05:22:27 AM Sep 14th 2011
The description has really improved these last few days. Making a backup copy here.
The idea of Pride is not to treat being gay or straight as being some kind of accomplishment on our part. Instead, taking pride in being gay is a response to people who would like us to be anything but proud. There are some people out there who would like it if we were ashamed of ourselves. They'd prefer if we'd keep this a secret for our entire lives, or better yet that we didn't exist at all. To them, being gay should be seen as something unmentionable, and not suitable for polite conversation. And they certainly don't want us to be okay with who we are. Taking pride in being gay serves as a direct response to the people trying to shame us into silence. It means rejecting the idea that it should be some kind of terrible secret for us to hide. So we don't hide! We have a massive public celebration of our lives.An LGBTQ* Pride Parade is going on. Maybe it has little or nothing to do with the plot, being there simply there to spice up the background of whatever the protagonists are doing. Or maybe it's a major part of the plot. For example, one of the major characters could be helping organizing the whole thing - or organize protests against it. Hilarity may very well ensue as one side or the other (or both!) resort to Activist Fundamentalist Antics. Note that a "Pride Parade" is a specific phenomenon. People parading because they are proud of their football team or whatever is not called a "Pride Parade". The Pride Parades are about openness and celebration regarding gender and sexual minorities. While there are some people who still try to limit the phenomenon to include only homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals (or even limit the spectrum to "homosexuality, period"), most Pride Parades include a far wider spectrum of gender identity and sexual identity. This can include sexual minorities such as fetishists & practitioners of BDSM as well as local ethnic gender identity minorities such as Native American Two-Spirits. Straight allies and proud parents of LGBTQ rights/people may also go on the march. Debates on what should and shouldn't be included is sometimes a plot point itself. Of course, what's actually included and what a character notices may be two very different things. A well-behaved group may be mistaken for mainstream gay or even heterosexual (or simply be overlooked), while the most extremely dressed person in the entire parade gets considered poster-boy for how all LGBTQ-people really are. Even if everyone dress in suits and keep all their slogans really timid, don't be surprised if someone starts shouting Think of the Children!. To what extent, if any, the parade is sexualized varies between different years and different places. The same parade can also get very different portrayals Depending on the Writer. Pride is usually an all-day affair, with related events taking place over an entire week or weekend depending on the city. The day of the parade is often treated like an informal holiday in the LGBTQ community ("Happy Pride!" is an oft-heard greeting), with the Parade around noon, the festival in the afternoon, and the after-parties at night. If the story is gay-centric, then usually the whole event will be covered. Most mainstream works, however, usually focus on the parade since that's what the general populace are exposed to the most. However, parades that are not about gender and sexuality issues can count as subversions, inversions, Rule of Symbolism or similar if they are portrayed as "a metaphorical gay pride parade". Claiming to be "openly heterosexual" or "openly white", arranging a parade for "Heterosexual Pride" or "Aryan Pride", is usually meant as an inversion/parody (either by the characters doing it, or by the author). Expect to hear people rant that these things should seriously exist, Completely Missing the Point of why pride parades happen in the first place. Compare Sex Is Good, Ethical Slut and Brains and Bondage. Contrast (or compare, depending on the tone of the work) Sex Is Evil, Depraved Homosexual, Bondage Is Bad, Straw Loser and Internalized Categorism.
06:31:24 AM Sep 14th 2011
08:32:35 AM Sep 14th 2011
Done. I'm sure the Useful Notes section will keep growing over time.
10:16:57 AM Sep 14th 2011
edited by DesertDragon
edited by DesertDragon
I put the last two paragraphs back in because they do pertain to fiction. The Useful Notes page has all the other details.
11:44:50 AM Sep 14th 2011
Meh, all the paragraphs was relevant to fiction - that's why they was added in the first place. Lets keep the main page brief, now that we have the useful notes page. I moved those two paragraphs back to useful notes, keeping a brief new paragraph on pride festivals - including a few links to tropes relevant for seminars and social events at such a festival.
10:27:12 AM Sep 13th 2011
I started Pride Parade at YKTTW in february and launched it a month later. Today it encountered problems for the first time. For the last decade or so, Pride Parades has moved towards being more and more inclusive. Calling it LGBTQ or similar rather than just LGBT, and including a wide spectrum of gender identity and sexual identity/preference. Sadly, there are still some people who want to limit the pride movement to being about homosexuality only. Failing that, they try to draw the line at LGBT, trying to confine the sexuality aspect to being about gender preference only. These people tend to either try to remove the Q, returning to the "pure" LGBT, or try to neutralize the Q by restricting it to mean LGBT and thus making it meaningless. In the cities where I have been part of arranging pride week, the battlefront used to be about fetishism and BDSM, but that was several years ago. These days it's mostly about visibility and accessibility for people with disabilities. I know it varies from country to country. Especially remember one unhappy old man (he was in his seventies) from one of the baltic countries. In his home country, homophobia was very strong and so was similar categorism and bigottery against sadomasochists. The minorities didn't dare to stand united for respect, so this poor guy had nowhere to turn: The local gay community looked down on him for being a masochist, and the local BDSM community looked down on him for being gay. As for pride parades in media, this conflict between inclusiveness and exclusion can be a major plot point. And yes, it tend to be about how those who want to exclude are Not So Different from the homophobes. The Bitchy Butch example comes to mind. One of the most infuriating prejudices is that a minority shouldn't be included (or even that it isn't included when it really is) because it's not okay to have sexual acts in the parade. This is to reduce a persons sexuality to sex acts, a classic form of bigotry. A bigotry often used against homosexuals: For example Some homophobes believe that gay people can't be teachers because it's not okay to have anal sex in front of the kids. So. This was some words in general. Over to the specific case.
10:43:42 AM Sep 13th 2011
edited by Xzenu
edited by Xzenu
Okay, DD. You storm in here and use the old tired bigotry mentioned above as if it was a valid argument, trying to remove all reference to a particular minority group and then trying to enforce your campaign by edit war. Not cool. You claim that the minority in question (sadomasochists, in this particular case) is not included in the pride parades of the cities you have visited. While this might be true, your word for it is worthless: Only hours earlier, you claimed that they can't count as included unless they are doing "explicit acts" in the parade itself. Of course, with your bigoted definition, homosexuals can't logically be considered to be included either. This is a huge Double Standard of yours, but I guess you fail to see that. In the cities where I participate in pride week, there are always groups and individual activists who focus primarily on BDSM, and the major activist leagues are supporting sadomasochists just like they are are supporting homosexuals. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens in your cities as well, only that you don't see it. Edit: Removed a brief reference to previous mail conversation - expressing a lack of interest in a personal fact I misremembered as him having mentioned in a public debate, but now remember that it was in a private mail. My apologies.
10:52:44 AM Sep 13th 2011
Oh, and two smaller issues: 1. Wikipedia primarily use the LGBT/LGBTQ rather than BLBTQ/GLBT. So should we. 2. You argue that we shouldn't use a line of text in the hottip to explain the inclusiveness of LGBTQ. Because it gets too long, heh. Very well, I'll let this one slide for now. However, your manipulating the text to limit the definition of LBTQ to mean really LGBT only, that is not okay.
11:18:42 AM Sep 13th 2011
edited by Xzenu
edited by Xzenu
Edit: clarification removed for the thing edited out above.
12:33:40 PM Sep 13th 2011
One final word. The description is currently better than it was when this thing started. Lets keep it this way, and this has been a good thing on the whole. All well that ends well, and all that.
12:46:25 PM Sep 13th 2011
Oh Xzenu, how I long for the day you can have discussion without being rude, accusatory, and twisting my words. Not once did I say anything about what I've done sexually in this whole discussion/edit war, so I don't know where that even came from. And the point I was making about BDSM is that it is a sex act, not a sexuality. Yes it's a sexual minority, but one is about who you love while the other is how you love. Apples and oranges. If a fetish group is marching in a pride parade, they're there because they're a GLBTQ-welcoming group. It's no different than a gay-positive church or student GSA. It's part of the bigger picture.
05:04:40 PM Sep 13th 2011
Heh. Maybe if you have started out on a quite different footing than your original "Think of the Children!" nonsense with accusations of "explicit acts"? Your personal insults are not the least bit impressive either. This is the second time today you imply that the only possible reason why someone might dislike your attitude must be that the person is somehow mentally disturbed. Quite an ego you have there. Take your fake longing elsewhere, and TRY to understand instead. Even then, your existentialistic party line is old and tired. Seriously, I got fed up with that stuff like 15 years ago. People with a streamlined heterosexual or homosexual identity are so much more REAL and valuable than everyone else, blaha blaha blaha. It's nonsense. Newsflash: Having a male or female body and or/gender identity is not who you are: It's just two of the many traits that make you who you are. Likewise, your claims that BDSM (or fetishism) must be about and only about sexual ACTS, that's extremely selfrighteous and degrading against a lot of people. For many, it's a part of the identity and / or personality, and just like gender it is some of the factors that are relevant when people fall in love. What you are doing here would have been EXACTLY the same thing as those conservatives that declare that only heterosexuality can be about love or who you are, while homosexuality is only something you do out of shallow lust. Would have been, if it wasn't for the fact that you at least use the word love. Except that you use it in such an awkward way that it sounds as if you are referring only to "lovemaking". That is, back to the sexual acts, back to square one. Bleah. Finally, there is a grotesque selfimportance common in parts of the gay movement. To them, the rainbow flag has only one color, and no matter how many letters are added to the initialism there's really only one letter. A collective It's All About Me, where pride parades could not possibly be minorities marching together one for all and all for one. No, it's only all for one: All for the mainstream gay male - everyone else who participate should know their place and not believe that they participate for themselves. Nope, they are all marching only for the mainstream gay male, who should assert his superiority by reminding them of their place. That he is real and they are not. He has a REAL orientation, they only have "sexual acts" better kept in the closet, eh, bedroom. He should have rights, they should accept being second class citizens. You didn't make that system. But I'm sure it feels good to accept the role as the more valuable kind of person. Oh and for the record. If you do take a more inclusive and open-minded approach, it's not some kind of gift that anyone owe you any debt of gratitude for. Just so you know. In the meantime, the pride movement keep struggling. Externally against aggressive bigotry, internally against this kind of &%¤#. Again, I grew tired of this essensialism and hetero-homo false dichotomy like 15 years ago - so don't take my annoyment with your agenda too personally. :-) Finally, no. There are no apples and oranges. Only fruit. All loving relationships are equally valid, and has the same moral right to be taken seriously and not be discriminated or belittled. If a certain parameter is THE parameter for you, have fun with that. But don't you dare push it on everyone else.
06:38:34 PM Sep 13th 2011
edited by DesertDragon
edited by DesertDragon
Wow that was patronizing, and your baggage is showing. Let's break this down: 1. If 2 guys or 2 girls are a couple, we're not necessarily privy to anything about their sex lives other than the fact that they're attracted to the same gender. This is not or should not be any more revealing than a straight person introducing their partner. But person or couple of any persuasion who says they're into BDSM is—by definition—bringing us into their bedroom, which can be Too Much Information depending on the context. My straight boss can talk about his wife all he wants; he can talk about his kids that I can assume he sired through intercourse. But I don't need or want to know about his specific fetishes. That's the difference between sexuality and sex acts. 2. At no point did I say or imply that the glbtq community is a boys-only club. Whether or not gay men really are overrepresented is a complicated matter. Either way, please stop putting words in my mouth. 3. When I was pointing out that the parades and festivals in many cities have been desexualized lately to attract families, I didn't say it should be that way (or that it shouldn't). Only that it is. It's clear that your beef isn't with me, but the way these things are run. This wiki is not the place for your personal rants. You don't have to agree with the lack of bdsm-inclusion in these events (even ignoring that fetishism and bdsm tend to have their own event weekends), but this isn't your soapbox, so stick to what IS when describing real life events, not what you think it should be.
01:30:01 AM Sep 14th 2011
edited by Xzenu
edited by Xzenu
Thanks for breaking it down. Regarding your four points: 0. Pot. Kettle. Black. Have a nice day. :-) So, your latest strategy is to redefine "experience" to "baggage". Meh, that's cheap. 1. The only real difference here is that a gay person who isn't single is automatically outed by using personal pronouns or showing a photo where the partner's gender is discernible. This difference isn't as big as you may think. A few examples follow below, using the word in a reasonably inclusive way here - not your creepy attempt to tag YET another word as exclusive for your hetero-homo false dichotomy.
- A. Regardless of your sexuality, when you look for a partner, you want to find someone compatible. That mean you need to know the relevant parameters. Far from all people have gender as even one of these parameters, and hardly anyone have it as the only parameter. The mindset of "It's your duty to stay in the closet,a nd if you don't then it's your own darn fault if you get harassed" is thus very oppressive.
- B. One of my female friends left her jerkass ex husband for another woman. The ex found did some anonymous cyber-stalking and found out that she's having a dominance relationship with her new girlfriend. He proceed to out them to friends, coworkers, family, school and authorities, and he tries to convince social services to give him full custody of the children (preferably without even giving her visitation right). The creep didn't even dislike BDSM, it's simply that he found it a convenient weapon to use against her. Luckily, social services took her side. She did lose a few friends, but she didn't get fired.
- C. A major anti-discrimination organization explained that the above is okay. It's legal to out someone as being into BDSM (or pretending that someone is into BDSM) in order to get them fired. It's even legal to fire someone for being into BDSM, even though the personal life has nothing to do with work and the person didn't even volunteer the information. And so on. Because the laws against discrimination is strictly limited to homosexuality (and heterosexuality, lol).
- D. One legal case I followed... A woman visit a man for a BDSM date over a weekend. During or after this weekend, things go out of hand. Eventually, a friend of a friend go to the police about the whole thing. In the first legal round, the man and the woman both claim that it was consensual, but the ADA goes on about how the victim is a stupid bitch who shouldn't be taken seriously. Sure it was consensual, but the guy should be convicted anyway, because BDSM shouldn't be legal. (Well, the woman wasn't there. The defense read a letter from her, where she took the defendant's side. The prosecution did not object.) The verdict was "not guilty", based on consent. The ADA appealed to a higher court, they had second round last week. This time I didn't attend the court. But I was told the woman has now changed her story and say that it was rape. However, the ADA still insist that the court should rule that consent is not possible.
04:07:41 AM Sep 14th 2011
edited by DesertDragon
edited by DesertDragon
I'm not going to comment on the rape case because you left out way too many important details for me to know what's going on, but as for your friend's divorce, the courts took her side and put her ex in his place for being the jerkass he is. Just saying, that doesn't support your argument. And I never said anybody was doing sex acts in the parade, just describing the difference between sexuality and sexual interest. Again with the words in my mouth. But anyway, what you're describing as "creepy," I simply see as "tomayto/tomahto." Cultural dissonance? Maybe, but from what I gather in your post, it all depends on the city/country. There's no International Pride Council that decides who and what gets represented, it just depends on how each city decides to do things. Some parades are more sexualized, others want a more family-friendly vibe, and one isn't better or worse than the other. So instead of ranting against exclusion and self-perceived hypocrisy, can we just say "Who gets represented depends on the local culture" or something along those lines? Can I get that one compromise out of you, and we can drop this whole thing?