Overt Displays of BDSM.

[BroomJockey]

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).

WHO IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING?!

I'm saying it's rude. Anriana said it's rude. The only people who keep bringing up banning are those who are on the "get the hell over it" side. You're strawmanning hard, here. I've said, multiple times, that even whether it's rude or not depends on intent. Since you can't employ telepathy to determine intent, it'd be impossible to ban. I think that heavy flirting in general public is rude too. And I'm not just talking about "oh, nice shoes, they show off your legs" type talk. Every time you bring up banning, you're creating a strawman argument. It's beneath you. The topic is "Is it rude." Try and stay on the same argument.

[Flyndaran]

Actually there have been a series of linked but separate issues discussed.
Only one involved rudeness. Rudeness does often lead to inappropriateness.
Others talk about it being inappropriate which does imply a legitimate banning or at least often leads to it. Others talk about it being sexual when it doesn't have to be.

[anriana]

Going to quote myself:

No one other than you is talking about banning this. No one thinks this should be made illegal. No one is talking about censoring free speech or ignoring the Constitution or any of those things you are so irrelevantly concerned with. Not one single person on this thread has said that leading someone on a leash should be illegal. Why are you continually bringing up arguments that no one is making?


And unless you are a member of the BDSM community and just haven't bothered adding that point, I promise you that I am more concerned with the legality of kink than you are. Your insinuations about those who oppose this shows an ignorance of the actual BDSM community. As was mentioned in my original post and elsewhere on the first page, public acts of BDSM are considered inappropriate by the BDSMers at large. Is the entire community therefore comparable to anti-gay crusaders? Do we want to ban ourselves?

[BroomJockey]

Only one involved rudeness. Rudeness does often lead to inappropriateness.
Others talk about it being inappropriate which does imply a legitimate banning or at least often leads to it.

That seems like a slippery slope argument, to me. "Something being thought rude leads to being inappropriate, inappropriate leads to banning."

However, even allowing for that, are we talking about a legal banning, aka making it illegal, or just society frowning on it in general to the point no one is willing to do it. Because while society's becoming more accepting of "non-standard" sexual practices, I've not seen it become more accepting of practicing those sexual behaviors in public. If anything, it's become less so, as evidenced by the sex offender's registry's use.

[Flyndaran]

That seems like a slippery slope argument, to me. "Something being thought rude leads to being inappropriate, inappropriate leads to banning."

However, even allowing for that, are we talking about a legal banning, aka making it illegal, or just society frowning on it in general to the point no one is willing to do it. Because while society's becoming more accepting of "non-standard" sexual practices, I've not seen it become more accepting of practicing those sexual behaviors in public. If anything, it's become less so, as evidenced by the sex offender's registry's use.

I prefer to think that it's more of a last gasp from the bigoted getting their way more than a legitimate thought.
The sex offender's registry is so wrong on so many levels as to hope that it's not reminiscent of things to come regarding our civil liberties.

Slippery slope, but that doesn't automatically make it untrue. Social mores too often become laws to ignore the potential. But since we can't make tolerance a legal requirement, then I guess that we will have to abide those considering harmless acts rude. As long as it's mentioned somewhere that it is just an unenforceable politeness issue, then I'm ok with it.

[BroomJockey]

As long as it's mentioned somewhere that it is just an unenforceable politeness issue, then I'm ok with it.

Hey, it might be unenforcible, but it's my inherent right as a human to bitch about people being rude! It's what society was founded on!

[Flyndaran]

Hey, it might be unenforcible, but it's my inherent right as a human to bitch about people being rude! It's what society was founded on!

I agree. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted everyone. I just bet that I only misinterpreted most.

[BroomJockey]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted everyone.

Eh, no worse than anyone else saying "you can't ban it."

[Slytovhand]

It's not appropriate to do that or anything like it in a vanilla public.

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.

That is dragging non-consenting people AND MINORS into your scene. Not cool.

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.

***

They're rude, they should keep it out of public.

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

Social mores too often become laws to ignore the potential.

QFT!

It's only when people actually stop and say 'no, that's not a problem' that the slide stops slipping.

So, let me ask those 'nay-sayers' who think it's rude... if it's not about freedom of expression or 'rights', then I would presume that you would denounce any attempt at 'banning' this if an enforcement came into place? Much like the kiss on the cheek in Smiley's thread in Utah - and being asked to leave the area (and then arrested for tresspass). Would you be outraged? Or would you think it's ok for security (or store personnel) to remove someone from an area 'because it's rude'?

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).

WHO IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING?!

Nice misread. a) I put 'banning' in the quote marks for a good reason! And that reason is in b) the brackets... asking someone to leave is effectively the same as banning someone from a place while they continue to do such a thing. Or do you disagree with that point?

Asking someone to desist from doing something in a particular area - and enforcing it with 'if you don't, then you'll have to leave' is a ban. Plain and simple!

Yes, I get that some people think it's rude. That's fine. I get it. But just because some people think some things are rude doesn't mean that other people should have to stop. And that's what the CS OP was about, which lead to this thread.. So, just because someone thinks it's rude, should someone have 'right' to ask them to stop?? Or, should each be allowed to behave as they choose, and 'rudeness' be damned?

I've said, multiple times, that even whether it's rude or not depends on intent.

So... You'll decide whether you'll take offence...when?


*** - No, Anriana, I'm not taking you out of context, just pointing out that 'illegal' was mentioned earlier as a possible way that this could go, and thus, it's fair to argue why it shouldn't be illegal. It's basically saying "I don't think it should be, but others might... so I'll pre-empt those arguments now".

[Nyoibo]

That seems like a slippery slope argument, to me. "Something being thought rude leads to being inappropriate, inappropriate leads to banning."

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side, the dark side leads to cookies.

[Slytovhand]

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side, the dark side leads to cookies.

Cookies leads to new web-browsers, which leads to new OP's, which leads to new bugs in Windows...which leads to anger...

[blas87]

In all honesty, if I saw a couple doing the leash thing, I'd probably mutter to myself "Fucking freakshows" as I walked past them.

Flame me all you want.

If you don't want negative attention or stares or people to think you're weird, don't fucking act weird.

People 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!"

It's the same as talking to yourself and other random weird things. If you don't want people to think you're weird, then don't act weird.

And if you really, truly, honestly don't care about what people think about you, then why bitch and whine about the stares you get?

I'm not some uptight uber Christian right wing bag of nuts, but I will say....if people act or look funny, such as leading someone else around on a leash like a damn dog, they WILL be thought of as weird in my book, and that's just that.

[BroomJockey]

Flame me all you want.

Despite laxer rules, flaming IS still against them, so you're not allowed to give people permission to do that

Seriously, though, while I may not agree with that position, it's your thoughts, and there's seemingly no real bias/malice behind them besides a distaste for the "Other" . *shrug*

[the_std]

Okay blas, but do you think of them as weird with a negative connotation, or just neutrally odd?

[blas87]

Just odd, like a woman with an overly large hat wearing a mumu, or a guy wandering around a store flaring his arms and talking to himself.