!"
No, i called what you said a demeaning smear. You went way beyond merely saying it was "about sex"-- which would have been merely reductionist and a bit ignorant, but not a demeaning smear.
You said something far more extreme.
You continue to claim this. And yet you've failed to point to anything in those early events anywhere close to "public expression of sex".
This being based entirely on your bizarre personal definition of the word 'pride', which is not shared by the people who attend the events, and is not reflected in contemporary 70s definitions or usages.
You have zero willingness to listen or engage. You have zero relevant experience and have failed to even find any relevant second-hand examples. You are totally unwilling to listen to someone who is actively involved and is telling you we do not understand it that way. At this point, the ignorance is intentional. Either its just a straightforward smear or your religious prejudices against gay people have really cooked your ability to critically engage or treat people with reason and respect.
Last edited: