RE: Master and pet banned from the bus

RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

GreedyTop -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 3:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Why must this be a "scene"? I consider a scene to be contrived behavior. I do not see where the couple's behavior is necessarily "contrived", and the statements of the female suggest that this is merely how they go about their daily lives. In fact, other than her statement that she lives as a "pet", there's scant information in the article to suggest they are even a D/s couple. THANK YOU!! lol

Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 4:28:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeAgent But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights. What if I don't want to see you at all? Are you still infringing on my rights? If so, how are you doing that? If not, what's the difference? Health, al-Aswad.

AbsitInvidia -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 4:35:39 PM)
There's no such thing as a right not to see something. Any such 'rights' are merely social norms, they are expectations - but expectations can and will be violated on a daily basis. On her knees. In the mud. Hard, and savagely. Expectations likes it like that.

Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 4:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeAgent Is making the decision to put on a collar and be lead around on a leash not contrived behavior? No more or less contrived than covering your genitals in the summer. quote: And you're right, I see people vomit, boogers in noses all gross things I don't want to see BUT, all things that are inside the social norm. Years back, it would have been outside the social norm for a black to sit in the front of the bus. Would you say it was other than discrimination to beat up a black who did so? See, you're in a bit of a double bind with your argumentation. Either you explicitly support past racism ... ... or you explicitly recant your own argument. It just doesn't fly, as the standards of tomorrow will judge us as harshly as we judge the standards of yesteryear, or the standards of other cultures. Would you say that Somali discriminate against women? Or that Afghani do? Those are contemporary social norms. Like female genital cutting, or setting fire to a wife you're upset with. Social norms. Acceptable behaviour, by your argument. Is it? Again, either you explicitly support female genital cutting and wife-burning... ... or you explicity impose your lifestyle choices on the world ... ... or recant your own argument. We can only guess without an answer, but those are the material implications of your line of reasoning. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 4:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MisPandora Uh, you're comparing RELIGION with a chosen social behavior or "hobby". I hardly think the two belong in the same category! Since it is a part of my religion, I think we can say the two definitely belong in the same category. [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 4:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Damn, I'm glad I don't drive a bus. FWIW, you'd prolly make it on my list of bus drivers I respect. That would bring that list up to about half a dozen. You just described something good: Going above and beyond. Health, al-Aswad.

GreedyTop -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 5:43:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop behaviour? if all they were doing was dressing Gothy, and using a leash, what behaviour was it that justified discrimination? The article gives no indication that they were being disruptive in any manner other than the way they were dressed (and yes, I consider the leash to be a fashion accessory). Ugghhh...I am afraid to answer your question for fear of becoming a broken record. Please read my subsequent responses to CelticLord and then let me know if I have not sufficiently addressed your concerns. But I will say that it was the act of being led by the leash that got them booted from the bus. If she had been wearing the leash dangling from her neck like a fashion accessory, I wonder if the bus driver would have reacted the same way. I would also like to add that if you really feel this way, I think you must ask yourself if you are prepared to become an advocate for social change and work to educate the public as to the symbolism and significance of the collar and leash in the lifestyle. This act of dominance and submission will never be viewed by the public as anything more than diminishing human life to that of the likes of animals. What society would want that? This is a perfect example of why social norms exist to begin with. Changing them requires education and activism. I agree that education and activism are vaulable tools in effecting change. But how do we know that these two individuals are active BDSMers? fetish clothing (and accessories like collars and leashes) have become fairly mainstream (think Hot Topic). Collars and leashes on girlfriends/boyfriends are no longer solely the property of kinksters grin

MisPandora -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 5:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Years back, it would have been outside the social norm for a black to sit in the front of the bus. Would you say it was other than discrimination to beat up a black who did so? Discrimination might be denying them a seat, placing them in a segregated area, or refusing them to board at all. What you're describing is assault, and a racially-motivated hate crime, but it's NOT discrimination. "Jim Crow laws" never had to spell out that it was wrong to beat up someone else because there are other laws that apply to that, and they don't see color (or at least are not supposed to.)

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 6:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain When it gets hard to explain to a child, that's where the public display should stop. The world is really for adults, and kids are simply adults in the making; they can deal with any reality we can create, although what we as parents can deal with may be significantly more limited. Where the adult is a ripe peach, the child is an inedible one, but it is still a peach, not a peach blossom. It may be the case that we find the blossoms so entrancing that we want to pretend- for as long as we can- that they are indeed a different kind of being than we are. But that is a lie, and while we may delude ourselves as much as we like, I think it is irresponsible when we allow that delusion to affect how we care for our children, and worse yet to pass it on to them. Why would we want adults to grow into childhood, rather than have children grow into adulthood? There is such a thing as coddling a child to death. Health, al-Aswad. You are certainly correct, and it is easier to coddle them to death than we could possibly imagine. Honesty, in most cases, really is the best policy when it is tempered with tact and phrased helpful, educational language that small children can understand. Regardless of this, there are things that it is inappropriate for children of a certain age, specifically quite young, to see. Although each parent must draw the line where they will, I believe that most would agree that an open flogging taking place on public tranport would be a good place to draw that line. On the other hand, I don't feel that a woman wearing a collar and leash for her dominant is in any capacity something that crosses that line. That is the point I was trying to get across. If I didn't do that clearly, I apologize.

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 7:10:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Let's face certain facts right away: cute or not, the whole point of their little Goth master-slave get-up complete with the leash prop is to confront other people with their relationship, in a rather childish and demanding way." In that case, is it terribly different from a wedding ring? A collar is an outward sign of relationship loyalties. So is a wedding ring. Choosing to wear either in public signifies something about yourself, and it may not be what people assume. If a collar is childishly demanding that others acknowledge your relationship, then any outward token of any sort of relationship is doing the same thing. quote: Those of us who have raised small children find their antics a little less amusing, and we coined the phrase "GET A ROOM" for their benefit. I'm raising a wee one of my own as we speak. Once again, it's the action versus the passive. It is a mode of dress and a symbol. I don't feel it is an action, and therefore not on par with public sex. quote: I find this sort of behavior tacky and vulgar in people of any orientation. By all means, wear your Goth clothes, but please folks--the leash is an "after five" accessory. I'll have a hard enough time explaining the rest of your Vlad the Impaler and Vampira get-up to the kiddlywinks, without you actually whipping and beating each other in public. Save it until prime time, when the kiddies are home doing their homework and observing their parentally imposed bedtimes, k? Why is it an "after-five" accessory? Were my son to witness such a scene a few years from now, I would tell him that is how they choose to dress and the leash is a symbol of their affection. If he asked why I don't do it, I would tell him that everyone expresses themselves differently. It's really not difficult if you're truly looking for a tolerant answer. Oh, and once again, they weren't "whipping and beating each other in public." Wearing a collar in public does not equal scening in public. quote: (And yes, I find it every bit as irritating when vanilla or gay people or Martian people aggressively impose their sexuality on me in a public place, but especially during daylight hours. No double standard.). Why do you believe that it was a sexual display? For many people their kink isn't remotely sexual. Making out on a bus is a far cry from wearing an accessory. Of course, these are my opinions and I understand that not everyone will agree with them, nor do they have to.

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 7:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I can think of a lot more offensive things I've seen on public buses than someone in a collar with a leash in another person's hands. That was exactly the point I was trying to make in my original post. Unfortunately, my excerpted quote can be taken quite out of context. I am a strong supporter of intelligently informing your children of the truth.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 7:26:09 PM)
Naked, truly you are an intelligent woman

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 7:33:10 PM)
Asher, you get such a big hug for that. Thank you.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 8:06:09 PM)
its true you are smart, and cute... If you lived in Utah you would be perfect

PrizedPosession -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 9:40:45 PM)
This is a toughie...but in the end the bus driver was wrong (obviously) and they should've been allowed on the bus because there was no mention of a saftey hazard (can't stand while wearing leash, can't cross the white line while bus in motion etc) so the bus drivers action was not only inappropriate but discriminatory against the way someone looks. And though i am childless i do not believe that it is that big enough reason to say this is an indecent act, children will learn these things anyway PLUS i would rather tell my children those things then the kids at their school. How any of us when younger were told something by our peers and they were wrong (can't get pregnant if she is on top, the meaning of swear words, etc) and i would like my child to be informed about things. On a side note: Children don't think in terms of sex and i think that is why our nation is so oppressed because we live in a nation of violence not sex (or intimacy to break it down (i know not all sex is emotional intimate but physically included)). But in the end it's just people being people, let them be. That's just me. -bobcat edited for grammar and extra stuff.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 9:41:59 PM)
very true

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 11:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr As far as all the bullshit I keep seeing about "imposing your kink on others" The hell with that, they arenet kidnapping people and focing them to go to fetish clubs, or anything like that, all the are doing is quietly living their lives, should I quit wearing bondage pants because of the name? what about people whos "kink" is to wear chastity belts and the like, should they be told that they shouldn't ever go outside, just in case someone sees a bit of it when they bend over? I saw in another post on here that someone likened this to people wearing really shorts skirts that exposed their genitals and the like, my argument to that is that those are clearly illegal, and they can get arrested for it, but unless the female half of the couple in question pops out a tit or something, they aren't breaking any laws. ~Asher (wondering how many people in Utah get offended because of his long hair) Asher, can I ask you something? Is there nothing you find objectionable for public consumption? Think beyond kink for a moment. And forget the obvious, like criminal or violent behavior, gratuitous cruelty, and things of that nature. Is there nothing that would shock you or give you pause if you accidently saw it? If you can imagine anything that would not be appropriate (that is within the law), is it so hard to accept that others may find things objectionable as well, such as kink? In other words, is it your position that any behavior/dress within the law should be acceptable? If not, how do you propose that we establish boundaries and guidelines for public display/consumption?

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 11:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr As far as all the bullshit I keep seeing about "imposing your kink on others" The hell with that, they arenet kidnapping people and focing them to go to fetish clubs, or anything like that, all the are doing is quietly living their lives, should I quit wearing bondage pants because of the name? what about people whos "kink" is to wear chastity belts and the like, should they be told that they shouldn't ever go outside, just in case someone sees a bit of it when they bend over? I saw in another post on here that someone likened this to people wearing really shorts skirts that exposed their genitals and the like, my argument to that is that those are clearly illegal, and they can get arrested for it, but unless the female half of the couple in question pops out a tit or something, they aren't breaking any laws. ~Asher (wondering how many people in Utah get offended because of his long hair) Asher, can I ask you something? Is there nothing you find objectionable for public consumption? Think beyond kink for a moment. And forget the obvious, like criminal or violent behavior, gratuitous cruelty, and things of that nature. Is there nothing that would shock you or give you pause if you accidently saw it? If you can imagine anything that would not be appropriate (that is within the law), is it so hard to accept that others may find things objectionable as well, such as kink? In other words, is it your position that any behavior/dress within the law should be acceptable? If not, how do you propose that we establish boundaries and guidelines for public display/consumption? That is why we have laws that govern these things, so, in a nutshell, while there are things I personally would not want to see, I do not think they shouldnt wear/do them... No matter what you do, you are going to offend someone. Honestly the thing that offends me most would be missionaries... But they are within the law, so its ok. Just because I personally might object to something, does not mean that someone shouldnt do it.That is the price we pay for free speech. For the record, I wouldnt lead someone around in public on a leash, out of a concern for their safety, because people could do something stupid, like try to grab it.

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 11:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub I agree with you that form and mode of dress is cultural and should be tolerated - up to a point. Would it be acceptable for indigenous peoples of New Guinea to walk around the streets of London or New York wearing only a boar tooth necklace and a penis sheath? I think not. But, the niquab and burqua do not qualify. Again, I agree with you that it should be their right to wear it if they so choose, but the problem I have with this argument is that many of these women do not feel or understand that they have a choice. Therefore, for many of these women, their cultural dress is actually oppression thinly veiled (no pun intended) as cultural and/or religious expression. I support those who are educated and free enough to have a choice and wish to exercise it. I would be willing to bet that it is not the majority. I'm not sure that we, outsiders to that culture, have a right or responsibility to "help" them. Shouldn't that be something that those who are oppressed need to first speak up or ask help for? I just wonder if it will be a very slippery slope. What's to prevent someone else from looking at how you or I live and say we need to be saved? I'm all for helping those who want to fight for their rights but they have to take that first step otherwise they not only will not welcome the "help" but may work against it. TammyJo, I agree with you. I was not suggesting that we interfere or 'save' them. I was just responding to the comment that their mode of dress is their right, therefore their choice. I agree it is their right, but it is not always a choice for many of these women. But, there are limits as to how we should express our objections.

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/25/2008 12:21:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Now your assumption is that these are an idiot young couple. I haven't read it that way. But it all comes down to interpretation though hey. Here is a question - what if it was Darcy and myself walking down the street? Would that make a difference and why? the.dark. Idiot may have been too strong a word, but the sentiment still stands. They are young, self centered, provoking, lacking in empathy for others(with regards to this issue), have a sense of entitlement, and behave foolishly. But these are not necessarily bad things for their age. Who among us did not have at least some of those qualities when we were their age. But, as agents of social change, who would ever listen to them? If you and Darcy chose the same course of action, you would likely get the same response they did. You know this in advance, so why would you do it? From what I can tell, you and Darcy are intelligent, thoughtful, and mature adults. Why, if you were striving for social acceptance of your kink, would you act in such a provacative manner? You guys are artists, and according to your profile, accomplished ones. Why would you chose this course of action which will only serve to provoke and incite, when you could produce imagery and words that would inspire discourse, push boundaries open hearts and change minds? That, to me, is the difference.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.890625