Introduction
As I am writing this it is the end of June, pride month. Like most years in my memory, it has been dominated by people discussing who is queer and, more pertinent to this essay, who belongs at pride (Not cops, that’s for sure). Kink at pride discourse has reared its head again and I feel it is time I put my thoughts to paper on this topic.
First, what is kink? While a simple-seeming question it’s quite hard to answer. At its heart kink is any and all “abnormal” sexual conduct, which is a pretty subjective category, subject to both the time it is being defined in and by the individual defining it. For some using a dildo or vibrator is kinky, for others, full-body restraints are rather vanilla. This is one of the issues we’ll come to later, but for this essay, I will be defining kink as any sexual conduct that involves additional hardware more out there than dildos and vibrators, such as restraints, pain, and/or dominant/submissive dynamics — such as pet play — and any paraphernalia that might go along with that.
We also need to be on the same page about informed, affirmative consent before we continue. There are many essays, articles, and videos on the topic if you want a more in-depth understanding but for our purposes, we can summarise it in three points:
- Knowing exactly what you are agreeing to
- Expressing your intent to continue and be involved
- Deciding, without coercion, to participate
There are three main counter-arguments I have seen against allowing kink at pride, the first is the stance that it violates the parade-goers consent. The argument goes that by practicing kink in public at a pride parade onlookers are being forced to participate in the sexual acts of the kinksters and that this is a violation of the principles of informed, affirmative consent as the onlookers were neither informed nor expressed their intent to be involved. As a result, we should prohibit kink at pride just as we do other violations of consent such as harassment or sexual assault.
The second argument is that kink at pride makes pride inaccessible and not family-friendly. The argument goes that allowing kink at pride alienates more vanilla folk and parents as they do not wish to see such things and that — for the parents — it may lead to having difficult conversations with children, conversations that those children or their parents might not be ready to have. As a result, we should prohibit kink at pride to make it a more accessible space and grow greater support for queer liberation.
The last argument I see centers around sex-repulsed asexual folks. The argument goes that kink at pride prevents sex-repulsed asexual people from truly participating and feeling welcome as it is likely to make them uncomfortable seeing folks in nipple clamps, pup hoods and the like. As a result, we should prohibit kink at pride to make it a more inclusive place for a-spec folks.
On the surface, all these arguments appear reasonable, however, their issues range from being misguided to a complete misuse of ideas and concepts. I will be addressing them in order from the one I find the most reasonable to the one I find the most absurd.
The Three Spaces Of Interaction
Before I move on to my breakdown and response to these arguments I feel it is important to explain the framework I use for social interactions. I find it useful to break interactions into three spaces: intimate/private, personal, and public.
The intimate space is any interaction that directly targets an individual person and especially if it involves physical contact. Handholding is an example of intimate contact, as is directly engaging someone with a question or statement.
The personal space is any interaction that happens within a person’s personal space or in a shared, private space such as shared accommodation. The personal area can also be defined as any interaction a person cannot remove themselves from without great difficulty.
Lastly, the public area is self-explanatory, it’s anything that someone may observe, hear or encounter in public. If something is within the public space it is easy for the observer to look away or otherwise disengage with something they do not like.
To me consent begins and ends within the intimate space, boundaries begin within the intimate space, and end within the personal space with the public space being free from both.
A Safe Space For Asexuals
Before I critique this argument I feel it’s important to state that we live in an extremely allocentric society and we need to do more to combat this and to make queer spaces more accepting and welcoming of a-spec folks. A-spec folks are queer, there is no getting around this and there will be no queer liberation without them. These are the facts of the situation we find ourselves in and no effective praxis can be done without acknowledging this.
I find this argument is often put forward with genuine care for a-spec folks and with a desire to create a more inclusive pride, that desire is not something I can fault. It’s also the most reasonable counterargument I have seen on this topic. A-spec identities are not some new fad like some may claim, they have been around since the beginning of pride just like kink has. Both identities are part of queer history.
The fact of the matter is a-spec folks have a place at pride as much as kink does, they are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. A safe space for sex-repulsed a-spec folks can be created without the blanket prohibition of kink at pride. To advocate for the blanket prohibition of kink merely shows that you have no ability to set healthy, self-enforceable boundaries.
My suggestion is to have spaces in parades reserved for a-spec folks that prevent them from coming into contact with any kinksters and to have safe, private areas for a-spec folks at other pride events. It should also be stated that many kinksters are themselves a-spec.
It’s true that we need to work on making queer spaces and conversations less allocentric but that should not come at the cost of both queer history and peoples’ ability to pursue their personal happiness.
Not A Family Outing
Before going into this argument it must be understood that the idea of “family-friendly” queer liberation is the domain of conservatives, reactionaries, and assimilationists. Groups that at best do not have the best intentions and at worst want us extinguished. We gain nothing from playing their game.
I find that this argument typically comes from those looking to obtain liberation through respectability politics; to appeal to the ruling class by showing them that we are “just like them”, to show them they have nothing to fear. We get nowhere by taking this approach. We live under a system and society that despises our very existence, their “acceptance” is merely a strategy to divide and conquer us; To set us against each other to make our final extermination easier for them.
Much the same as the vitriol against “trans-trenders”, what do you think happens once the kinky queers are pushed out? The agents of the status quo will simply find some other “weird” group to other, constantly moving the goalposts until none of us are acceptable. To achieve true liberation we must tear down all systems of oppression, including the hierarchy of what is considered “normal” and “acceptable”; a hierarchy that is rooted within white supremacy and colonialism.
If you think that the sea of rainbow avatars from the bourgeoisie class during pride month is a sign of progress and the efficacy of respectability politics, then you truly do not understand how capital functions. They do not accept us, they tolerate us and will only do so so long as we remain profitable and are able to be safely recuperated. The recuperation of our radical identities and expression by capital is only a means to bring us back under their heel, we cannot — if we desire true liberation — allow this.
Lastly, I feel that I should address the concerned parents. If you are unable and unwilling to have difficult conversations with your children then maybe you shouldn’t be a parent. Society is not here to do that for you and people should not be prohibited from expressing themselves to protect you from your own incapability and laziness as a parent.
You’re Not Even Involved
Under my own framework I would have already discarded this argument. The principle of informed, affirmative consent should not be applied outside of interactions within the intimate space that I outlined in the introduction. However, there is more to my disagreement than just that and I feel that I would not be engaging in good faith if I did not directly engage with this argument.
Firstly I have no issue with people disliking what they see in public, I would be a hypocrite if I did as there are many things I dislike and find disgusting that I often see in public. However, neither I nor anyone else is entitled to dictate what can be done and displayed in public if it is not causing any material harm or endangering anyone; and no, being disgusted does not come under material harm, even if it triggers trauma or dysphoria.
A person leading another around a public park or through a parade on a leash is no more involving you in that act than two people kissing or holding hands. Your presence and observation of it do not make you a participant, no matter how much you feel you are. Unless they directly engage you with some action and enter into an intimate engagement with you, whether that be by touching or by directly communicating with you, they have not violated your consent. If the act can continue without your presence, and you are free and able to leave, it should not concern you; your consent for it to happen is no more needed than if it were happening in private, out of sight from you.
Bastardizing and weaponizing informed, affirmative consent to attack a group of people you happen to not like only puts queer people as a whole at risk of being at the receiving end. Do you think fascists and their ilk don’t monitor what we do and what we cave to? Reactionaries and fascists — ideological scavengers as they are — watch what we do and adapt their language and behavior to further their agenda. If we allow informed, affirmative consent to be bastardized as it has been to target kinky queers it will not be long until the rest of us, especially our most vulnerable, find themselves on the receiving end of the same arguments leveled at kinksters.
To make what we see in public subject to the same idea of consent that we use when it comes to our bodies is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. It only puts ourselves and other marginalized communities at risk as it is very easily turned against us. If we allow this argument to stand unchallenged it will not be long until fascists and reactionaries begin to oppose queer relationships in public under the pretext that they did not consent to see it.
Enforcement
In my research I have not once seen someone arguing that kink does not belong at pride/in public suggest how they plan to enforce it. Admittedly my research has not been all exhausting and there may be some out there that have presented plans for enforcement; however, due to the very nature of kink, there is unlikely to ever be a satisfying plan for enforcement.
This is because, as I alluded to in the introduction, what kink is and how it is defined is subject both to the present culture and the individual defining it. As a result, if you were to ask 30 different people to define kink you would get 30 different answers. We cannot meaningfully enforce a rule that has a foundation as subjective as this.
Additionally, because no one is meaningfully, materially harmed and no oppressive structures are upheld as a result of public kink displays, there are no grounds to enforce it beyond the outrage of a group of pearl-clutchers. Unlike, to relate this back to the counterarguments, public displays of bigotry or actual violations of consent like sexual assault and harassment.
Wider Implications
As I have mentioned previously fascists and other reactionaries are ideological scavengers, they watch what we do and incorporate it into their own rhetoric in order to garner support. This situation is no different. Fascists have already begun to adopt progressive language in order to drum up support for their bigoted ideas and they will not hesitate to use the bastardization of consent and accessibility to do the same especially when it is so gracefully handed to them on a plate.
If we allow concepts to be abused like this they will be used against us and other marginalized groups in the future and, if we support abuses of these terms like this, we will be powerless to stop them.
An Anarchist Perspective
I felt that this essay would be incomplete without me providing an explicitly anarchist perspective on this topic. While I feel I have expressed my anarchist standpoint throughout this essay I thought that it would be helpful to put all of the explicitly anarchist standpoints in one section for easy reference. For clarity, I consider myself an anarchist without adjectives and take inspiration from many schools of anarchism.
Firstly, as anarchists, I feel we should prioritize peoples’ freedom of expression in all cases where it has no material harm i.e where it targets an individual or vulnerable group or where it upholds and contributes to an oppressive structure. This is because what is considered “acceptable” in modern society and even the concept of acceptability in this context is deeply rooted within our system’s hierarchical structures, such as white supremacy, cisheteronormativity, and colonialism. In order to liberate ourselves from these structures we must tear them up from their foundations and leave nothing standing.
Secondly, in order to achieve effective praxis, we should always push back against regressive, reactionary ideas, both within our own communities and without. It is important that we show ideas like “family-friendly” are reactionary drivel within this context and any self-proclaimed leftist who espouses this idea should be looked at with suspicion. If we do not push back against these ideas they will only fester and make entryism for fascists and reactionaries much easier, which can and will undermine all other activism and praxis.
Lastly, effective enforcement against public displays of kink would require some form of monopoly on violence, one that can only be obtained through a state or state-like apparatus. Any anarchist worth their salt should realize that this is antithetical to the foundational principles of anarchism as the state and all state-like apparatus represent the epitome of hierarchy.
Conclusion
To conclude, more needs to be done both within and without the queer community to make spaces more accepting and inclusive of a-spec folks. This should, however, not be done by dictating what is “acceptable” if we want to dismantle cisheteronormativity and allocentrism we must not fall into the same oppressive structures by defining some ideal.
Secondly, within this context “family-friendly” is a reactionary dog-whistle in much the same way that “family values” are. We as leftists should not allow this idea to fester within our ranks as it only undermines our goals and makes fascist entryism easier.
Thirdly, it is clear from the bastardization of informed, affirmative consent that we need to improve communication. While our terms and ideas will always be bastardized to fit an interested counter group’s objectives it is clear that we are not doing enough to counter it. Informed, affirmative consent is not a principle that should be applied outside of intimate spaces and from the epidemic of its misuse it is clear that this has not been properly communicated.
Fourthly, capitalist recuperation of radical identities, ideas, and movements is not a sign of progress nor should we model our approach on encouraging it. Recuperation of our ideas and movement only makes it more difficult to achieve our actual goal of full and total liberation for all people from oppressive structures and systems.
Lastly, the prohibition of public kink cannot be meaningfully enforced both due to its lack of solid foundation, lack of foundation on material harm, and that its enforcement would require a monopoly on violence which can only be achieved through a state, counter to the principles of anarchism.
I doubt that this is the last time I will write about this topic or something in the same vein and I am forever seeing so-called radicals attempting to use leftist ideas and ideology to selectively expunge the parts of society they do not like. For further reading on this topic, I recommend Ana Valens’ article in the Daily Dot entitled “Public sex is at the center of a queer culture war”.
Bibliography
Abad-Santos, Alex. “The perpetual discourse over LGBTQ Pride, explained.” Vox, 02 06 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210623212115/https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463879/kink-at-pride-discourse-lgbtq. Accessed 23 06 2021.
Baker-Jordan, Skylar. “BDSM and kink don’t belong in Pride celebrations. This is why.” The Independent, 25 05 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210626170953/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bdsm-kink-pride-lgbt-rights-celebrations-why-b1853859.html. Accessed 24 06 2021.
Kurczynski, Karen. “Expression as vandalism: Asger Jorn’s “Modifications.”” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics №53/54 (Spring — Autumn, 2008), 2008, pp. 295–6.
Valens, Ana. “Public sex is at the center of a queer culture war.” Daily Dot, 17 07 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20210626171439/https://www.dailydot.com/irl/public-sex-lgbtq/. Accessed 25 06 2021.
