Overt Displays of BDSM.

[Slytovhand]

eople keep telling me "If you don't want to be stared at, don't dress that way" or "If you don't want guys staring at your boobs, don't wear such tight shirts!" or "If you don't want guys thinking you're easy, don't dance that way with your friends!"

Umm... so, you don't dress that way? Or you don't dance like that??? Because, from the way you wrote that, it sounds like you do... and it also reads like you have a problem with people staring.... Which side are you arguing for?


Besides - acting or looking 'funny' is merely a matter of perspective. Think about any fashion statement... bikinis, for example. Actually, virtually any skin between waist, ankle and neck was so taboo on the beaches.. now???

[AFPheonix]

***



Not to mention the person in the OP in CS ... they should be asked to leave.

So... it's rude... people shouldn't do it.... people should refrain from such things in public, and it's ok to have people removed from any environment in which they are doing/wearing such garb, and it's ok to get them to stop... but that's not 'banning' it... ok, sure, it's not saying it should be illegal, but I haven't seen more slick since an oilspill... That's one hell of a fine line you've got going there. Strawman? Not even remotely close... go back and look at history. That's how 'illegal' comes into place! As per Flyn's QFT!

Hardly. Nose-picking in public and then eating the goods is considered pretty darn rude, and that's not codified into law.

[blas87]

I was just using things that I hear all the time to back up the whole getting upset about people staring or gawking or making comments about a couple on a leash thing.

Deep down, I know if I dressed a little more modestly or conservatively (on the weekends) I wouldn't be stared at as much.........it still irks me when people stare when I'm wearing a plain tshirt and jeans and I look like a girl who spent 12 hours in a factory and I'm being gawked at like a summer sausage.

But the point still remains.....it's odd to see someone being led around on a leash. And people are going to stare. Some people are going to be vocal about it. And the couple shouldn't expect to be treated like any other normal person in public when they are acting like goofballs.

If my boyfriend and I went to the mall and I threw a rubber ball and made him fetch it and then go "woof woof" at me, people would probably stare and have a few comments as well. We would be out of line throwing a tantrum over being thought of as weirdos.

[Slytovhand]

And the couple shouldn't expect to be treated like any other normal person in public when they are acting like goofballs.

Umm... why not? (of course, I'm interpreting 'treated' as 'given same rights' in this context, ie - if you wouldn't ask someone to stop being normal, why would ask someone to stop 'acting like goofballs'? - presuming there is no harm/hurt/interruption to any others).

Stare? Fine. Have a few comments? Fine. Asked to be removed?? Not fine! Throwing a tantrum for being asked to leave because of it, perfectly understandable (I again go back to Smiley's thread about the gay couple).

Hardly. Nose-picking in public and then eating the goods is considered pretty darn rude, and that's not codified into law.

No, it's not. Shaming people who do that has made it relatively unnecessary. Besides, most things that are merely 'rude' (and I should stress the 'merely'), have no direct affect on other people... if someone is doing the nose-pick - are they asked to leave, or desist with threat of being removed from the area (as per CS OP)

[AFPheonix]

No, it's not. Shaming people who do that has made it relatively unnecessary. Besides, most things that are merely 'rude' (and I should stress the 'merely'), have no direct affect on other people... if someone is doing the nose-pick - are they asked to leave, or desist with threat of being removed from the area (as per CS OP)

I suspect they'd be asked to leave if they were pretty obviously picking their nose and then spreading the joy on books right in front of workers. Still not illegal to pick your nose or to toss someone out of a business who's being disruptive.

[Slytovhand]

....then spreading the joy on books ...

Ah! Now they've crossed a line! It is illegal to damage property that's not yours, and I'd say it's reasonable to argue that that is a form of damage... after all, if I spill my tea on a book, that's damaging it - not a hell of a lot of difference. Besides, it could be spreading disease (who knows what's in that nose! So, keep your nose in your own business... )

[Boozy]

So... it's rude... people shouldn't do it.... people should refrain from such things in public, and it's ok to have people removed from any environment in which they are doing/wearing such garb, and it's ok to get them to stop... but that's not 'banning' it... ok, sure, it's not saying it should be illegal, but I haven't seen more slick since an oilspill... That's one hell of a fine line you've got going there. Strawman? Not even remotely close... go back and look at history. That's how 'illegal' comes into place!

What?

The only one making the argument that "rude" necessarily equals "should be illegal" is you.

But then, I take all "slippery slope" arguments with a big-ass grain of salt.

[AFPheonix]

Ah! Now they've crossed a line! It is illegal to damage property that's not yours, and I'd say it's reasonable to argue that that is a form of damage... after all, if I spill my tea on a book, that's damaging it - not a hell of a lot of difference. Besides, it could be spreading disease (who knows what's in that nose! So, keep your nose in your own business... )

Ok, so how about if he just flicks it on the floor? Or generally pesters other customers with his nose picking?

Businesses have the right to toss out rude customers. If a business owner finds a couple who are walking around with a leash to be a bit over the top, it's well within their rights to toss them out, just as he's allowed to get rid of Mr. Nose Goblin.

[Flyndaran]

Ok, so how about if he just flicks it on the floor? Or generally pesters other customers with his nose picking?

Businesses have the right to toss out rude customers. If a business owner finds a couple who are walking around with a leash to be a bit over the top, it's well within their rights to toss them out, just as he's allowed to get rid of Mr. Nose Goblin.

There's a big difference between a legitimate hygienic threat and a purely social construct that makes you feel icky.
I know that I would actively boycott people that kick others out for such things.
I do find it irritating how the U.S. prefers to list the groups you can't harrass instead of just listing the hopefully smaller groups you can.

[BroomJockey]

just listing the hopefully smaller groups you can.

You mean like the Nazis did?

Oh snap, I Godwin'd.

[Slytovhand]

What?

The only one making the argument that "rude" necessarily equals "should be illegal" is you.

But then, I take all "slippery slope" arguments with a big-ass grain of salt.

Oh, I'm not saying rude necessarily equals 'should be illegal', I'm just stating that that's how some things go, and we've got historical examples to back that up... If such things hadn't happened in the past, I probably would scoff as well!

I just think that a person's freedom to express themselves is far more important than someone's choice to feel offended, and get annoyed when people take offense at something - so automatically people 'shouldn't be allowed to do it'.. and then come up with silly reasons to justify it all...

[BroomJockey]

Oh, I'm not saying rude necessarily equals 'should be illegal', I'm just stating that that's how some things go, and we've got historical examples to back that up... If such things hadn't happened in the past, I probably would scoff as well!

Slippery slope + "History dictating future events." Forget the technical name of that one. It's not cause and effect, here. It's not as if there's a causal chain going from "rude" to "illegal."

[anriana]

Oh, I'm not saying rude necessarily equals 'should be illegal', I'm just stating that that's how some things go, and we've got historical examples to back that up... If such things hadn't happened in the past, I probably would scoff as well!

I just think that a person's freedom to express themselves is far more important than someone's choice to feel offended, and get annoyed when people take offense at something - so automatically people 'shouldn't be allowed to do it'.. and then come up with silly reasons to justify it all...

I care more about the legality (and pending illegality) of BDSM than you do. I promise.


One reason I'm opposed to public BDSM is that if people go get their freak on in public there is a chance of crotchety people making it illegal. Hell, videotaping private kink lead to it being declared illegal (see England and Operation Spanner) or prosecuted (Mad Max or whatever his name was and yes ageplay and humiliation and water sports are all BDSM activities)


For all the people who are opposed to my opposition, are you opposed to BDSM meetings who won't allow people doing public displays to come in? As an example, my city has a monthly munch of BDSM players in the basement of a downtown restaurant. There are discussions of BDSM topics, announcements, questions, and general socializing, but no one on a leash and collar or wielding a crop or any other fun things would be allowed in due to the wishes of the kinky leaders of the event.

[Red_Dazes]

The way I see it, is that if you are going to hold a standard like that to one person ((ie leave it in the bedroom/private)) you should hold that standard to everyone. I am not a big fan of PDS (public displays of affection)) whether gay/straight/bi. But it does make me upset to hear people say about one person and not the other. And where do we draw the line? It makes me very uncomfortable to see a guy making out with his girlfriend in the park. Should we say that is bad just cause it makes us uncomfortable? I've seen plenty of people leading their SO around by a leash and collar, and personally that makes me a HELL of a lot less uncomfortable than watching them kiss and grope on a park bench. The rules I have for when things are inappropriate?

-Obvious Sexual displays
-Nudity
-TOO much affection, border lining on bedroom play

If it doesn't fit at least ONE then while uncomfortable, I don't judge as inappropriate.

[anriana]

The way I see it, is that if you are going to hold a standard like that to one person ((ie leave it in the bedroom/private)) you should hold that standard to everyone. I am not a big fan of PDS (public displays of affection)) whether gay/straight/bi. But it does make me upset to hear people say about one person and not the other.

Fine.

I find overt displays of sexuality between two men inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between two women inappropriate in bookstores..
I find over displays of sexuality between a man and a woman inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between animals inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between polyamorous people inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between white people inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between black people inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between asian people inappropriate in bookstores.
I find overt displays of sexuality between kinky inappropriate in bookstores.

I don't want to offend anyone by talking about a specific situation!