Queer Word
Posts
🏳️‍🌈 No kink at Pride: the debate that seemingly won't die 🏳️‍🌈

🏳️‍🌈 No kink at Pride: the debate that seemingly won't die 🏳️‍🌈

Unpacking all of the arguments so you don't have to

K Anderson
June 20, 2025

QUEER WORD
NO KINK AT PRIDE

What it means:

No kink at Pride is shorthand for a sentiment that rears its head almost every June, calling for the exclusion of kink, BDSM, leather, and fetish gear from Pride events. The argument goes that these expressions are too sexual, too adult, or just too extreme for public spaces - especially ones where children might be present.

Let’s use it in a sentence:

And just like that, Francesca realised that arguing about no kink at Pride had, in fact, become her kink.

But, hang on, is this even a real debate? Or just manufactured outrage?

Not to sound all tin-hat conspiracy theorist on you, but I’m increasingly convinced that the whole no kink at Pride debate isn’t actually… well… real.

Don’t get me wrong. I know that people have opinions - strong ones, even - on both sides. But, the more I dig in to it, the more it feels like just another manufactured culture war, nestled comfortably alongside familiar hits like 'drag isn’t for kids' and 'trans people don’t belong in public bathrooms.'

These are the kind of issues that no one was really all that fussed about until some well-funded, shady (and usually heavily religious) organisations decided to make them problems. They pour money into divisive hate campaigns designed to keep us squabbling amongst ourselves, while the real threats barrel on unchecked.

So, what even is this supposed debate?

Ok, ok - let me take my tin-hat off and go back a few steps.

Since around the late 2010s, Pride season has become littered with a cacophony of opinions about what Pride should or shouldn’t be.

These arguments usually frame Pride as something that needs to be ‘family friendly,’ insisting that kink - leather harnesses, pups, rubber onesies - is somehow a perversion of the event’s original purpose.

So, just in case this delightful discourse lands on your social media feed (or, gasp, happens out in the real world), I've pulled together all the arguments, counter-arguments, and spectacularly creative misinformation floating around. So now you’ll be ready for any argument that might come your way.

No kink at Pride? The argument, broken down

theme	the argument	the counter-argument
Family friendliness	Pride should be a safe and appropriate place for all ages, including children. Sexualised imagery may alienate parents, families and more modest attendees.	Children aren’t actually harmed by seeing someone in leather. It’s no different than spotting a showgirl costume or a shirtless dancer. What matters is context.
Consent and public decency	Public kink displays force others into a sexual context without their consent. Attendees at Pride events didn’t sign up to be ‘unwilling voyeurs’	Seeing someone in a harness is not the same as participating in their sex life. They are not having sex in front of you, just existing. (also, worth pointing out that this argument is suspiciously similar to past homophobic rants about queer public affection)
	Claims of witnessing sexual acts first-hand (these claims usually also emphasise that there were children present at the time).	Pride parades happen on public streets and in city parks, following the same standards of public decency as every other public event. No organiser would risk their celebration being cancelled over something blatantly illegal. It's just not happening.
Identity vs behaviour	Pride should focus on inherent identities (like being bisexual or being trans), not sexual preferences like BDSM or other kinks.	For many people, kink is a core part of their queer identity and how they came to understand themselves. Kink communities have been safe havens for marginalised LGBTQ+ folks for decades. The line between identity and behaviour is fuzzier than critics claim.
Respectability politics	If we tone down the kink it will help to counter harmful stereotypes and makes Pride more ‘palatable’ to mainstream audiences.	Policing queer expression for straight approval is a slippery, slippery assimilationist slope. Pride began as a protest against social norms - why should it kowtow to heteronormative comfort now?
Internal inclusivity	Kink at Pride can make some folks - asexual people, conservatives, trauma survivors - feel excluded or uncomfortable.	The solution to preventing some people from potentially feeling excluded is not to... exclude others. Pride should make space for all queer expressions, not just the ones deemed ‘respectable.’
Historical context	Some don’t appreciate the historical context, seeing kink as a recent, attention-seeking addition to Pride rather than part of its authentic roots.	Kink, leather, and BDSM communities have been at Pride since the very, very beginning. They were part of the movement from Stonewall onwards, and erasing them is historical revisionism masquerading as moral concern.
Harm reduction and education	Kids shouldn’t be exposed to adult themes they might not understand.	Kink at Pride can model consent, boundaries, and bodily autonomy. Shielding kids entirely reinforces shame—honest, age-appropriate conversations foster understanding.
Media representation	Sexualised images give bigots ammunition. Pride should highlight unity and love, not floggers and gimp masks	Sanitising Pride for media optics erases queerness. And, to be totally honest, bigots are going to find ammunition no matter what. Why censor ourselves to appease people who hate us anyway?

Right then, rant over…

So there you have it. Admittedly, this barely scratches the surface of a pretty prickly subject, but hopefully it’s enough to arm you for the next time you’re feeling brave enough to argue with strangers in the comments section.

I think it’s fairly clear what side of the debate I come down on. But, that doesn’t mean I think it’s an open-and-shut case. Pride raises big, messy questions: like, how do we create space that’s joyful and safe for everyone? How do we celebrate every nook and cranny of our community without selling anyone out? And, just exactly what should Pride look like in the 21st century?

That said, I can’t ignore that some of these ‘debates’ aren’t really debates at all—they’re bad-faith distractions, driven by misinformation and designed to divide us. So, how do we know which conversations to engage with and which ones to shut down entirely?

This is messy, complicated territory, and I'm genuinely curious where you land on it all. So, answer the poll below, or just hit reply and let me know.