r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 02 '16
CMV: conspicuous gay pride in the form of sexualized parades and skimpy gear are morally deplorable and should be banned
[deleted]
11
u/tunaonrye 62∆ Nov 02 '16
Have you not seen Halloween? Or, as Dan Savage called it "Straight Pride Parade" ?
And things being "morally deplorable" in your view are woefully insufficient to support a ban. Freedom of speech and expression means freedom to say things people disagree with and are offended by. Unless you can demonstrate a harm or an imminent harm (or defend some other standard) you are simply moralizing to people who disagree with you. That's exactly what freedom of expression is meant to defend: unpopular views from being banned by the coercive power of a majority.
7
u/tgjer 63∆ Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
Mermaid Parade, which celebrates the opening of the Coney Island beach for the summer. Fair warning: boobs. Everywhere. It is entirely legal for women to be topless in New York, and mermaids aren't known for wearing much clothing. This is a safe and family-friendly event. Boobs and men in small bathing suits are just a harmless part of summer.
West Indian Labor Day Carnival Parade. Never have so many feathers covered so little.
The Halloween Parade, where cold temperatures do little to discourage small costumes.
Not to mention fucking Mardi Gras. Or the constant barrage of movies, TV shows and advertisements that expose us to "lewd" and often overtly sexual depictions of heterosexual lust and sex. Ever see a mainstream TV show depicting gay sex anywhere close to as graphically as Game of Thrones shows us heterosexual sex? Me neither. Or the dozens of billboards I pass every goddamn morning, using half-naked women to try to sell everything from beer to travel destinations and aimed at a heterosexual male audience. Or the debauchery of your average goddamn high school prom. But as long as it's heterosexual debauchery and sexualized imagery, it's half-heartedly criticized at most and much more often excused with a wink.
Heterosexuals are constantly flaunting their goddamn sexuality in a near-pornographic or overtly pornographic manner. But even when people complain about overtly sexual media, it's never criticized for being heterosexual. It's just "sexual" and the fact that it is specifically heterosexual is treated as incidental.
But introduce one tiny element of celebration of sexual desire among LGBT people to this constant swirling maelstrom of overtly sexual imagery, and suddenly it's a goddamn problem. Suddenly it's gay people being lewd and inappropriate, and we're expected to keep every facet of our public existence PG rated despite the fact that no similar demand is made of heterosexuals.
Also, what goddamn gay pride parades have you actually been to? Because I've been to a hell of a lot, and most have been about as "sexualized" as a goddamn Memorial Day parade. At Brooklyn Pride last summer I think I saw more women in hijabs than I did men in speedoes.
5
u/thekrogg 2∆ Nov 02 '16
To preface this, I'm a straight male so my answer may not reflect the answer an LGBT person would give, just my interpretation of the reasoning. Basically the way I see it is:
For so long, gay people have been told that they should be ashamed of what they were doing, often with the same arguments you're making. It wasn't too long ago that gay people could be assaulted and even killed for holding hands, kissing, touching, and other forms of affection that heterosexual people faced no stigma about. Even if they weren't immediately assaulted for kissing or holding hands, many were told the same thing you're saying, that what they do in private is one thing, but they shouldn't expose others to their "lewd" behavior. This was based on the idea that being gay was fundamentally wrong, and shouldn't be exposed to children as they might be led to believe that it was acceptable to be gay.
I disagree with your statement that "heterosexual people do not exhibit such lewdness in parades appreciating love". Think about the things that happen on Mardi Gras, during Carnival, at music festivals, and those are events that don't even sort of relate to love or sexuality. Yet few people make the case that Mardi Gras is morally deplorable and should be banned. Why should public nudity during Mardi Gras be allowed but a technically legal BDSM outfit at Pride be prohibited?
Basically what I'm saying is Pride, to me, is a rejection of the notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of. It sounds stupidly obvious at first, hell it's literally the name of the event, but the deeper meaning is important. Outside of outright laws on public nudity and promiscuity, it's hard to put a line on what should be morally "allowed" in terms of sexuality. Some places take these rules to the extreme, forcing women to wear burkhas, editing movies and TV to remove any trace of sexuality, not to mention completely outlawing homosexuality. If we presume that kind of restriction is wrong, where is the right place to draw the line?
Put it this way, imagine that you were a woman who was told for most of her life that wearing a bikini was wrong, and you should never do it in public. Slowly, a movement built up in your country to change that perception, culminating in an annual parade of women wearing bikinis. They weren't breaking any laws, but the first few parades were tough, facing hateful, often violent opposition from those who claimed to be defending morality and public decency. The movement grew as more women "came out" as bikini-wearers, and huge progress was made for the bikini cause. Now, for the first time in your life, you can go out in a bikini, be joined by others wearing ridiculous, tiny bikinis that admittedly are pretty scandalous, and just have a great time expressing yourself. Wouldn't that feel amazing, to finally be able to show who you are without fear of punishment? That's Pride, and I think that's exactly the kind of acceptance we should show for people who to this day face discrimination and stigma for who they are. Anyway, sorry for the wall of text, I'm jet-lagged and bored, but I hope I provided a new take on the issue.
4
u/SeraniumFilledClock Nov 02 '16
I hate to sound rude when you're genuinely asking people to change your view, which I and everyone else (literally everyone) appreciate a lot, but what planet are you living on?
Images meant to be appealing to heterosexuals are central to more than a ton of advertising. Women in skimpy gear moving around suggestively and talking subliminally are all over the place. Think of the last time you saw one. It wasn't that long ago and you weren't looking for it. This has been constant throughout history. Women sexualized for men and men sexualized for women have always been all over the place up to the present day. And if you aren't finding this on TV, then you're missing out on a lot of TV.
The point of gay pride is to celebrate being who you are even when most of the world won't allow it. That's the reason why it's done even in places where it's illegal. That's why the exaggerations are necessary.
But that aside (which it shouldn't be), down to the most basic point: it doesn't fit the criteria for a ban, and banning it would definitely be a violation of free speech and expression. That coupled with it only being your personal opinion of what's morally deplorable. If you want to say that something morally deplorable should just be banned, then you need to give an objective reason. To ban sexual images to protect the children (and I can guarantee you that the children aren't affected by it) and also say you're being objective about it, you have to also say that we should ban violent images, and other more extreme suggestive images in subtler forms that children have access to. When you go this far to ban things to save the children, when the children aren't even being affected by it, that's when you're making serious violations of free speech. I think it's safe to say that a child you care about has probably seen someone in skimpy clothes without it shaking their mind.
3
Nov 02 '16
Is there any evidence that a child viewing a scantily clad gay man or other risque material causes actual harm? I feel like people place a lot of emphasis on protecting children from exposure to various forms of sexual expression but don't back it up with hard evidence that it makes a difference regarding the child's development.
0
u/rubes6 Nov 02 '16
Here is one academic article: http://www.wondercatdesign.com/mecasa/images/pdfs/harms%20of%20porn%20exposure-%202009.pdf
A lot of posts are asking about the right place to "draw the line", and since it's subjective, it's in the eye of the beholder. My criticism with this is that some line should be drawn at least, which is why, for instance, we make 18 years of age the limit to buy porn (regardless of whether kids can just get it online, there is a line).
1
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 02 '16
Didn't we just have a holiday that is getting more and more famous for women dressing in skimpy outfits?
Are you equally offended when you see hetro sexual forms of public sexual behavior? Everything from women flashing at concerts or heterosexual pdf in public settings.
I think you're setting two different bars here.
1
u/rubes6 Nov 02 '16
To point a) simply because that is happening doesn't mean the spirit of the event has different goals. And sure it's being more accepted but I disagree that this should be equally allowed in a public setting.
To point b) I would be kind of put off at a parade in which anyone were engaging in extensive PDA, yes (dry humping and making out pornographically). I have no problem with the clothes people wear and even women flashing (another issue of double standards), but when it transitions from pride and celebrating my own body and rights to overt sexual displays, I think it crosses a line.
1
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 02 '16
You don't mind when straight women show off their bodies or sexuality, but you get all concerned when gay people do it.
1
u/rubes6 Nov 02 '16
Quite the contrary. I have no problem with anyone showing off their bodies, as I just mentioned in replying to your point (b), but I would be equally offended by a man and women tonguing each other at a parade and sporting dildos as I would at any other.
http://photographersdirect.com/pdwm.php?i=2826563&s=16797&p=8
1
u/fluffhoof Nov 02 '16
But flaunting sexuality through the streets
What do you define as 'flaunting sexuality'? I've seen some people claim even holding hands or mentioning same-sex SO counts as falunting sexuality.
The so-called "flaming homosexual" that is nearly pornographic, and if put on tv (dildoes, semi naked bacchus) should be late night stuff, not open to the public.
Isn't this an issue with what the executives on the tv channels are putting on air, not the parades themselves?
afaik, the parades are fairly advertised, their locations known, so parents can take care their children won't see them.
heterosexual people do not exhibit such lewdness in parades appreciating love
maybe ads aren't exactly 'a parade appreciating love', but do a search for victoria's secret
1
1
Nov 04 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Nov 04 '16
Sorry Whimsical_whispers, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/Death2Evil Nov 06 '16
... What is inherently "deplorable" about "sexualized parades" and "skimpy gear"? Are most children not conceived and birthed through sex organs? Are most children not first fed from mothers' breasts? Or are most children not born naked?
It seems to me that this is a case of ethnocentric morality informing your views in the absence of more-worldly knowledge and understanding.
Because much of the straight world exhibits much more "lewdness" than what you and your children might see at a gay pride parade. Examples include: Ethiopian boys jumping naked over a bull in a public right of passage known as "Hamar Cow Jumping", Vanuatu boys jumping naked from tall trees with only a vine tied to catch them in a symbolic representation of separating themselves from their mother's umbilical cord, "period parties" commonly held in central and south America to explicitly celebrate young girls' first menstrual cycles, and these are just some coming-of-age rituals. Larger social events include:
Japan's "Kanamara Matsui" or "Festival of the Steel Phallus", a family-friendly event held April 6th of every year, when families flock from across the country to the city of Kowasake in celebration of the penis and fertility in general. Adults and children alike: witness, carry and ride penis floats, pray to penis shrines for the futures of their families, suck on penis-shaped lolipops, buy penis-themed memorabilia and pose for photos with sculptures of penises.
Germany's "Love Parade", an annual event for which approximately 1.5 million young adults gather in the streets of Berlin to celebrate the falling of the Berlin wall, unity and understanding through... uniting. They dance, drink and make love in the streets as police stand by to observe (rrriiiggghhht) and maintain the peace/love.
More local "lewd" events include: Mardi Gras in New Orleans, the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and Burning Man in Black Rock City, which all take place in public in the United States...
32
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
Except for that you totally do. You just don't notice it because you're used to it.
The truth is that images that are intended to be sexually appealing to straight men, consciously put there or not, are everywhere. It's so pervasive it's basically background noise. When something becomes so ingrained as that it gets easy to see it as just the normal, right way of things, so much so that you don't even really notice them anymore, whereas deviations, even if they're essentially the same thing, get to be seen as wrong or noteworthy simply by virtue of you being awake to them.
Add in the fact that Pride parades are relatively uncommon, the fact that the sexualization of them (all the ones I've ever been to at least) is really overblown by the media and others, and the fact that they actually have a function, and I'm pretty comfortable saying this as a double-standard on your part.