gonna blow up the whole kink-at-pride discourse game rn so listen up:

keeping all expressions of sexuality behind closed doors creates the best possible environment for grooming and otherwise manipulating children.

thread below

first: "no kink at pride" is the argument that expressions of sexuality (in some cases as basic as "wearing leather") should be kept private or else they will traumatize children. in this thread ill show that greater danger comes from keeping sexuality OUT of the public eye

so, in most every aspect, society doesnt really consider you a person until youre an adult, and withholds a lot of basic human respect and rights (voting, self-determination, freedom of movement, etc.) until then. "no kink at pride" means withholding lots of info about sex, too.

but sexuality forms naturally, even without outside info, and it happens well before adulthood. "no kink at pride" means denying that this sexuality can exist, insisting that any hint of it can only be a source of pain to a person under 18, and having any example of it repressed

so, "no kink at pride" calls for kids with absolutely no exposure to the concept of sex. and to make sure it stays that way, it means making any kind of openness about sex as morally heinous as child molestation (by calling them both pedophilia) and equally worthy of social exile

so, what does all that mean to a groomer? "only adults can know about sex" means they can make a kid feel respected and adult through sex. "deny the existence of sexuality before 18" means they can endear themself by validating the feelings everyone else tries to repress.

"sexual expression is as bad as molestation" means showing a kid that expression should be ok (not hard) will suggest they should be ok w/ molestation too. "both are the highest crime" means the kid thinking telling anyone about the groomer will get them both in too much trouble.

and all that is ON TOP OF the already huge power and respectability imbalance caused by how we treat kids as subhuman. the environment couldn't be any better for an abuser to control a kid; this is exactly what both prudish leftists AND alt-righters saying "no kink at pride" want

this isnt an intentional consipracy: its just that both sides fundamentally believe that control=safety, and bad outcomes can be blamed on deviance from their definition of normal. in reality, control mostly means getting away with abuse (sexual or otherwise) of the controlled.

So, what would ACTUALLY keep kids safe? like with any abuser, the answer is to help the victim recognize abuse, physically escape, and fulfill their needs in a safe way.

showing kids the respect and validation that adults get means they wont rely on a groomer to fulfill that need, giving kids more power of self-determination means theyll be more able to seek help/escape, and effective sex ed would help kids realize when someone's love hurts

and most of that is structural problems that are going to take a lot more than twittering to fix, but at the very least, you can help make sure people (kids included) can see that healthy, fulfilling sexuality is NORMAL, with all its kinks and variations