Overt Displays of BDSM.

[anriana]

I remember a thread way back when on CS about a woman in a bookstore leading another woman around on a leash and everyone was in support of it.

And we have Rubystar's recent post about it at Disney World.

SSC (safe, sane, consensual) applies to everyone involved in the act, including bystanders. It's not appropriate to do that or anything like it in a vanilla public. Play party, private munch, kinky nightclub? Sure. Anywhere else? No. I don't care if it's a "family" place like Disney World or the nastiest vanilla nightclub ever, it's inappropriate.

[Boozy]

Phew! And I thought I was the only one.

I remember that CS story, too. I couldn't believe that everyone was okay with it. I have no problems with dom/sub relationships if that's what turns you on. But I am NOT okay with overt and public displays of sexuality. It's rude to force the general public into watching your sex life in action. And just because there's no nudity or groping going on doesn't mean that it's not a sexual act.

[BroomJockey]

And just because there's no nudity or groping going on doesn't mean that it's not a sexual act.

I think it comes down to people don't really realize that it IS a sexual act since there's no nudity etc. And people are afraid of being seen as "intolerant of other lifestyles" that in a case where they're unsure, they err on the side of caution.

I too remember that thread, though not enough to find it, so I don't remember my position in it.

[anriana]

I think it comes down to people don't really realize that it IS a sexual act since there's no nudity etc. And people are afraid of being seen as "intolerant of other lifestyles" that in a case where they're unsure, they err on the side of caution.

I too remember that thread, though not enough to find it, so I don't remember my position in it.

That's exactly it. And I'm not saying if you think "Err... I ... I guess that's okay?" you're a bad person. That's probably the best way to go about it, especially if you aren't too familiar with BDSM.

http://customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=15342. I went back and reread the thread - I'm surprised at all of the BDSMers who do know better and were fine with it.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I remember that. I recall the girls involved wanted to pretend that they didn't care for being stared at, I'f I'm remembering correctly.

Horseshit.

I agree, that's not my business and I don't want it being forced into being my business. That is dragging non-consenting people AND MINORS into your scene. Not cool.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Well if you really don't like it, don't look.

I don't see it as all that different from wearing super tight pants or wonderbras etc. There's a certain line that shouldn't be crossed and up to a certain point businesses can refuse service if they so choose.

People seem to think they have the right not to see anything they don't like anymore, and the 'forcing' of one's sexuality on the public is something stated by anti-gay rights types as a horrible intrusion.

So you have to acknowledge that those people are into that, tough. That's the way the world is. I have the right to express anything and everything including sexual preference of any kind as long as I don't physically endanger anyone.

Some people would be simply aghast at the prospect of a pro gun person being anywhere near them or their children. And maybe it isn't polite of me to declare my love of firearms as loud as I sometimes do but that is my right. A right that deserves the utmost respect because people's rights are more important than anyone's opinions.

So if a couple leads one another around on a leash, or I start toting a 9 everywhere I go, or a gay man carries a pride flag all the time it's nothing less than a constitutionally protected right (here, at least) subject to some restrictions such as:

The BDSM couple can't be naked.

I can't start waving my weapon around and point it at people.

The gay man can't hand out gay porn to children.

So it's not like there aren't limits, because there are. But I think it's important to make sure that nothing is arbitrarily limited more than any one other thing because that would only lead to a large loss in freedom.

[Flyndaran]

..
So if a couple leads one another around on a leash, or I start toting a 9 everywhere I go, or a gay man carries a pride flag all the time it's nothing less than a constitutionally protected right (here, at least) subject to some restrictions such as:

The BDSM couple can't be naked.

I can't start waving my weapon around and point it at people.

The gay man can't hand out gay porn to children.

So it's not like there aren't limits, because there are. But I think it's important to make sure that nothing is arbitrarily limited more than any one other thing because that would only lead to a large loss in freedom.

Couldn't have written it better myself.
Long live our freedom!

[Nyoibo]

I'd say drop the leash in most public places, by all means keep the collar, most people won't know or care what it is, and damn it people, if they're going to be your dog, leave them tied up outside the store, if I have to with my dog, then so do you.

[Flyndaran]

I'd say drop the leash in most public places, by all means keep the collar, most people won't know or care what it is, and damn it people, if they're going to be your dog, leave them tied up outside the store, if I have to with my dog, then so do you.

You do know that they are not dogs, but actual people, right? People get to go where other people get to go.
If men wearing those nooses called ties, then why not a leash?
Big freakin' deal. I don't get to dictate your fashion accessories, do I?
If I did, I might make make-up, perfume, and cologne illegal. I hate their odors.

[Boozy]

So it's not like there aren't limits, because there are. But I think it's important to make sure that nothing is arbitrarily limited more than any one other thing because that would only lead to a large loss in freedom.

This isn't really about freedom. It's not like government agents are preventing people from walking around on leashes. This is about what is considered polite. And apparently, the BDSM community also considers it taboo.

[Nyoibo]

If men wearing those nooses called ties, then why not a leash?

Totally different meaning to what a collar and leash signify/symbolise.

[Skunkle]

I wear a tie at all times, because I like it. I also wear a plain black leather collar, with a tiny padlock hanging from the leash loop, as a symbol that I'm proud to be firmly in a monogamous relationship. I'm actually not into BDSM, though I do have my boyfriend keep me on a leash at gay bars because I think it's fun - and it's a nice way for him to tug me into a kiss. I don't wear the leash elsewhere. I added the padlock to make this symbol clearer, as at some clubs people took the collar to mean "Looking for a master" and would attempt to grab me by the leash loop, and I go to clubs to drink and dance, not cruise for sex.

I don't find that a collar and leash are necessarily sexual. While they do indicate an interest in a specific kind of sexuality, I agree that they're no more a symbol of sex in public than already overt ones such as t-shirts with X-rated slogans (or other things - ever notice how many cars have a sticker of The Shocker* on the bumper now? I chuckle whenever I see that) or clothing such as short shorts, teeny tops with cleavage showing, etc.? Those annoy me but I don't make a stink. Look, if there's no nudity, no deep kissing and groping, no shirt reading "Fuck me raw" or having depictions of, say, sexual positions, etc. just don't freaking pay attention.

*For those who enjoy fussing over sexual symbols appearing in popular culture, look around and you'll see "The Shocker" on lots of car bumpers and windows and on t-shirts. It's a graphic of a hand with the first two and pinky fingers extended. "Two in the pink, one in the stink" or "Two in the goo, one in the poo", as the phrases go, it refers to a rather, well, shocking sexual move (hence the name) where someone fingers a girl, and adds the pinky for a surprising jolt in the rear entrance. Now you know, and can RAEG on anyone you see sporting this quite X-rated syumbol, which yet only holds meaning to those who know the background. To everyone else - like, say, kids - it's just an unknown hand gesture, and could be some band's logo or somesuch.

[Slytovhand]

FTR- I'm not into BDSM (and, apparently, women... oh, hang on.. no, they're not into me... better get that right! )

But, there are lines, and that line wasn't crossed in that scenario. Now, if master was beating on slave in public, then a line is getting crossed...

Everything, everywhere, will offend someone somewhere. So what? Live, and let live...

[DesignFox]

When I was in high school, I wore spiked collars all the time. My friends as a joke got me a dog leash and I let one of them walk me around the hallways in it.

In that case, there was nothing sexual about it. Granted, the whole thing lasted 10 mins. and we didn't go out to stores like that....We were just being silly.

Anyway, I don't think most people (myself included) think of it in sexual terms...but I'm not into the BDSM thing...maybe I don't see it because I'm not "wired" that way?

I agree that certain things about people's sexuality shouldn't be thrown out into other people's faces. It's just inconsiderate. My opinion on the whole thing...well. Depending on the situation, I probably wouldn't think twice. Two teenaged kids? I'd assume they are messing around. An older obvious couple? Well...I'd probably do a double take...

Right or wrong, my reaction would be different in those cases. But I think as long as no one is exposed or going out of their way to draw attention to themselves... I probably wouldn't say anything.

[anriana]

It seems that some people think that because there's no nudity or exposing of genital, it's okay. BDSM is sexual in different ways than vanilla sex is. One doesn't have to have their genitals out to be oversexual in BDSM. Leading someone on a leash is a display of sexual dominance.

I don't think it should be illegal (although the way things are going it probably will be at some point), I just think it's rude.

Oh, and it's not the equivalent of holding a pride flag. The equivalent of that would be holding the BDSM pride flag.