Uh-huh, sure. Well, you're seemingly not even bothering with your original charge of "bondage" and explicit sex stuff, so i'm not going to get drawn into your weird prudishness about kissing.
To clarify the chain of events here:
I mentioned people in bondage gear.
You dismissed their presence as fringe.
I said the original idea was for people to public display their sexual habits.
You then decided I said it was made for bondage, a claim I did not make.
The idea here is that people showing up in bondage, challenging those who would look down on them for it, are more in line with the origins of Pride than those who see it as a sort of rainbow colored friendship party.
Mental gymnastics.
To interpret "proper sense of what's fitting one's position or character" as considering oneself "like royalty" is just such an insane stretch to force a completely innocuous, quite modest definition to fit some bizarre hyperboly.
What position do you imagine being described then? Obviously royalty is a singular example, but do you think that isn't describing elevated social positions? Do you think that definition is saying that a proper sense of what is befitting the position of peasant qualifies as pride?
Yes, because I thought you'd make a total mess of yourself. And boy oh boy did you duly oblige.
Every single one of you knows that I don't hate anyone I'm talking to or about. Every person claiming that is just flailing about, cause they have no real dispute, and need some justification to dismiss me. You unintentionally instigated a bunch of other users to just pants themselves.