RE: Public undressing of sub females (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

Domspaintoy -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 6:03:28 AM)

i have to admit ive only read some of the posts on here, but i would far rather see a couple happy, having fun, giggling, enjoying each other and to use the american term 'petting' than watching them kicking 10 bells of shit out of each other. Regarding kids observing again id rather my 3 see them enjoying themselves than the alternative.

i can see the arguements from all sides, but whats that old saying? 'make love not war?' well just tell the kids they happy and having fun and its rude to stare. If it really became downright dirty and obscene then thats the time to step in and call the police.

just my two-penn'orth worth.

Dpt. [:D]




susie -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 6:37:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421
snipped due to lenght

Yes, I'm sure you are a sensible person and took precautions. You might tell me you were absolutely certain you were out of site of others who did not want to see anything.
But as I repeatedly detailed in my posts, so did this couple in the park! 
I also repeatedly stated there were no children in the area during the 20 minute or so ordeal.



I find this an interesting comment. You say that the couple involved made certain that they were out of site of others. Yet you were able to plainly see what was going on, and as you stated you watched for 20 minutes. So obviously they were not that careful or they were not at all worried about who saw them.

You have stated a number of times that children were not in the area at the time but for me that is not what some people are trying to get at. The point you miss is that this supposed act took place in a public place on a holiday weekend. It is not just children that are the concern. I know if my elderly parents were to view something like that they too would be upset.

When did discretion become such a bad thing? 



rascallymisty -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 7:16:26 AM)

Okay just a question here, when did the guy become a SEX OFFENDER???...... Last I read it was a couple just fooling around. I am just wondering if I missed a post that said this was a sex offender doing this.
 
~misty~



ron2421 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 9:48:21 AM)

 SmilingJaguar said: He asked a question but didn't like all of the answers he got and has been throwing a tantrum since. Oh well."

That was a completely uncalled for and unfair comment. Someone cannot stand up for a position without "throwing a tantrum?"
We sure must have a lot of people in Congress, in City Hall, or running for president throwing a tantrum (sarcasm).

Why do you even bother posting here if the best you can do to attempt to substantiate your claims is to unfairly insult others?



OsideGirl -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 10:25:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rascallymisty

Okay just a question here, when did the guy become a SEX OFFENDER???...... Last I read it was a couple just fooling around. I am just wondering if I missed a post that said this was a sex offender doing this.
 
~misty~


In California, it would qualify you for the Sex Offender's list if it was observed by a minor.

California Meghan's Law states that "Public Nudity" and "Assisting in Public Nudity" are considered Sex Offenses. What is considered public nudity in CA is quite liberal. A guy peeing by the side of the road qualifies.



ron2421 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 10:58:09 AM)

OsideGirl.
The subject of this thread was intended to be: voyeurism, public kink, consensual public petting and brief light stripping with no private parts exposed and with precautions taken.
Extrapolating this activity to sexual offenders, Meghan's Law* or Pedophilia is like trying to extrapolate consensual spanking and whipping to physical abuse and violence.
Don't give me that legal stuff either. It may depend on your specific region, but I know the state laws again in the area relevant to the activity spearheading this discussion and many areas don't distinguish between sadomasochism of any kind or degree and public petting over clothes.

*I may research this later on whether the brief exposure of underwear with no private parts exposed between consenting adults would really be in violation specifically of "nudity" clauses under Meghan's Law in California. I have my doubts.
Based on some of these responses, the California police better be over at the Folsom Street Fair in San Franscisco where I understand women walk around freely, almost naked, at the end of their Dom's leash. (Explain this one to your kids).
Oh, I forgot, such nudity and activity would be perfectly okay with some parents as long as it does not involve any display of consensual public affection or "foreplay."



MistressSassy66 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 11:18:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

It was me that said that I don't worry about pedophiles around my children........... because I don't assume that they lurk around every corner. I go to the park to have a couple of hours of messing around, I don't have a plan in place for all the pedophiles that *might* be there. Good Lord!.
The biggest risk in a park is NOT a pedophile.

I also don't *worry* that  someone with a knife is waiting to yank my rucksack from my back and stab me. Reasonable awareness, not abject fear is how I operate. If I sincerely *worried* about that type of thing I'd never leave the fucking house.

I don't watch my children *like a hawk* ......my ear is cocked in their direction. I am not going to get hot under the collar about the sproggies catching sight of a *groping couple*. It's not going to damage them.....they know people have sex, they know what sex is.

The next thing I'll be told is that it's *awful* that sprogs of 15yrs and 13 yrs understand what bdsm means to people and know what M/s is, and may encorporate.

agirl






I have to disagree with there being no harm in it for UM's..
That may be true for yours but not all people are open about sex.
Seeing the groping and bra could be enough for a kid to have
a misconception of a right time and place.
Are parents to move their blanket to another spot because of lewd behavior?




Well, you're right there; It would be true for mine and yes, I'm very open about sex

I suppose that catching sight of a drunk staggering around the streets, seeing someone spitting,  rowing loudly or swearing is going to lead them to think it's also fine to do all the time or anywhere. That's laughable.

And yes, I would move to another spot if it bothered me that much, just as I would move away from a rowing couple. Perhaps I'm strange but I have a bigger problem with people being horrid and aggressive around the sprogs than catching a glimpse of a couple being a *bit naughty but nice* to each other.

And as was mentioned by the OP.........it would have been a *glimpse*..........

 As an example, they stopped a few times when people walked on the trail near to the bench. And the "flashing" part occurred when no one was on the trail close to them. Accessibility and visibility to the area was extremely limited due to fencing and the trail through the brush.

The idea of *sex offenders* and *calling the cops* for the rather boring, fairly discreet bit of groping that was described, strikes me as a little hysterical.

agirl










Call Me old fashioned to expect to be able to take UM's out and not have to move because some people dont have the respect for other people.I'll be darned if I move My kids its like saying just ignore illegal behavior,I dont like that message.

How I act at home is totally different than when I am in a public place.
I keep the swearing in check and have respect for other people,like saying pardon Me instead of just pushing people out of the way.
I guess the heart of this issue for Me is that
Respect has gone out the window...everyone talks about people having to earn respect...whatever happened to common courtesy to have respect that perhaps others dont want to see your underclothing.

When did 20 minutes turn into a glimpse?

Has the right time and place for private activities become a thing of the past?



MistressSassy66 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 11:31:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

OsideGirl.
The subject of this thread was intended to be: voyeurism, public kink, consensual public petting and brief light stripping with no private parts exposed and with precautions taken.
Extrapolating this activity to sexual offenders, Meghan's Law* or Pedophilia is like trying to extrapolate consensual spanking and whipping to physical abuse and violence.
Don't give me that legal stuff either. It may depend on your specific region, but I know the state laws again in the area relevant to the activity spearheading this discussion and many areas don't distinguish between sadomasochism of any kind or degree and public petting over clothes.

*I may research this later on whether the brief exposure of underwear with no private parts exposed between consenting adults would really be in violation specifically of "nudity" clauses under Meghan's Law in California. I have my doubts.
Based on some of these responses, the California police better be over at the Folsom Street Fair in San Franscisco where I understand women walk around freely, almost naked, at the end of their Dom's leash. (Explain this one to your kids).
Oh, I forgot, such nudity and activity would be perfectly okay with some parents as long as it does not involve any display of consensual public affection or "foreplay."



Hello...anyone going to a Festival of that nature expects to see outrages
clothing or no clothing.
The point is they made the choice to view it by attending.

A park over Memorial Day is completely different.

I plan on going to the local PRIDE festival and wearing something Domly.
Something appropriate for the theme.People dressed wearing a collar is still different than foreplay on a bench.
Anyone attending the parade is expecting to see Cross Dressing, The Leather Group etc.
Every festival I have ever gone to people behaved ,knowing UM's will be around.
**Again its the there is a Time and Place for everything.**



rascallymisty -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 12:53:33 PM)

~Just smiles~ 
 
I am glad You are the one that started this thread Ron as my Master and I had been talking about starting one very much like it. The problem is he does not get invovled in the forums and I was gonna be the one handling it.... I have to tell you You are handling it a whole lot better than I would have.
 
If someone said.......If a ums was present I would feel, or In Ca the law would make this a sex offence.... instead of making it sound like ums where or could be there, when you have said many times they where not and it was NY not CA. I would then be thanking them for the added information and their views. Any information that can help my learning I am always up for, when its done in a good way. With that said........OsideGirl thank You for that added information, it is nice to know and if I ever move to Ca I will now beware of such a law and so would my Master.
 
~misty~



Wildnfreehrt2004 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 12:55:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

Obviously something about the humiliation for the sub makes this a total turn on for me as a Dom to either witness or actually practice," implying it was humilation, which is what DV was responding to."

Yeah, but it was my perception she was humiliated. But the reality was she was also (or simply was) seeming to have fun.
Last I heard, some subs enjoy non-mean-spirited, humiliation like what has occurred here.

Again, everyone is making such a big deal over this as if this guy was guilty of rape or something.

What about the point I brought up earlier? Isn't public sex and flashing/exhibitionism of actual body parts, things in which I don't condone, really significantly more dangerous and potentially harmful to unsuspecting eyes and kids than what has occurred here? And no kids were even close by and had they arrived due to the very limited visibility and access to the area, I'm sure the couple would have stopped based on what I had described earlier.




But this couple was observed, and you noted that no one else at your party seemed interested in looking.... thus the couple was in plain view and not so limited visibility. You don't mention whether UM's were present in your party that wasn't paying attention to the couple.
(apologies if this was already brought up in the thread).
Wildy



agirl -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 1:24:36 PM)

I just have a different outlook. A happy, groping pair of lovers simply don't bother me. It's small stuff.

I AM content to ignore certain illegal behaviour, considering that I take part in a fair amount of it myself.

agirl





SlyStone -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 2:30:06 PM)

In California, it would qualify you for the Sex Offender's list if it was observed by a minor.

California Meghan's Law states that "Public Nudity" and "Assisting in Public Nudity" are considered Sex Offenses. What is considered public nudity in CA is quite liberal. A guy peeing by the side of the road qualifies.



We have no idea what was going through the head(s) of this couple in the example. Were they trying to expose themselves to minors and innocent people or were they enjoying a spontaneos moment of sexual play?  It is interesting that some here assume the worst and others assume the best, does that say something of our view of the world? I don't know. I do know that I have seen more going on in restaurants and public streets than the scene described.

Apparently there is a  movement to change the Meghan law's interpretation of indecent exposure from the broad one described to one that would only include public masturbation and exposure of genitals. Seems like a good idea to me.

In the mean time my guess is that unlike some people who would compare a couple getting a little overly sexual on a public park bench with defacating in the streets, or rings of homosexuals giving and getting blowjobs in public bathrooms, the police and the courts do know the difference, at least I hope so.

The thing about laws is that as a rule, their enforcment is based on judgement and precedent, both on the part of the police and of the courts, not by the average citizen. You can call the police and scream assult if someone splashes water on you or accidently bumps into you on the street, but they will do nothing, because we live in a pragmatic world, and most times we try to apply practical consequences to a given action.

And many times we fail, it is a fallible system but better than nothing. But there is an understanding that actions are intrepreted within a framework of law, otherwise we would all be in jail at some point in our lives and the handwringer's and the sky is falling crowd would never give us a moment of peace :)


I would think that if someone did call the police on the couple they would go up to them and send them on their way, knowing the consequences of labeling someone a sex offender. I suppose as an alternative they can be tied up and stoned to death, that would teach um.






amuzingtoyou -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 5:17:34 PM)

There are societies in this world, where it is perfectly acceptable to have sexual relations while other people are there watching. They might have sex with the whole town watching. It isn't a big deal. Their UM might be present too. Our society has dictated that this kind of activity should be behind closed doors. Personally I think our society would be a better place if we broke down a few of those doors. We have tons of sex and naked bodies that our UM are exposed to on the TV everyday. So why does seeing it in person make it worse? Now as for myself, i used to be an extremely rigid person about public displays of affection..not to mention nudity. My Dominant has enjoyed over the past year having me overcome quite a few of those hurdles. He enjoys playing with me discreetly in semi private areas...under the table at a resturant, in the car while parked in a parking lot, cemetaries, parks...etc. When i can just let go and enjoy those moments it has been totally liberating for me. Now i know he is very careful to make sure it is done discreetly. He is not lifting my blouse up over my head in the middle of a park while children are milling around. That doesn't mean he is not putting his hand under my skirt while looking around to make sure people are watching..it is exciting and thrilling.
missi



OsideGirl -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/2/2007 5:46:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

OsideGirl.
The subject of this thread was intended to be: voyeurism, public kink, consensual public petting and brief light stripping with no private parts exposed and with precautions taken.
Extrapolating this activity to sexual offenders, Meghan's Law* or Pedophilia is like trying to extrapolate consensual spanking and whipping to physical abuse and violence.
Don't give me that legal stuff either. It may depend on your specific region, but I know the state laws again in the area relevant to the activity spearheading this discussion and many areas don't distinguish between sadomasochism of any kind or degree and public petting over clothes.
  She asked a question, I answered the question. In California if observed and reported by a minor, it would qualify for you for the Sex Offenders list.




iwearpanties -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/3/2007 3:29:56 AM)

wow ive read this and i have no problem with this couple hell they didnt invite you too watch you saw it and you wanted too watch ????   they may have even hoped that some saw them you never knew they could even be people who read this site and now they got every one tlaking about them?????/



Mercnbeth -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/3/2007 8:01:19 AM)

We were down is Long Beach yesterday having some drinks and a snack at a bar at the marina. The bar/restaurant had an outside area and beth, still having issues with quiting, was having one of her 4 daily cigarettes. Next thing you know, in walks a couple with 2 UM. Can you image - right there in an adult establishment!? One was in a massive stroller that blocked people from getting a drink, the other was running around and crying. Next thing you know, we have to witness a diaper being changed. Nice huh? We went to a restaurant to smell UM diaper. I should have instructed beth to blow her smoke at them to offset the stench.

People with UM's are more disrespectful of other's space than any other group. They want you to share in the beauty of their progeny and hope that you'll be part of the "village" that raises their replicant. Well, the hell with that. The park is for everyone. Ride areas may be for kids, but the open spaces are for anyone. The US isn't Iraq, at least not yet, regarding sexuality and what a woman can wear.

Oh, and btw - at the Folsom Street Fair, there IS excessive public nudity,public whipping, public sex, public masturbation (by men!), public watersport, and public anything you can thing of; along with a big police presence. In fact the SF police department sets up a recruiting booth at the event. If you'd like to see nude pictures of beth next to the nice smiling policemen - let me know. They draw the line at holding onto leashes and refuse to spank and flog. Interestingly enough every year we see people bring their UM's in ages ranging from stroller size to toddlers. I suppose some of the liberal minded here would either arrest the parent/guardians or the thousands with leather accessorizing nudity.



juliaoceania -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/3/2007 8:25:53 AM)

quote:

You make a great point, except, I never said it wasn't rude. Maybe it was rude, but I think criminalizing it is an outlandish response from being overly sensitive (not you in particular). I can't control the world around me or my UM's (well, my niece and nephew), I can only control my response. The world is a harsh place, and blowing something that they might not have noticed way out of proportion would make it even more harsh. If, as an adult, I can't control myself enough to put UM's in my charge in a less "scenic" spot without a lot of drama then I think I would have added to any stress that an UM would get from witnessing something that I thought they shouldn't see.

 
I agree, I would not waste my breath to call attention to such people, but that would not stop me from thinking that they should "get a room" and stop trying to force their sexuality down my throat nonconsensually whether I am a UM or an adult, just like I do not force people to smell my bowel movements in the street nonconsensually...smiles.

quote:

Shitting in the street would be on my list of rude behaviors, but so is someone smacking gum behind me in line at the grocery store. As long as the Blue Guy of Happiness doesn't come and shit on my car, I really don't care what he does. If his actions have criminal consequences, then he'll have to face them.


 
Some things are just more rude than other things... smacking gum is slightly rude. People fondling each other in public is more rude in my opinion. I would not want to have my son witness heroine use either.
 
I guess part of my issue with the entire voyeurism exhibitionist kink is that for many it is dependent upon getting others that did not consent to witnessing it. It is no different in my mind than a man coming up to me and showing me his penis on the street. These behaviors are all done for the same reason.. to get off on involving others in one's kink without asking... or at least the possibility of it. I say this as someone that has an exhibitionist fetish... I just do not need to involve people that did not consent into my kink in order to enjoy it. I could get a thrill just walking around topless at somewhere like the Lair to get my fix. Others have a very different sort of fetish when it comes to showing and watching. Peeping toms get off on the nonconsent of their victims, as do people who give peep shows.

quote:

I just think that the OP's original intent was lost because people seized on the idea of pedophelia. Having not been there, I can't tell you how public or private it was. The scene that you and your son witnessed was tasteless and inappropriate. And, I liked your reaction. Just remove yourself from the situation, altogether. 
 



 
My issue is with consent, not really UMs. UMs witnessing it cannot give consent, because they are UMs. Anyone that walks up in public did not consent to fulfill a possible exhibitionist kink. It is the nonconsent of it that bothers me.




collaredpup -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/4/2007 12:25:37 PM)

My mistress likes to take me out wearing nothing but a long coat, which she carefully arranges so that anyone who wants a nice view of my breasts can look in and see the goodies, but i don't think she would ever openly expose me in a public place where some one might become offended and and call the police or security or whatever.

jess



onmykneesforhim -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/4/2007 4:42:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

I was wondering if any submissive women or Doms enjoy this kind of thing, or if I am the only one with this particular kink.


Hi,
One of the sweetest  things that ever happened to me was,
i was ordered to take my panties off in an elevator. That was an experince.
So , you are not the only one that gets a thrill from this!
omk



newslave2006 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (6/6/2007 5:03:18 AM)

no u not alone  my mistress wife strips me down in public and she keeps me shave from head to toe



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875