[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1561392824230.jpeg (68.95 KB, 512x317, 512:317, 2CA246E4-A367-4AA2-868E-A….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Given how sexualised and generally inappropriate Pride tends to be, with things like sex toys, drugs, various states of nudity, and in some extreme cases sexual acts being more common than some might want to believe, is Pride really an event that children should be allowed, and in some cases encouraged to attend?

If so what should be the age limit 18? 16 or 14 with parental guidance? Should it depend on how mature said Pride tends to be, with San Francisco Pride being an 18+ plus event, and most other Prides being 16+?


In most states, the age of consent is 16 years.  In those states, I don't think an age limit of 18 to attend a gay pride event would be sensible.

By whom?  If you mean allowed by the govt, I think the only way to do this would be to establish that the events meet the "obscene as to minors" standard.


I've never been to a Pride, and I do not plan on ever attending one, so I cannot comment on how sexualized they may or may not be without referring to my own biases.

That said, with the scenario you presented, I probably wouldn't be against an age restriction of 16 for them. But like >>285 said, how would such an age restriction be enforced?


File: 1561399817374.png (540.41 KB, 856x1036, 214:259, 3E44F727-8DAA-4266-99CB-DD….png) ImgOps Google

>In most states, the age of consent is 16 years.  In those states, I don't think an age limit of 18 to attend a gay pride event would be sensible.
That’s why I said “depending on the Pride.”

>establish that the events meet the "obscene as to minors" standard.
I think the fact that “gay” Pride by its very nature is sexual, makes it unsuitable for minors.

Simple, have security guards make sure that kids don’t go near some of the more mature areas of the event. You could have highly controlled kid friendly areas for anyone underage if you really wanted it, and adult areas for everyone else.


No. They're done out in public places, after all, so there's not much point.
But, they probably should be required to follow public decency rules.
I guess this depends on the particular parade, but, some pictures I've seen of them are rather extreme. Folk in full on speedos, bondage gear, flauting around dildos, all that stuff.
Not really someone who thinks that should be allowed.


>I think the fact that “gay” Pride by its very nature is sexual, makes it unsuitable for minors.

If "gay" just meant strictly sex related, I could get behind that. But it means a bit more than that seeing as it's not just the sex, but a basic human right to be able to love who you choose. I think children who grew up with two dad's, two mom's, trans parents, etc, would have a deeper appreciation for it.

I do agree with some form of age restriction if a lot of sexual flaunting is present, and perhaps have gates around the booths that are giving away condoms and such.


I agree that some of the stuff that goes on at Pride should be shutdown, especially considering that in some extreme examples they're breaking the law. And if you could properly enforce said laws I'd see no reason why kids couldn't attend.

But if we can't have that I feel like some areas, not all, but some areas should be closed off to kids.

I'm not implying that being gay is exclusively, or even mostly about sex. I know otherwise, considering that I am gay.

But despite that, you can't disregard the fact being gay (I.E. homo"sexual") explicitly involves sex, at least to some degree. And thus "gay Pride, "to some degree" must be sexual, or have some kind of sexual undertons, especially given how high attendance tends to be.

Even if you waant to argue that being gay is only 20% or even 10% sexual, and the rest is either love, identity, or something else, I still wouldn't be comfortable with kids celebrating it or attending an event about it.


Well, maybe the pride parades, with how they are right now, have a lot of sex related stuff. And if that is going to continue, then by all means, put an age restriction on it.

But, can we flip the coin on this and look at the other side? What if instead of a pride parade, this were a marriage parade involving just straight couples? The very act of coupling involves sex, because, you know we are animals and want to mate. Mating happens all across the board no matter what you pursue, unless you are one of the very rare that literally has no sex drive.

And what if the pride parade was not as sexually charged? What if it was very tame like a wedding, hippie parade, or just generally just strictly celebrating the freedom to choose your lover and being able to be open about who you are?

Should children still be banned from it if there is no sexual atmosphere?

My view is that it shouldn't matter if the parade is about being gay, but rather if the children are being exposed to anything harmful. Which "harmful" will probably require a whole 'nother long conversation, if that is something you are interested in getting into.

If you believe the fact that just gayness alone, which forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds that way, is harmful on its own, then I must disagree.

It's my own personal philosophy that children shouldn't even be bothered with the more intimate details of sex until they begin to hit puberty. But simply being around it-well most kids won't even bother to question the more intimate details, and will simply think of it as another adult matter.

For an example of what I mean, I was exposed to simple drugs growing up, such as weed, alcohol, cigarettes. And I heard the word sex once Ina while or heard the adults talking about certain body parts when they thought I was out of earshot, but these things never phased me. I was simply taught that those were "things grown ups did" and was left with a simple promise that I could explore those things further when I was older, and then my parents used that certain tone of voice that let me know that the subject wouldn't be discussed any further.

Those things, in my child mind, I categorized as "adult things", like how paying bills and getting out of debt were "adult things".

It was never a necessity to worry about them, so I didn't until I became a teenager.

So, along with deciding if it is right to allow children around this type of stuff, I would argue (or rather try to persuade) people to learn more about the psychology of children. Learn how children learn and process the world, and at what stages, and then once you know this, then I would ask you to propose this question to yourself, because then you will have a better idea of howthis type of stuff will likely effect a child, and if it is worth worrying about.


Well, the concept of marriage, in and of itself, does not have to involve discussions of the sexual aspect of being married. There are other aspects to it. That's how children's shows are able to safely portray marriage, without ever having to show or even imply that sex is involved. But usually, older viewers assume that it is.


That's true.

Do you think sex in and of itself is a dangerous thing for a child to know about, though?

I think it's more dangerous if they learn about it in the wrong way, or learn in a way that might lead them to take a dangerous action.

Edit: or learn in a way that might


No, that's mostly a gross over generalization of what actually happens at such events.

Add to that that there is nore to the whole LGBT than just sex, there are those who seek marriage and to start families. And well, that obviously involves children.

And of course the primary point of pride was, and still is, visibility, especially for other LGBT youth out there discovering that they are LGBT to know that they are not alone.


File: 1561469917195.png (1.07 MB, 997x603, 997:603, 32C63819-A405-481A-9C5D-CB….png) ImgOps Google

>What if instead of a pride parade, this were a marriage parade involving just straight couples?
I’d have no problem with that, because I can’t see that turning overly sexual or inappropriate, unlike Pride. However if were to become as bad and associate with any of the things in listed in my OP I’d definitely be in favour of putting some kind of age restriction on the event.

>Should children still be banned from it if there is no sexual atmosphere?
No, because the sexual atmosphere was my whole problem with it in the first place. If it wasn’t sexually charged why would I have a problem with it?

Although with that said, given the current state of Pride, I don’t think a completely non-sexual Pride event would possible. You have to redefine the whole event and ban a lot of what makes Pride Pride, which I’d personally be in favour of, but I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon.

>If you believe the fact that just gayness alone, which forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds that way, is harmful on its own, then I must disagree.
I don’t, but I think a lot of the baggage that comes along with the gayness and the LGBT community is not appropriate for kids. I honestly find it hard to think of anything within the LGBT community that is appropriate for kids. That doesn’t mean that the LGBT community is inherently a bad thing, just that it’s not kid friendly.

If you want to teach a kid about LGBT issues, or a kid wants to learn about them because they’re relevant to that kid, or said kid is just curious they are better ways of going about it. Pride isn’t in any way educational, or a good way to expose kids to LGBT people or issues. In my opinion it would be far easier to just talk to them about it.

I’ve honestly not seen a good argument for why kids should be in any way involved in Pride or the LGBT community as a whole until they’re at least 16. You can teach them about LGBT issues at home, and much more effectively at that.

>And of course the primary point of pride was, and still is, visibility, especially for other LGBT youth out there discovering that they are LGBT to know that they are not alone.
That’s actually one of the arguments I’d make against Pride, to be honest.

Most people aren’t explicitly homophobic, or even transphobic to a lesser extent, gay marriage was achieved, LGBT are actually favoured for hiring in some places, because it makes a company seem more diverse and tolerant. Other than a very small set of issues, that for the most aren’t even addressed at Pride LGBT people have gained full equality. All Pride does at this point is perpetuate harmful stereotypes about the LGBT community being overly sexualised, or that gay men are extremely flamboyant, plus the fact that it paints LGBT people as being the outside, the other, the people that want to break society down and establish their own sexual and cultural norms, among other harmful stereotypes.

And of course all of that applies to kids tenfold. Kids are impressionable, and the last thing I want them to do is go to Pride and view that as an accurate representation of the LGBT community. As I said Pride is harmful for the very fact that it perpetuates harmful stereotypes, which kids are extremely susceptible to pick up on and take as fact. I’d rather that kids were properly taught about LGBT issues, than have their heads flooded with all the harmful stereotypes that Pride perpetuates.


File: 1561555214221.png (1.2 MB, 1280x1024, 5:4, pride.png) ImgOps Google

I'm not a big-crowd type of randomly-assigned animal, but seems to me you'd want to ask whether Pride is about sex or romance and gender.  Children are, in all cases I know, permitted a gender and if they happen to get some exposure to romance side-wise, it's benign enough.  You seem to have already answered, though that Pride is generally about sex, and I'm not going to advocate sexualizing children, so I'll go with your most stringent choice: no children (18+).


I've never been to a Pride parade, because I am not LGBT. But from what I've heard and seen of them, the OP does have a point about how sexualized Pride parades tend to be.

Is it a good idea for this to be the face the LGBT community puts out? If the goal is to say "Gay people are just like regular people, not hyper-sexual perverts", then is it a good idea to parade down the street half-naked in leather gimp outfits dry humping each other? Shouldn't the LGBT community put forth a public face that promotes the idea that they aren't like the stereotypes?

I have major doubts that all 6 main cast members of MLP are all LGBT in some way. Although, I cannot prove or disprove this.


In fairness, isn't the 'D' in that 'PRIDE' banner including the straight ally colors?


I'm not aware of any such thing. Could you elaborate?


I may be wrong, but I think that the black and white and shades of grey colors being used in Pride denotes straight people as a part of it.



(I have no idea the context of the penguins, this is just from a quick Google image search)



OP's picture really displays everything we need to know.

Children should not be allowed to join Pride rallies. It encourages pedophilia, like in the example of this picture. It's absolutely disgusting.


I have a question.

Do you think it's fair to judge the entirety of pride from a single picture without knowing the context of the picture?


In some cultures, it is normal for parents to kiss their young children on the lips.  It is not sexual.


A quick peck on the lips I get and while I don't personally like it myself, I think is harmless enough. But I've seen people take it too far and make me question it.
I don't think you can judge that much from that one picture.

Like I was saying above, could have been just a peck on the lips. And I don't see anything else sexually charged in that picture.



It's literally a grown man kissing a child on the mouth.


Look at that picture and tell me that's a quick peck on the lips. No.


It very clearly does not look like a quick peck, and Pride marche always have at best very heavy sexual undertones or at worst open acts of public sexual activity that would get you arrested for public indecency in any other situation.

Ignoring issues like these is why the fringe left-wing groups that want to normalize sickness like pedophilia are slowly but surely becoming mainstream and pushed by political agendas.


I think you might be jumping to conclusions.



And I think you are willfully ignoring the reality that's right in front of you.


>It very clearly does not look like a quick peck,

Well that's a bit of a problem with pictures, they might have caught it at that exact second, or like the other guy was saying-a kiss on the lips in some cultures is acceptable, and they might have held it for the camera.

I don't have a problem agreeing that children shouldn't be allowed to overly sexualized events, but I am not going to take your argument into consideration without some more solid proof of the point you want to get across.

And, considering I have been to a couple pride parades in my home town that were very mundane and had one fenced off booth giving away free condoms, protection,and sex education pamphlets, I would say that, to me at least, it looks like you are basing your argument on the extremes of the spectrum.


The burden of proof is on you, though. If you claim there's this big conspiracy theory, what  evidence to it do you have that isnt conjecture or assumptions?


I've been kissed by my parents lots of times, also when I was a kid. It wasn't a sexual thing, and there's no reason to assume this is.

Innocent until proven guilty, is a standard we tend to abide by for a reason. It's especially pertinent to hold to this standard when you're dealing with a LGBT people. There are many private interests, who would deliberately defame LGBT groups, which makes the likelyhood that you would see LGBT critical content in you day to day life, that much higher, regardless of the actual incidence of problematic LGBT behavior. If you go to 4chan's /pol/ or 8chan's /pol/ this image gets posted multiple times a day, while /pol/ users circlejerk over how right they are, in assuming that all gay people are degenerates and that they're right to lean into their prejudice against them.

This thread was made by someone who's specifically and outspokenly biased against gay presence in society. I'm not just saying that as a matter of speculation, I actually know the person who made this thread. The guy's an ethnonationalist, that used to frequent /pol/. His views are heavily colored by the environment here, which does not present an unbiased or objective view of reality, to put it sort of very lightly. The fact that you're seeing this image which frames gay people in a particularly poor light, is deliberately or non-deliberately, a product of prejudice and cherry picking evidence to suit an agenda. In other words, it's not a good indicator of reality. I encourage you to go watch the actual livestream of the most recent pride, which gives a more objective view of the event, and see how the events actually tend to unfold, instead of getting a very, very biased view of reality fed to you by other people.

If you look into the background of this photo, I think you might also find, the relationship between the actors is less insideous than it seems at first. Or maybe you won't itnerpret it that way, but that's how I see it.

Being convinced all of pride is a debauched breeding ground for pedophilic behavior, because it's been brought to your attention by someone else, that there exists a single image that looks like, but isn't necessearily, something that could happen at such a thing, is actually an example of extreme confirmation bias. If you want to make a case for this, present some actual evidence, preferably collected with solid methodology, that isn't coming from a highly biased source. That should be something that is possible for you to do, if this really is a problem like you now think it is.

>inb4 this turns into a straight gaybashing thread, with people posting more poorly framed /pol/ images without any explanatory context.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]