A few days ago I skeeted that Jesus would support kink at Pride and I got a lot of confusion, which I don't understand it seems pretty clear to me. But ok, let me quickly convince you.

First, what is kink at Pride? Well it refers to a debate of whether visible displays of kink — leather, BDSM, some furries, etc. — should be allowed at Pride celebrations. It's a question of respectability politics, if Pride is political, and about whether Pride should be family-friendly.

I think the answer to this is pretty obvious. There should be family-friendly events without displays of sexuality, and events with displays of sexuality, including kink. The struggle for kink is heavily politically and historically linked to the struggle for queer liberation. We shouldn't have to act respectable to conservatives — that's the antithesis of the concept of pride. I do think that it is valuable to have some events where younger queer people can be integrated into a community, and having displays of sexuality there will detract from that message. But there should also be 18+ events, and those events should have kink.

But why would Jesus support kink at Pride? I have two reasons. Number one: Jesus was down with the prostitutes and the adulterers. He let a prostitute wash his feet, he saved an adulterer from being hit with some rocks. He allowed the corrupt in his presence, and who is more corrupt than the kinky? That's, like, their thing.

The second reason is one you might not be ready to hear: Jesus was kinky. There are heavy BDSM undertones in the New Testament. “Turn the other cheek” — what kind of cheek, Jesus? Washing people's feet — foot fetish. Telling the disciples to eat his flesh and blood — Armie Hammer who? And the crucifixion — what's more kinky than the crucifixion? He was literally stripped naked and bound and flogged; granted it wasn't exactly consensual but I mean if we take the Bible as like fiction the subtext is there. Jesus was a sub, and this is canon.