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

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



Message

idontknowdou -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (2/16/2008 4:16:12 PM)

u think we was back long ago where they was against everything that wasnt consider normal lol. they need to let people live there lives instead of trying to dictate them.



bislavegirl4434 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (2/22/2008 4:43:10 AM)

I feel really sorry for them, after all, they were only doing what felt right for them. Surely if people can accept homosexual couples (which i know some still can't), people can accept 'alternative' couples aswell.

I would love to be bold enough to walk around London with my collar on. But sadly I would worry about how other people viewed me.



Ramar -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 12:48:12 AM)

I joined in this site a week back but joined this forum just now, I should have come here a week ago !

I think it is exactly this pictiure and news in the papers here in india that made me join up here.  It mad me realize that BDSM is no longer underground and has captured the imagination of a lot of people. 

I don't know how to react to this frankly.  I admire the couple's courage to come out so openly with their thing.  On the other hand was it foolhardiness ?   Worse things could have happened to them in other societies. 

But there will always be pioneers who will walk the wild path first and pave the way for others to follow.  They will have to encounter thorns and stones and snakes nd if they know what they are getting into, I guess it is alright.







Usako -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 4:33:41 PM)

Sometimes some things should just be kept private.

Just because it's a "lifestyle" is no reason to parade it around. I mean, nudist enjoy their lifestyle but they don't run around nude to the store or on the bus.

Sometimes no matter how different or odd or freaky one might be ya just gotta be a little normal at times. Going out on the bus or to the store? Just leave the leash at home, it's not the end of the world.



angelbluewingsz -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 4:42:46 PM)

When I had a partner I always wore a collar, we didn't exchange rings, we exchanged pistols at our wedding, in front of our families and they had to accept it. Granted a few walked out but the rest stayed and had a good time. If i could dig him up I am sure he would say the same thing... Be you but don't do it in a way that fucks up someone elses world. I understand how some people could be offended by my ass hanging out of my mini skirt or my livs snake necklace but these are probably the same people who are offended by race, creed, color , size etc... nothing will make them happy so make yourself happy.



Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 5:00:01 PM)

Yeah, and if you were down south a few decades back, you'd think it was fine if you had to sit in the back because of your skin color, right?
(Profile states African American, which went under the racial segregation laws at the time... yanno, their idea of "normal" back then.)

And I guess you'd be fine with not being allowed to hold hands with women, or kiss them, or any other display of affection?
(Profile states Bisexual Orientation, which hasn't always been allowed in public, as you probably also know.)

Sometimes, you just gotta push ahead and take a stand against prejudices that prevent people from equitable treatment, including the right to express the dynamics of their relationships in public within the standards of decency for that community (as those standards would be if they were equitable). That means you don't parade around in the nude, and you don't start spanking someone on the bus, but if you're usually wearing a leash and collar, you keep it on. Just like the elderly man will tuck his wife's arm under his. Or how the younger couple will hold hands. It's a symbol of affection, with nothing indecent, obscene or dirty about it.

If love is beautiful, then preventing people from an innocent display of affection is ugly.

And if ugly is what "normal" means, I will take "civil disobedience" over "normal" any given day of the week.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Usako -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 5:18:56 PM)

It's not some civil rights movement. It's about acting like a normal person in society. If you work in an office you're going to wear a suit, not a latex jumper. If you work at McDonald's you wear a uniform not a leash and handcuffs.

Do I think the bus driver was right? No. Can I somewhat understand? Yes.



Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 5:47:26 PM)

Sure. And if you were a black person on a bus a few decades back, you sat in the back. It wasn't some civil rights movement (that came later). It was about acting like a normal person in society. Which meant sitting in the back if one was black, and sitting up front if one was white. Later, people realized that "normal" was fucked up, and started campaigning. About time the BDSM crowd does the same.

«It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.» -- Jiddu Krishnamurti.

«One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.» -- MLK.

Normal is whatever passes for acceptable in a society at any given time, it is not something that you should accept if it is fucked up. That is how change begins, and how we go from normal meaning that a man must want his child or else leave it to die from exposure, to what we have today and further on to what we will have tomorrow. Civil rights movements start with a few people realizing that something is fucked up and that it shouldn't be. Variant normal sexuality and relationship configurations will eventually be considered normal, as it statistically is. Until then, you can choose whether to be part of the solution, or to "somewhat understand" (and thus be part of) the problem.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Invictus754 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 6:05:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956
FR:  On the other hand, if you loudly profess that you believe ONLY in consensual kink (which I suspect all of the people reading this note do profess) then weren't the "Owner and pet" forcing their kink on everyone on the bus?   Clearly, the bus driver didn't consent to being subject to their kink.  And I bet many passengers and passers-by didn't consent, either. 

I'm not condoning the bus driver's conduct, mind you.  First, he's a public employee and his job is to drive the bus, not impose his values.  Second, the bus driver apparently became violent, which is deplorable.  He should be sacked.  BUT I repeat, the kinky (and now gratifyingly public) couple has some explainin' to do -- unless of course nonconsensual D/s play is OK with you.
E.
"You gotta stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."


First, I don't loudly profess that I only believe in consensual kink.  I could give a fat baby's ass less who does what to whom and how they do it.  So stop making assumptions.
Secondly, if a bus driver can make the decision that you can't be allowed to make a fashion statement with a dog collar, if the bus driver doesn't like a baseball cap worn backwards, can he tell you that you can't ride the bus until you turn it around?  How about if some fat person tries to get on the bus, but he don't like the way they are dressed?  How about if someone is gay, and he is so fucking Christian that gay is "kinky" to him?  He shouldn't have to put up with that!  They are "FORCING" their kink on others!
 
It isn't kink.  It is just different.  People need to be more tolerant and not be so easily offended.




Usako -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 6:23:08 PM)

I can't believe you're trying to compare some stupid leash and BDSM crap to the civil rights movement.

Oh wait, this site is bias. I forgot.



mnottertail -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 6:25:54 PM)

is biased or has a bias.

Just saying.

Ron



Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 6:50:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Usako

I can't believe you're trying to compare some stupid leash and BDSM crap to the civil rights movement.


Yeah, you're right. Being allowed to express affection isn't really fundamental to life. [8|]

quote:

Oh wait, this site is bias. I forgot.


Damn right. And I'm pretty sure gay people were biased, too. If cooler, non-gay heads prevailed, none of this LGBT nonsense would have become accepted in the mainstream. People like Ian McKellan should just shut up and play Gandalf, not have a love life they can live with.

In case you can't tell, this post is dripping with sarcasm.

Health,
al-Aswad.



petdave -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 7:10:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Usako
I can't believe you're trying to compare some stupid leash and BDSM crap to the civil rights movement.

Oh wait, this site is bias. I forgot.



Yes, oddly enough, most of the people on this site do like BDSM crap... Sorry if that offends you [8|]



Usako -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 7:47:40 PM)

Nothing wrong with liking BDSM, but to assume it's normal to wear a leash and collar on a public bus is pure retardation and bias nonsense. No matter how "hardcore" you are into whatever lifestyle (be it this, or whatever else) sometimes you have to suck it up and go with the flow of society.

And to compare the real suffering and plight of people fighting racism and for gay rights to some couple who can't keep their business in their bedroom is rather bias and quite frankly insane.



petdave -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 8:22:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Usako

Nothing wrong with liking BDSM


Very kind of you to say so! i know that i, for one, breathe much easier now. [:)]



Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 8:40:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Usako

And to compare the real suffering and plight of people fighting racism and for gay rights to some couple who can't keep their business in their bedroom is rather bias and quite frankly insane.


It's not a matter of a bedroom issue.
And, really, blacks sitting in the back of the bus isn't suffering.
Similarly, gay people not being allowed to express their love outside their home isn't suffering.

However, both of those are a constant reminder that the way you were born makes you less than a full citizen in the eyes of others in society, and that stigma applies just as much to being dominant or submissive. We're not talking about topping or bottoming, which is more analogous to sex, but a fundamental matter of orientation and relationship dynamics. Poly people also face similar issues. Really, this is going to be a civil rights issue sooner or later.

Are you familiar with the origins of the credo "Safe, Sane, Consensual" ?

Health,
al-Aswad.




ShaktiSama -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 9:03:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub
Start a thread on sex in public and you'll find a lot of people past their teenage years are having sex in public.


Indeed.  That is why I pointed out that the need to confront others with your sexuality--or even the inability to understand that others do not WANT to be confronted with your sexuality--is a sign of immaturity.

quote:

It's pretty simple: This is how those people like to dress.  They were wearing a leash.


And my opinion hasn't changed:  I consider it tacky.  I find it offensive to make open iconographic references to slavery, dehumanization and other "play" that people may enjoy in private in a public sphere.

Sorry, but BDSM sexual identity is NOT analogous to vanilla sexual identity of any gender orientation.  Being homosexual does not even in principle reproduce or invoke icons of non-consensual harm.  BDSM does.  Constantly.  That is part of the game.

Also, quite frankly, a leash is not analogous to a wedding ring.  A leash is analogous to wearing a t-shirt with a graphic picture of yourself and your husband having sex printed on the front.

This is not about wearing black clothes per se, or leather per se, or any expression of individual BDSM identity per se.  Even if she had been wearing the collar but not the leash, the clothes and the obvious relationship would likely have passed with a few stares or whispers at worst.

Sorry if people do not like it, but the simple fact is:  not everyone wants to be included in your games.  Especially without their consent. 

quote:

Wearing a leash is not by itself sexual.


I strongly disagree.  And again, I point out that even real dogs can be trained not to need the leash.  The only reason the leash is necessary is BECAUSE it confronts/offends other people.  Not because it serves any other purpose.




dcnovice -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 9:06:14 PM)

quote:

And, really, blacks sitting in the back of the bus isn't suffering.


The good folks who spent a year boycotting buses in Montgomery might disagree with you: Wounds to the soul can indeed cause suffering.



Aswad -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 9:36:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The good folks who spent a year boycotting buses in Montgomery might disagree with you: Wounds to the soul can indeed cause suffering.


I sort of thought the sarcasm would register.

My point was that discriminating based on relationship configuration or dress code is as screwed up as discriminating based on orientation, religion, gender, creed, or race. Whether people are offended at it or not doesn't change the fact that BDSM is variant normal sexuality, and that D/s and M/s are variant normal relationship configurations. Hell, a bunch of 50's marriages are- strictly speaking- D/s relationships.

Health,
al-Aswad.



ShaktiSama -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (3/7/2008 10:11:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
My point was that discriminating based on relationship configuration or dress code is as screwed up as discriminating based on orientation, religion, gender, creed, or race.


BDSM in particular is more problematic than other forms of sexual identity precisely because it DOES invoke discrimination of age, gender, religion, creed, orientation and race as part of its iconographic content.  The public act we're discussing was an act of dehumanization and humiliation aimed at a woman.  She was not androgynous.  Her gender is invoked in the act.

I could get on a bus here in Knoxville with an African-American male on a leash as well.  It would be well within our "rights" as consenting adults to enjoy raceplay, and many people in this state do enjoy it greatly.  But I would consider it a deliberately provocative and incredibly stupid and hurtful thing to drag that raceplay into the public sphere, given that the legacy of racism our relationship invokes for pleasure is associated, by other people, with horror and pain.

Shoving a raceplay relationship into people's faces on a bus in broad daylight is a thing you do because you want to confront and upset other human beings, some of whom have suffered significant harm or who are struggling for dignity and equality.  The same is true of master-slave relationships of other kinds.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 [13] 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125