RE: Public undressing of sub females (Full Version)

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



Message

ennaozzie -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 5:31:45 AM)

I agree with  you earthycouple, about children, children should be able to be kids without seeing or having adult things pushed on to them.
 
Also i am totaly against others pushing their idea's wants etc on others, to expose a sub in front of others at a play party as aposed to a park, i think that is more fitting to the situation, i think parents have enough to worry about in the park situation with pedophiles without worrying if they come accross people getting off on exposing each other also.
 
There are pleanty of ways to expose yourself without having a negitive effect on anyone.
I am all for each to their own as long as its consensual, i dont think ron2421 prob thought of other aspects and how it could effect others in a public situation, (not picking on ya) but those are my thoughts on it anyway.
 
Everyone has the freedom to be what they want to be and do what they want, as long as it does not have any negitive effect on anyone, and with a bit of imagination, that is a lot of freedom.
 
beanie[sm=dance.gif]
 
 



ron2421 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 5:50:55 AM)

Who said anything about being "kinkier than thou" for either liking or not liking my story about something that really happened?
Talk about being misinterpreted.
I hope all these people harshly critical of what this couple do not list the following as any of their favored activities: outdoor bondage, public exposure or nudity, exhibitionism, public humiliation, public play (outside of a BDSM club), or flashing.*
I beg the question.
How many people into these kinds of things can honestly say that their chosen sites for such activities, such as outdoor bondage, whereever they may be public or private, are completely 100 percent safe from being happened upon by children or other unsuspecting passerbys?
Not many, I am sure.

My point here was people here are accepting of several sadomasochistic, BDSM erotic and D/S activities, just as "kinky" and just as illegal and immoral from both a legal and commonly accepted moral position.
Yet many slam this couple to the point of wanting to have them arrested when they were plainly being cautious of not being seen by others, and plainly not showing any private parts.
It was risque but what activity in this lifestyle isn't? What they were doing was nevertheless likely not enough to raise the ire of either the police or most passerbys of any age if they even did happen to notice. Again, my observation was that that this couple would have immediately stopped if they had noticed anyone taking a real interest or if anyone got close enough to them. (I myself wish I had a pair of binoculors for an even better view).
As I stated earlier, the police don't appear to actively enforce the very SAME obscenity laws in most states just as contextually damming to either sadomasochism, public nudity or public petting activities.
Despite all of this, everyone has suddenly become, as Invictus has pointed out, such a Puritan, as well as unaccepting of others who find this particular kink of nonextreme, public petting fascinating or otherwise just because it took place in a semi-public place outdoors where unsuspecting passerbys might notice.
It has nothing to do with "who gets the prize for being the most kinky", and everything to do with being a bit more flexible, understanding and consistent towards others in this lifestyle, already quite left of center and risque by any definition.

*I'm checking up on all of you. Just kidding.



WillowRain -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 5:52:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

Well, obviously then you would not be happy with laws in New York State parks where females are allowed to go completely topless, and from what I understand from trusted eyewitnesses frequently do, in full sight of families and children.



Nudity  and Sexuality are not locked together. I would have no problem with my UM stumbling across even naked people laying out in the sun. She and I have walked across nude beaches before on the way to clothed portions. Nudity is just naked folks, no big deal. Adult sexuality and kink is something that I don't really want her exposed to, especially without her having any ability (because of her age) or chance (because of the situation) to give consent.. There is a reason why children are protected, let them have their childhood and innoscence as long as possible. We don't have the right to strip it from them, they will wander into the adult realm of human sexuality at their own pace.

A public park, holiday time, danger of kids seeing, is just not cool. Shame on both of them. There are so many options for this kind of game that wouldn't involve the possible exposre of children to age inapropriate situations.



WillowRain -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 6:03:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Invictus754

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

Not all Muslim's believe in the burka actually.

Hence "devout Muslim"
 
quote:

  

Ack, careful with your assumptions here. The burka is not actually "Muslim" per say, it is cultural and comes out of long standing cultural issues in certain countries. The Koran is actually pretty supportive of lots of women's rights, however many cultures are not.. The wearing of a burka doesn't come out of religious law, but cultural constructs. Devout Muslim does not equal burka, you could argue it means no bikini if you wanted, modesty is certainly within the ring of "devout Muslim", but heck, that's in tons of faiths.. "devout Christian" "devout Jew" Just like Christianity and the Bible, with a little twisting and spin, it's amazing what some people  can turn faith into....but... I'll resist heading down the path of talking about faith driven atrocities.



agirl -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 6:07:29 AM)

I have to say that I've never once *worried* about pedophiles at the park. I have been a little apprehensive about the swings, though. It's so easy for little ones to get a right, royal smack in the head if they're wandering about. I'd be watchful that they didn't slip into the lake while feeding the swans......or choke on their ice-cream.

I'm not quite sure how *harmful* it might be to the sprogs to witness other people with their knickers showing; they've seen a whole lot more on the beach and at home, from birth.

I probably wouldn't want to have my picnic lunch watching a couple fucking, but that wasn't quite what the OP depicted.

agirl











ron2421 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 6:19:07 AM)

Good response Ennaozzie which demonstrates some understanding.
Yet again there was no exposure here, nothing but briefly exposed full-sized, blue colored bra and some white, non-thong panties, less than one would see on a beach.
No legal obscenity violations here.
It was the playful petting and partial stripping aspect that I think troubles some here, activities that in a public place could legally be defined as obscene, along with sadomasochism etc. occuring in any private or public place.
Some consider the public aspect and fear of being caught as really the composition that makes the kink. Well, people appear to have different opinions on whether this kink is appropriate for this lifestyle, I guess. 



WillowRain -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 6:36:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

Good response Ennaozzie which demonstrates some understanding.
Yet again there was no exposure here, nothing but briefly exposed full-sized, blue colored bra and some white, non-thong panties, less than one would see on a beach.
No legal obscenity violations here.
It was the playful petting and partial stripping aspect that I think troubles some here, activities that in a public place could legally be defined as obscene, along with sadomasochism etc. occuring in any private or public place.
Some consider the public aspect and fear of being caught as really the composition that makes the kink. Well, people appear to have different opinions on whether this kink is appropriate for this lifestyle, I guess. 



Oh nevermind

edit : sometimes trying to explain why a behavior, while fun and delightful in the realm of fantasy or perhaps in other situations, wasn't appropriate in a park where kids could see is a pain. It seems like this argument is coming down to. "I like it so it can't be wrong. It was good for me, so if you don't like it you're a prude or not kinky. Screw the kids of the world, I have no responsibility to them as an adult. I should be able to do whatever I like with no cultural responsibility."

juliaoceania and drwantothedark had very valid things to say.

bleh.. I give up.



juliaoceania -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 6:37:46 AM)

quote:

Congradulations, you are a fellow, true collarme kinkster!

We're not always perfectly legal, we're not always perfectly moral or safe or sane as far as disguising our kinks (as true with any sexual being).
But we are human. There's room here for all of us.

Have posts on "severe spankings" "watersports" or "fuckmeat" generated as much outrage or such sudden displays of moral and legal righteousness


What you described in your OP was foreplay, not people attired in skimpy clothing, not affection.. it is foreplay to rub someone's genitals and their breasts. To do so where small children were about is tacky, nasty, and basically wrong. I have to say that anyone that would not consider others that are subjected to their sex is rather immature, selfish, and not someone I would want to know... anyone that gets off on showing foreplay to UMs is revolting.

Just my opinion, but it is a distinct turn off to make others uncomfortable.. but ya know, men go into public park bathrooms to give each other quickies all the time... so I have not really been into taking my UM to them in a very long time.. many people are just animals... no decency at all, no sense of right or wrong, no sense of respect for themselves or others... some man did that to me he would not be my dom because I would know he did not have the same values as me... period.... and it has nothing to do with the law 



drawntothedark -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 6:40:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

Good response Ennaozzie which demonstrates some understanding.
Yet again there was no exposure here, nothing but briefly exposed full-sized, blue colored bra and some white, non-thong panties, less than one would see on a beach.
No legal obscenity violations here.
It was the playful petting and partial stripping aspect that I think troubles some here, activities that in a public place could legally be defined as obscene, along with sadomasochism etc. occuring in any private or public place.


Okay ------- I understand what you were saying with your first post Ron. In fact I'm sure most people here did. It's not a lack of understanding on our part. It's a lack of wanting to involve people who do not want to be involved.

I have heard some really great points brough up about this situation. I am inclined to agree to some degree with the poster who would use the tacky manners of the couple as a learning tool for my child. Pointing it out as how not to behave. However, it was still a public park on a national holiday where children very much would be playing.

Everyone gets caught up in the moment. Everyone does not think about legal ramafications before they give into their sex drive. It still does not excuse it.

I know the majority of what I do in my bedroom (or his) would not be legal in my state. Of course, it's behind closed doors. I think most people will say that most of laws regarding sex are silly and out dated. This one would not be one of them. This is subjecting people without their consent to witness your sex life.

You have stated time and time again that the two people were not naked only showing underware. Fine. My UM has seen more at the beach or the pool. What he doesn't see on a regualr basis is heavy petting. When I was married I would openly express my affections for his father in our house, but we reserved the more "sexual" things for our bedroom. Heavy or even light petting on the breasts are up there with "sexual".

You stated that many vanilla people want this sort of kink. Okay - so what's your point? It still doesn't make it any less illegal or okay.



sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 7:38:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ron2421

For the 100th Time Sambamanslilgirl, there was absolutely no nudity involved, unless you consider brief exposure of panties and bra as nudity.

For everyone who has suddenly become so law conscious and legal.

Yes under some state obscenity laws, including New York, massaging over even a clothed genitals or a clothed female breast in public can be considered to be in violation of public obscenity laws.
But then again, so can most forms of sadomasochism, even in play, consensual and in private, including any form of restraint, bondage, spanking, whipping, any form of torture and etc.
Read for yourself:  http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/index.htm?statutesIndex.htm
We should all do our best to keep this stuff out of site of children. But please do not be so obsessed over the legality of public petting situations when you're not willing to recognize the same laws over sadomasochism.

You would call the cops on this happy couple enjoying a bit of perverted fun in the park. Would you like it if your well-meaning friend called the cops on you because he or she knew that you participated in activities in which the laws clearly consider as sadomasochism and equally perverted.

This is Collarme, afterall. Thanks

laws on public nudity vary from state to state ...city to city too. you live in New York, well your laws wouldn't apply here.  in Chicago, public nudity is defined as showing undergarments (bras, panties for women and boxers/thongs for men in a public place) and/or any bare anatomy of the human body.  brief exposure or not - if a parent with UMs complains, the cops will cite the person for display of public nudity and all it takes is ONE UM to run to tell mommy and daddy that there are people stripping in the park. that citation and/or arrest could have you branded as a pedophile or child molestor in IL which means you'll have to register as a sex offender if convicted.

to answer your other question - i chose not to broadcast to my friends (and family) about my involvement in such alternative activities because i know it's not a kink they would be interested in hearing or joining. i'm not one to go around a Black neighborhood to say "look at me - i have a white Daddy and Sir as my Doms, ...love my latest collars and silver chained anklets - they bought them for me to ear everyday ...oh we fuck in ways only you can dream about in your heads"  however we like to keep things discrete and in the bedroom where it belongs.



AquaticSub -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 8:20:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Invictus754

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub
I just don't believe our right to do whatever we want trumps everyone else's rights.


Certainly not!  I agree with you there. 
 
However, many of the people answering ron were quoting the law (and I am sure that NONE of them ever speed on their way to work and none smoke pot or engage in premarital sex) and how the couple were putting UMs in a bad place.  Shit happens.  When I was young (yes, many, many moons ago) our male cat mounted our female cat in the living room.  He was biting her neck, both were yowling and I went and got my Dad, telling him the big kitty was beating up the little kitty.  When my Dad saw it, he just laughed and told me not to touch them, but everything would be alright and he wouldn't hurt her.  He was right.  Just like people in the park, we shouldn't shy from normal activity like SEX, but explain it as a natural occurance.  Puritans suck.


I really don't think wanting a park or other similar public space to be a safe place to bring children is puritanical.

Perhaps it's because I'm a female and I've seen first hand just how hard it is to buy little girls clothes that don't like tiny verisions of hooker clothes. The shirts that do cover their tummies generally have "cute" slogans that look fine on the breasts of a middle or high schooler, but really don't belong on an elementary school student. At least for a decent price. Most of the regular kids clothes are a bit pricey.

Just wanting a place where kids can get away from the messages of sex, sex, sex, sex and how they need to be sexual and sexy in order to have friends and get their first boyfriend or girlfriend... I just can't believe that is such a bad thing.



juliaoceania -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 8:38:02 AM)

fast reply

I guess this thread hits home because I felt I could not take my son to certain parks because of the actions of others. In Roeding Park (next to our zoo) there were 40 men arrested in a public restroom sex sting. I think it is pretty damn sad when our kids can't go to the bathroom without seeing people screwing each other. I cannot understand the deep seated selfishness of others that they would put their sex drive over the right of kids to have fun at a park.. it just makes no sense to me.



ron2421 -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 8:50:36 AM)

Yeah, I see everyone's point and maybe I too need to be more open-minded.

I cannot help thinking though that my statement is being overlooked and not being factored into these opinions.
The thrill of a potential, however tiny, of being caught and in public is what DEFINES this kink, psychologically or whatever for people who enjoy this kink.
I know one sub who wants to realize her fantasy of being walked around collared and naked on a leash,outdoors. Of course, she wants it to happen in a remote occasion where she won't get caught. Precautions would be taken like being assured she could quickly throw on a cover if circumstances warrant that. But she insists the fantasy would not be the same if it happened indoors or within a fenced in yard with absolutely no chance of being caught.
Other people are not being asked on this board to suppress their own  BDSM or kinky play, equally illegal and immoral by some standards. Should people be asked to suppress these particular public kinks, even when they take precautions?
Again, no one who participates in any form of public kinky activities is 100 percent safe from eyewitnesses.
I still disagree with the idea that any cop would arrest this couple for what transposed here. Now, I better get back to my business. Thanks.



m0rgan -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 9:36:46 AM)

all i am seeing is a re-run of the simpsons "what about the children!!"
i read rons post and there was no mention of children being party to this, wtf?
i was party to this (from an old post of mine, and included in my journal) and i can assure you that all parties involved consented and enjoyed that episode;

quote:

ORIGINAL: m0rgan

i once watched a blonde and vivacious woman, in a car next to me, being exceptionally affectionate in a tourist spot in the queens back garden (windsor great park) on a sunny afternoon, a few years ago, with the lady looking at me and laughing and smiling at me. there were other cars around and they moved, but only to a slightly more discreet spot a hundred yards away and still in the sunlight and visible, with the girl still looking over at me.
nothing ventured nothing gained, so i moved further away from the general public and nearer to their car, the action continued, as did the looking at me and smiling by the girl and i hadn't seen the guy but didn't fancy being reported as a peeping tom, so maintained a short distance between us but manouvered my car to a slightly better vantage point so the sun didn't reflect on their windows. the guy by now was reclined, and the girl was certainly fondling his cock, and smiling at me, and her top on one side had been shucked from one shoulder and most of a fine breast was visible and she looked into my eyes and grinned as one breast and nipple was made visible, to me! the performance continued, with cocksucking and peeking over the sill to see if i was still looking every 30 seconds or so, until the lady decided it was time to straddle the guy and work it. she fucked him for maybe 6 minutes, with both breasts bouncing, in a light blue strappy dress, pulled down to her navel and smiling at me more than she looked at whoever she was with, until she came. i saw no details other than her breasts and her grins, and a moment when she eased herself off her bloke and wiped herself with a tissue  (discarded from the window, bad girl) and i never saw the guy, but didn't need to and they tidied up and drove away. i blew my horn, and she waved, they turned out towards home, and left, and as they drove off she waved again. i never saw the car again, and i frequented that spot for more time than i could afford to, and have seen many more graphic events than that (for a short time it was famous due to a later expose by a trash newspaper of the new phenomenon - to them - of public fucking called "dogging" over here) and the spot is now ruined as the queen apparently doesn't like people fucking in her park! some days are diamonds, and that was one!


from a string on outdoor play, and when it goes on, and i am very familiar with the operation of this, there are no non-compliant or innocents exposed, but all concerned play their required roles. fuck me, it reminds me of the prudish outrage (from users of rentboys and prostitutes) expressed when janet jacksons nipple appeared on the tellybox! don't be so mealy-mouthed and hypocritical when it comes to others behaviour, just remember that "when they came for the gypsies, i did nothing, when they came for the jews i did nothing, when they came for me, nobody helped me!" this lifestyle is under attack now, by people that secretly take part in many aspects of it, but using the same hysterical rationale for public consumption that many of you are using! it was just petting!



MagiksSlave -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 9:50:06 AM)

No offense intended Diurnal Vampire, but I wish you'd read the entire posts before responding to things already addressed. I indicated the Sub did not seem to mind it at all and playfully went along with it. She did not appear to be hateful or angry at the guy, as you insinuate she must have been.
In fact, based on way the couple left the park, holding hands and googly-eyed, I sure bet they had excellent sex later on that day!
 
this has nothing to do with what DA said so I dont know why you are going on about this to her, I dont think she cared weather or not the girl minded she was saying that those around might mind and it was selfish of them to put others in that situation and I tend to agree with her.

I don't think the couple was being selfish. I greatly sensed they were cognizant if enough people seemed to care about what they were doing, they would stop.
 
Im sorry but if he is busy feeling her up I tend to doubt he could give enough attention to his seroundings to make sure that he was always stoping if someone was close. Also you saw the entire thing, He didnt seem to know you could see(or all the others at your picnick that you said watched on and off) because base on what you said if he did he would have stoped.

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.
Some years ago, I one time also witnessed in a somewhat remote location of a different park a teenage guy give his teenage girlfriend a full wedgie, until her panties ripped off. I suppose that scene would offend some as well. But she also laughed and seemed to play along with it. I recall afterward she she tackled her boyfriend to the ground and slugged him quite hard in the back, and yes quite playfully, afterwards. They were both laughing.
 
This is hardly the same thing, nothing overtly sexual about a wedgy even if he did rip her panties.


As to MajiksSlave, you're absolutely right. I am not sure whether they were a Dom and Sub. I can imagine? Thanks.
 
you are right you can imagine anything you want, but you are missrepresnting what they did as a Dom/sub thing and really I would like to think those involved in the D/s community would have more common sence and care more about not subjecting people to their kink because consentual is a big thing!! These where not Dom /sub as far as we know and just 2 kids who really where to young to know mutch better or rather kids beeing self obsorbed (which is natural) didnt really think it through so didnt care about makeing others uncomfertable. Oh and its Magic with a G Im no spelling natzi (LOL like I could afford to be) but my name is right there [:)]
 
MaGiks slave




juliaoceania -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 9:57:15 AM)

quote:

read rons post and there was no mention of children being party to this, wtf?



If this was not at a public park I really could give a flying fuck, but if it was at a public park where kids fly kites, throw frisbees, and chase after dogs on a leash.. then yes, children could have easily have viewed this.. and for all you know they did.

If it was a private party in a non public park or even a remote trail that is not well traveled in a remote area.. who would care? Not me.



m0rgan -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 9:57:38 AM)

hmm, so bigger writing, in coloured letters makes your point more valid?
it just seems a little more hysterical to me. bullshit over a megaphone is just louder bullshit!



MagiksSlave -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 10:08:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m0rgan

from a string on outdoor play, and when it goes on, and i am very familiar with the operation of this, there are no non-compliant or innocents exposed, but all concerned play their required roles. fuck me, it reminds me of the prudish outrage (from users of rentboys and prostitutes) expressed when janet jacksons nipple appeared on the tellybox! don't be so mealy-mouthed and hypocritical when it comes to others behaviour, just remember that "when they came for the gypsies, i did nothing, when they came for the jews i did nothing, when they came for me, nobody helped me!" this lifestyle is under attack now, by people that secretly take part in many aspects of it, but using the same hysterical rationale for public consumption that many of you are using! it was just petting!



OK im am right now takeing a deep breath as i dont wish to say all the things in my head about this statement. But how dare you compare people not wanting to see (or their children to see) things they didnt consent to see to the Holocoust!!! im sorry but that is rather sick and a bit malo dramatic!! People say we are under attack and maybe that is true, but the attack is only fed by people who do things like this (stripping in public). People have no repsect for those who have no respect for them.

And your comment about people getting all upset about janet jacksons "wardrobe malfunction" being hipocritical is just I dont know not very well thought out. You cant lump EVERYONE in a catigory. I for one didnt freak out about it and I also dont watch porn or pay men for sex eaither so if I did freak out, would that be hipocritical?? prudish yes, hipocritical I dont think so. I didnt freak out or get upset about that because that was an accident, if it had been on perpose you bet I would have been with the others who where not to happy about it and I still wouldnt have been a hipocrite. I choose not to see those things. I am not into porn and I am not a voyer. Overtly sexual things done by others in front of me makes me uncomfertable and I have every right to feel that way (so call me prude!!) Yes I get embaressed watching other do things like that. If I am in a park and not consenting to see it then you are forsing me into your humiliation play and that is not cool. I as well as others that feel the same as I do have a right to feel safe going to public parks and other family/venilla places and know we arent going to be subject to that kind of thing.


Magik's Prude like slave



MagiksSlave -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 10:10:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m0rgan

hmm, so bigger writing, in coloured letters makes your point more valid?
it just seems a little more hysterical to me. bullshit over a megaphone is just louder bullshit!



Nope did the coloring and font change to make it easier on the eyes to see what was from the OP and what was from me.... And its nice calling other peoples feelings bullshit!!

Magik's slave



MyMasterStephen -> RE: Public undressing of sub females (5/31/2007 10:13:40 AM)

Sounds to me like the OP is just writing a fantasy scene out of their head, not recounting a real event.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
1.009766