Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#11

Post by mycodesucks »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> Consent is key to healthy BDSM practice, but the public did not consent to seeing these sexual displays (...). By wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up in broad daylight, kinksters have unethically involved non-consenting bystanders in a BDSM scene for their own (likely sexual) gratification. Do young people have such a warped view of consent now that wearing a leather harness in public is considered…

"wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up" is a bit different than just wearing a leather harness in public. But also how hard is it to just be civilized when you're in public? I don't need you to wear a suit and tie, but at least have some decency.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#12

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> Consent is key to healthy BDSM practice, but the public did not consent to seeing these sexual displays (...). By wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up in broad daylight, kinksters have unethically involved non-consenting bystanders in a BDSM scene for their own (likely sexual) gratification. Do young people have such a warped view of consent now that wearing a leather harness in public is considered…

It's especially bad in the BDSM scene. Grown adults who act like the kid in school who would go around telling other kids they weren't following the rules. They treat victimhood and white knighting like a job.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#13

Post by delecti »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> Consent is key to healthy BDSM practice, but the public did not consent to seeing these sexual displays (...). By wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up in broad daylight, kinksters have unethically involved non-consenting bystanders in a BDSM scene for their own (likely sexual) gratification. Do young people have such a warped view of consent now that wearing a leather harness in public is considered…

There is a case to be made about some kinks; someone with a humiliation kink (often exercised by being led around on a leash) is getting close to the line (if not crossing it) of non-consensually involving others in their scene.

Though I agree with you that just "wearing a leather harness" is a pretty innocuous, and in general people don't require consent for their wardrobes in public. And on top of that, going to pride and then complaining about other attendees is at best a bit silly and at worst completely missing the point.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#14

Post by aphyr »

For cishet folks on HN: this writing isn't about or for you. I've seen a lot of this community's homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and generally reactionary political drift over the last 12 years--including replies to my technical writing. I know exactly how this conversation is going to go if it happens here. I'm asking y'all not to have it.

I'm returning a 403 on HN referrals to aphyr.com as a mild discouragement. I hope you'll respect this.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#15

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

mycodesucks wrote: post #11
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> Consent is key to healthy BDSM practice, but the public did not consent to seeing these sexual displays (...). By wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up in broad daylight, kinksters have unethically involved non-consenting bystanders in a BDSM scene for their own (likely sexual) gratification. Do young people have such a warped view of consent now that wearing a leather harness in public is considered…

"wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up" is a bit different than just wearing a leather harness in public. But also how hard is it to just be civilized when you're in public? I don't need you to wear a suit and tie, but at least have some decency.

It's once a year. And the idea is to fight back against stigmas that have made such behavior illegal, or grounds for being fired, or having your kids taken away.

I don't know who needs to hear this, but having gay sex in the privacy of your home while you're tied up in a leather harness should not result in those consequences. Display of similar behaviors at Pride are intended to tell the larger world that they aren't going to stop being themselves. People need to grow a thicker skin and get used to the idea, so that Pride isn't necessary any longer.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#16

Post by [deleted] »

goatsecxkirk wrote: post #3

I went to the pride parade in Seattle in ¿2012? and was disgusted by the public sexual acts that I saw. I don't know why some people weren't arrested for indecent exposure or other sex offenses. Edit: why was this flagged? Public sexual displays are not alright no matter the context

[deleted]

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#17

Post by markenqualitaet »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> Consent is key to healthy BDSM practice, but the public did not consent to seeing these sexual displays (...). By wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up in broad daylight, kinksters have unethically involved non-consenting bystanders in a BDSM scene for their own (likely sexual) gratification. Do young people have such a warped view of consent now that wearing a leather harness in public is considered…

I think consent here is trivial to understand when you talk about a kink most everyone understands: naked skin.

Being naked isn't per se a sexual act, obviously. I don't need anyone's consent exposing my body e.g. going swimming in a lake.

On the other hand, someone getting off exposing theirselves to strangers is involving unconsenting strangers sexually.

Wearing a harness or demonstrating the lifestyle perfomatively does not include strangers in a scene.

Playing in public for e.g. public humiliation on the other hand, is involving unconsenting strangers sexually.

It's really not that hard. These concern trolls have an agenda.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#19

Post by dang »

goatsecxkirk wrote: post #9
hprotagonist wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you could actually read the essay, for a start: We should remember that expressions of variant sexuality are not only a form of individual expression, but also a public good. Many asexual people and families enjoy seeing leather in Pride. Leather contingents demystify the community, reduce social stigma, create opportunities to meet and talk with kinksters, and help people discover new desires. Public floggings can b…

I started reading it and then realized how long it was and that I don't care enough about the subject to read all of that. I'm going to go fist my girlfriend in public and it'll be ok because I'm just expressing myself, right?

We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to do that with.

Re: A History of Leather at Pride: 1965-1995

#20

Post by ThePadawan »

mycodesucks wrote: post #11
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> Consent is key to healthy BDSM practice, but the public did not consent to seeing these sexual displays (...). By wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up in broad daylight, kinksters have unethically involved non-consenting bystanders in a BDSM scene for their own (likely sexual) gratification. Do young people have such a warped view of consent now that wearing a leather harness in public is considered…

"wearing leather harnesses and chaining each other up" is a bit different than just wearing a leather harness in public. But also how hard is it to just be civilized when you're in public? I don't need you to wear a suit and tie, but at least have some decency.

I personally find that the most uncivilized people always come dressed in suit and tie.
Post reply on HN