Overt Displays of BDSM.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Right, so both share the exact same condition...

There's some sort of difference?

[Greenday]

I always considered foreplay between making out and sex. That's why I never considered making out itself to be foreplay.

[BroomJockey]

I'm sorry, you're really going to have to redo that statement, it's just done my head in.... commercials and billboards don't need people to view them to achieve their effects??? Coulda fooled me!

Complete misread. Check that again in context of my other posts. For the couples for whom leashing in public is foreplay, it requires people to see them to have an effect. People around them. Otherwise, it'd be just like doing it at home, and they wouldn't need to do it in public. Commercials and billboards only involve the person watching it. They don't require a third party to view the viewer to have an effect. They don't require a larger audience than the person it's currently engaging.

is there any reason why a pride rally (which often has BDSM members) walking around with similar garb, any different -and thus, any less rude?
<snip>

Prostitutes... I interpret that you don't think their walking around in next to nothing, 'soliciting', and actually wearing clothes designed to, not merely 'entice', but to arouse, is not in any way sexual???? No, sorry, don't buy it at all.

The reason it's less rude at a pride rally is because the people doing it in that case aren't actively preparing to fuck each other as soon as they're out of public sight. Again, it's all the intent.

As for the prostitutes, it's marketing. Like your billboards and commercials, but with a different product. Besides, prostitutes on street corners are illegal, and comparing illegal behaviour to legal-but-rude isn't a correlation one can make in an honest debate without immense amounts of dialogue and materials to back it up. For instance, are you saying that prostitution should be legal? Are you saying that BDSM should be illegal in public? Are you equating potentially immoral behaviour with illegality? How about, instead of raising those questions, we stick to the debate at hand.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I wore a dog collar in high school, a real one. You see the ones made for humans, chafe the neck, so instead of whatever I got from army surplus I think. I got one from the pet store. Yeah, it was weird, but who doesn't do weird crap as a teen.

So anyways, I was going to say I think I wore the collar as a bit of an attack dog statement too, although I thought it was Goth at the time.

I have a real dog collar; bought it from a pet store as a teen. XD I then freaked out everyone there by fastening it round my neck.

As for the "collar and lead is foreplay" well, let's ban all touching in public, and everyone can wear yashmaks. I sometimes kiss my boyf with passion cuz I want to drag him home and have sex. That's foreplay too, so I find it hilarious that I'd be ignored in favour of sending disapproving looks towards the girl dragging her boyf around on a lead.

[violetyoshi]

The reason it's less rude at a pride rally is because the people doing it in that case aren't actively preparing to fuck each other as soon as they're out of public sight. Again, it's all the intent.

How do you know that?

[BroomJockey]

How do you know that?

You're right. I don't. Except that those rallies tend to last for hours, and are often high-energy and exhausting, and most people don't go "oops, rally's over, done my duty, fuck y'all, I'm going home for hot, steamy sex." Further to that, rallies like that are basically "sexuality on display," and publicized well in advance, so even if they ARE the people I'm considering rude, most places, if you're adverse to the display, you can plan a route around for that day. A random couple walking around is a lot harder to avoid, unless they plan on posting their itinerary a few days in advance.

[telecom_goddess]

All right I gotta add my two cents here. I am in the BDSM lifestyle...and am a slave with a Master. To that end I wear an eternity collar, two eternity bracelets on my wrists, and two eternity bracelets on my ankles, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Should I not be allowed out in public for such a flagrant display of my life style? These items have NOTHING to do with sex, and if I wore my leash in public it would have nothing to do with sex, it has to do with domination, and lifestyle practices.

I have a leash that has been worn in the house and really hasn't been worn outside so far, but one of these days it might be worn out in public, and people are going to have to deal with it.

ugh...

[BroomJockey]

These items have NOTHING to do with sex, and if I wore my leash in public it would have nothing to do with sex, it has to do with domination, and lifestyle practices.

Then you're exactly the type of person I'm not talking about.

[telecom_goddess]

Then you're exactly the type of person I'm not talking about.

That's what I figured I was talking more in the general sense of public display, not what you were saying specifically

I just think in general I am going to display what I display out in the world and that's the way it is

[Flyndaran]

...
I just think in general I am going to display what I display out in the world and that's the way it is

Right on sister. I even don't have any bias against public nudity, except from a hygiene issue. There are a lot of clothed people I don't want to get too near. The idea of them naked just grosses me out more.

[telecom_goddess]

Right on sister. I even don't have any bias against public nudity, except from a hygiene issue. There are a lot of clothed people I don't want to get too near. The idea of them naked just grosses me out more.

I hear ya on that one!!!!

The difference is that the collar and lead is the lead denotes ownership and is a clear indication of the dominant/subserviant relationship, whereas just the collar does not.

I know this is back a way in the thread but it BUGS me. I beg to differ but "just the collar" DOES indicate the dominant/submissive relationship and his ownership of me. I don't wear a leash in public, at least not yet, but I do wear an eternity collar every day, along with eternity bracelets on my wrists and ankles.

It's the collar the defines the relationship not the lead.

[BroomJockey]

It's the collar the defines the relationship not the lead.

And would you let anyone else hold the lead besides your SO? The lead denotes that two specific people are paired, since I don't know anyone who just lets anyone hold it. Without the lead, you can't just assume two people are together. With it, you can. I believe *that* is what he meant by "clear indication."

[telecom_goddess]

And would you let anyone else hold the lead besides your SO? The lead denotes that two specific people are paired, since I don't know anyone who just lets anyone hold it. Without the lead, you can't just assume two people are together. With it, you can. I believe *that* is what he meant by "clear indication."

No no one else would hold the lead....that issue would never even come to pass. There is just so much meaning behind the collar you know?

[anriana]

I hear ya on that one!!!!


I know this is back a way in the thread but it BUGS me. I beg to differ but "just the collar" DOES indicate the dominant/submissive relationship and his ownership of me. I don't wear a leash in public, at least not yet, but I do wear an eternity collar every day, along with eternity bracelets on my wrists and ankles.

It's the collar the defines the relationship not the lead.

I've always heard collars compared to wedding rings. Yeah, they indicate sexuality, but they aren't sexual acts (at least, not long-term collars worn to indicate a relationship). There's nothing rude about defining a relationship. What's rude is doing actual sex acts in public.

[Slytovhand]

Complete misread.

Yep, you're right, my bad.. complete misread!

For the couples for whom leashing in public is foreplay, it requires people to see them to have an effect. People around them. Otherwise, it'd be just like doing it at home, and they wouldn't need to do it in public.

Compared to:

These items have NOTHING to do with sex, and if I wore my leash in public it would have nothing to do with sex, it has to do with domination, and lifestyle practices.

Precisely! Some people will see some things as 'sexual', others will see it as a 'lifestyle choice'. Just wearing a leash in public does not equate to foreplay for everyone! And that's where I think this debate has gone... some will see something only 1 way, and not consider it to be any other. Does slavery/domination require other people to observe (and, at times, participate??) No! (yes, I do know a few, thank you).

The reason it's less rude at a pride rally is because the people doing it in that case aren't actively preparing to fuck each other as soon as they're out of public sight. Again, it's all the intent.

Debatable point.. which has already been done...

As for the prostitutes, For instance, are you saying that prostitution should be legal? Are you saying that BDSM should be illegal in public? Are you equating potentially immoral behaviour with illegality? How about, instead of raising those questions, we stick to the debate at hand.

Ah, depends on where you are if it's illegal or not... hence why I feel I can make a simple comparison. Besides, we aren't discussing legalities, we're discussing moralities.. the legals should be fairly irrelevant. But...let's alter it slightly anyway... even if the sex isn't paid for, there are certainly people who will choose to dress in such a way as to be an advertisement for sex anyway, and it's quite obvious that's what they're doing... going out for a pick up. The dress standard is simply the appetizer... is this a significant difference to the leash situation?

Flirting is a form of foreplay, should this be kept out of the public arena as well? Going out to a bar and buying a drink for someone as a precursor to ending up in bed?? Is that bad as well???

I'm sure some will see massive differences between these and leading someone around on a leash... that's those people. There are others who won't... so - who's right? And thus, who gets to make a definitive claim such that a 'banning' should be brought about (in this case, asking someone to leave a shop, as in the OP).