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

laurell3 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 3:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: canupleaseme I saw this story on the BBC news website and it made out that the reason for them not being allowed on the bus was that from a health ans saftey point of view it was dangerous[&:] If they had to brake hard or had a crash her leash would endanger not just herself but other passengers.[&:] Ive found the whole thing very confusing. Personally it wouldn't bother me seeing someone in public using it or my 9 year old u.m. Considering she likes to go out in her fairy costume a lot of the time a simple its just fancy dress would satisfy her curiosity. Each to their own I guess. And I also didnt find anything to make me think it was even remotely connected to bdsm. I'm guessing this reasoning was generated by the bus company after the media circus and complaint. Safety reasons don't come close to explaining his comments to them and him physically shoving them. Clearly it was no "safety reason" other than different people frighten him. Now it's possible there could be valid reasons imaginable, however he clearly wasn't following one when he acted in the manner he did and even going out of his way to be there when he wasn't working to insult them suggests the motivations for his behavior were entirely personal.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:03:51 PM)
quote: But they were not ejected from the bus for their appearance, which I agree would be discrimination. They were ejected because of their behavior, i.e., one leading the other by a leash. People here are crying foul because they are saying this couple received unequal treatment. I disagree that the leash is an adjunct of behavior rather than appearance, but even accepting your distinction for the sake of argument, how does their behavior warrant such treatment? If two children are playing patty cake on the bus, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"? If two college professors are discussing particle physics, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"? If two lawyers were debating constitutional law, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"? It would be one thing if their behavior was overly loud, or if they intruded upon other people's personal space. If their behavior directly interrupted or disturbed other passenger's behavior, that would be grounds for intervention. Such was not reported in the article. Attacking someone as a "freak" and physically assaulting them merely because their behavior offends is as rude and lacking in manners as it is discriminatory.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:08:36 PM)
Sorry, I'm on the "imposing their kink on others" camp. Their relationship doesn't require that she actually wear a leash in "broad daylight" public, even if she is his "doggy/pet" sub.. Even real dogs can easily be trained to heel. And just because your relationship is groovy in private doesn't mean you have the right to inflict it on others at all hours in public. 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. This is something that teenagers often think is cute/funny, which is why they also have a tendency to make out and have sex in public. "Oooo, lookie me! I'm bein' SEX-ay! I'm breakin' the roooooooools!" 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 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? (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.). On the other hand, if people were forbidden from riding on the bus just because they were tacky, hardly anyone would ever be allowed to ride, so...shrug The bus driver is in the wrong legally, regardless of how I feel about their behavior. It wasn't his place to judge them or refuse them service. I still think non-consensual sexual displays suck though.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:37:09 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. This is something that teenagers often think is cute/funny, which is why they also have a tendency to make out and have sex in public. "Oooo, lookie me! I'm bein' SEX-ay! I'm breakin' the roooooooools!" That is an opinion, not a fact. It very likely may be true for some Goths, but it is irrational to apply that statement to all Goths. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama 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. Others of us who have raised small children are not troubled by the sight of a leash. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama 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? Straw man alert! First, their attire merits no explanation to anyone. Second, there was no "whipping and beating" taking place. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama I still think non-consensual sexual displays suck though. There is nothing sexual about a leash. I take my slave out on a leash now and again--it gratifies, but does not arouse. If anything, vanilla types view it with something resembling amusement. At least, that has been my experience.

Solipsistic -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:48:05 PM)
This was not one incident, but a series of incidents between the couple and the same bus driver. The question of "imposing your kink on others" is irrelevant to this situation, because this is a situation with a couple trying to use a company service. Company employees are representatives of the company and cannot impose their personal views on others. Hence why the company has issued an apology to the couple and is investigating the incident. The single "off-duty" situation could probably be a lawsuit since he physically attacked the guy, but it doesn't seem like they pressed charges. Clearly, the "saftey concerns" is the PR department trying to defend its employee rather than fire him. I'd be curious how they handle passengers which require actual dogs, such as the blind. Do they have to remove the leash, as well? As for my use of "Master" in the title; I probably read too much into it. The article clearly says she lives as an actual pet and is completely reliant on him, so I inferred he was her master, but it doesn't expressly say that.

domiguy -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:55:32 PM)
It is amazing that so many people seem to know everything that transpired...The story did not produce any information other than what was offered by the two "goth" freaks.....You just can't trust goths....They ARE UNIVERSALLY BAD. Otherwise why would they always be wearing black? It would be funny if they went to court and lost and their punishment was that they had to wear nothing but "yellow" for the next year.

Imperiella -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:56:22 PM)
hot couple.

MissMagnolia -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 4:57:05 PM)
Good grief, it was a collar and leash. She didn't have a dildo hanging out of her arse, she wasn't shackled and naked and he wasn't slapping her around with a paddle.[8\|] Far too many years ago, I was a punk. I wore the mandatory Sid Vicious chain and padlock around my neck for awhile. No one threw me off a bus or gave two shits. None of us were there. They could have been giving him a hard time and vice versa, who knows how it started? Only the people there. But get it in perspective folks. It's a collar and leash.

AquaticSub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 5:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Sorry, I'm on the "imposing their kink on others" camp. Their relationship doesn't require that she actually wear a leash in "broad daylight" public, even if she is his "doggy/pet" sub.. Even real dogs can easily be trained to heel. And just because your relationship is groovy in private doesn't mean you have the right to inflict it on others at all hours in public. 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. This is something that teenagers often think is cute/funny, which is why they also have a tendency to make out and have sex in public. "Oooo, lookie me! I'm bein' SEX-ay! I'm breakin' the roooooooools!" Start a thread on sex in public and you'll find a lot of people past their teenage years are having sex in public. When I was a teen, those who had sex in public did it because they didn't have anywhere private to go. I engage in PDA because it's a display of affection. I tone it down if I think it's bothering someone most of the time but I do it because I want to, not because I think it's going to offend anyone. 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 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? It's pretty simple: This is how those people like to dress. We don't dress like that because that isn't how we like to dress. They weren't whipping and beating each other in public. They were wearing a leash. 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.). On the other hand, if people were forbidden from riding on the bus just because they were tacky, hardly anyone would ever be allowed to ride, so...shrug The bus driver is in the wrong legally, regardless of how I feel about their behavior. It wasn't his place to judge them or refuse them service. I still think non-consensual sexual displays suck though. Wearing a leash is not by itself sexual. I have been known to wear my small leather cuffs in public - it's not sexual in any way. I wear collars in public, doing so does not arouse me in the slightest. Without actually being them, we simply can't say if using that leash was in any way sexual for them.

AtlantisKing111 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 5:15:50 PM)
I've mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand I'm all for furthering the public acceptance of the lifestyle. Leashes as a fashion accessory play their part in that endeavor. Having a woman (no offence to the Dommes and sub males intended) is certainly a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. And it's not like they were engaged in sex or public nudity or even public Discipline. On the other hand I'm a firm believer in the lifestyle being consentual, and that includes not unduly freaking out the 'nillas who don't share our penchant for leather and chains and such.

marieToo -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 5:22:56 PM)
I didn't see anything sexual whatsoever with the attire or the actions of this couple. Him holding her leash is really no different than him walking with his arm around her. The leash is her personal choice of 'accesory' and her man is holding it. Goth attire is a personal style of dress, and for all we know this couple is simply "Goth" and not BDSM. I see the whole thing as more of a statement that they are going to be who they are despite society's wish to shove them back into a closet, labeled and ashamed. Though, who knows what their motivation is, as I am not inside either of their heads. Either way, there are no outward indications here of them imposing their possible kink or their sexuality on non-consentual people.

petdave -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 5:40:12 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. This is something that teenagers often think is cute/funny, which is why they also have a tendency to make out and have sex in public. "Oooo, lookie me! I'm bein' SEX-ay! I'm breakin' the roooooooools!" You seem to know a lot about their motivations. Are you providing psychological services to either of them? Because i think it would be highly unethical to be discussing them on the internet if that's the case. If that's not the case, and in fact you know nothing more about them than what you read in the article, then i'm disappointed to see this kind of ignorant, knee-jerk assumption on a BDSM forum. i'm more than a decade past being a teenager, and i would very much enjoy being walked on a leash in public, except that i am very uncomfortable with drawing attention to myself in public. So, the polar opposite of what you're suggesting. And when i was a teenager, i felt the same (although i did once get up the nerve to be "walked" at college... long story). Why assume that this couple has no legitimate interest in a pet/Owner relationship? Why assume that they want to confront people with their relationship? Is that what you enjoy doing? quote: By all means, wear your Goth clothes, but please folks--the leash is an "after five" accessory. i don't think the time of day was mentioned. So after 5pm it's okay, but not earlier? Does it adjust for daylight savings time? Speaking of which, if "broad daylight" is such a big issue, does it have to be at night, or would an overcast day be acceptable? If it's okay when the kids are doing homework, why not while they're in school, since that has a much more universal time frame? quote: I still think non-consensual sexual displays suck though. How on earth can humans reproduce via a leash with all their clothes on?? [:-] This must be one of those scary new things they didn't talk about in Sex Ed when i was in school... Does that mean that anyone who walks a canine dog on a leash is committing an act of bestiality? Because that's the sort of thing we really need to address while we still have some Republicans in office...

subrob1967 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 5:44:30 PM)
I'm with the Driver in this case, if she wants to stand on her soapbox and proclaim to the world that she is his "pet", the Driver, following the "no pets allowed" regulation, had every right to deny "Master & Pet" service. I guess it was too much for them to unsnap the leash, take the ride, and reconnect the leash at their destination, but that wouldn't be making a statement.

BlackKnight -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 5:52:25 PM)
It's all about the $$$$ the bus driver would lose his job if he allowed that kind of behavior on the bus, leash. The bus companies officials would be a feared of Publicity(bad ie tv newspapers) An accident (choking hazard, accident people falling neck broken, who sues who)

AquaticSub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 6:05:04 PM)
I'd be more likely to believe that if the bus driver simply said, and kept saying, "I'm sorry, but we can't let you on the bus while wearing the leash due to the risk of someone tripping over it. I'll be happy to let you on the bus if you take it off and replace it once you get off" instead of calling them freaks and shoving the guy up against something.

BlackKnight -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 6:07:47 PM)
Damn, maybe I shoulda read the thread, ok, There's no reason for his rudeness!

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 6:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 I'm with the Driver in this case, if she wants to stand on her soapbox and proclaim to the world that she is his "pet", the Driver, following the "no pets allowed" regulation, had every right to deny "Master & Pet" service. I guess it was too much for them to unsnap the leash, take the ride, and reconnect the leash at their destination, but that wouldn't be making a statement. You should at least read the article. According to the particulars contained thereing, the bus driver was off duty, and far from enforcing regulations, insulted the couple and assaulted the man. If there was a regulatory issue with the lead, it was not reported.

MistressNoName -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 6:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtlantisKing111 I've mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand I'm all for furthering the public acceptance of the lifestyle. Leashes as a fashion accessory play their part in that endeavor. Having a woman (no offence to the Dommes and sub males intended) is certainly a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. And it's not like they were engaged in sex or public nudity or even public Discipline. On the other hand I'm a firm believer in the lifestyle being consentual, and that includes not unduly freaking out the 'nillas who don't share our penchant for leather and chains and such. Here's something to think about. Hets go around town all the time, hand in hand, arm in arm, laughing, giggling expressing their love...no one blinks an eye. Gay and lesbian couples try to do the same thing, at the very least they get unapproving stares. At worse, someone gets bashed because homosexuality is offensive to some people. Well, no one ever considers that public displays of heterosexual affection might be offensive to some people. Still, no one glares angrily at hets. So these kinky goth kids decide they want to be themselves, do their thing in public. I liken it to that same type of benign display of affection that hets get away with all the time. As someone pointed out, she (the pet) didn't have a dildo up her ass (at least, not that could be seen). Master Jack McGeorge told a story once at a talk here in NYC about a time when he was driving home with one of his slaves who'd just had some serious dental work done. She hated the dentist, had been overwhelmed with emotion and was hungry as all hell. They stopped at a local diner to get something to eat. She felt very out of sorts and asked him to put her leash on. It made her feel more secure. Usually he might not oblige her in a public setting, but this time he did, because the need for her to feel the leash around her neck was more important at the time than worrying about what the "mundanes" (his word) in the restaurant thought. I don't remember all the little details of the story, but apparently while inside, someone who was disturbed at the sight reported it to the manager and the manager went over to talk to him. Master Jack then explained to him about how this was a consensual thing they were doing and that she (the slave) was not being abused in any way. I believe the incident ended at that. My point being, sometimes it's really just about the needs and the freedoms of the kinky people. Sometimes, our needs and rights to certain freedoms have to be considered as well. It's not always about considering what the mundanes/vanillas can handle seeing and what they cannot. Sometimes, a slave (or a pet) needs to be on a leash. And sometimes, when a Master is innocently walking his pet, not harming anyone, the vanillas need to just exercise some tolerance and let folks be. MNN

tempest74 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 6:36:57 PM)
Mistress No Name... Beautifully said. All in the name of live and let live I say.

Solipsistic -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/23/2008 7:27:05 PM)
I have to vent here, for a second. The whole reason I posted this was because the article made me happy that two goth kids with a leash can be denied from a bus and it is international news. The bus company apologized and invited them to ride any time they like. The bus driver was likely disciplined. This article is NOT about some vanilla guy making a fuss about a couple with a leash. I guarantee you things like that happen all the time every day and they are not news. The news is that some jerk brought his personal views into the workplace and our always-trying-to-be-impartial society stood up for the kids with the leash. I didn't realize this was such a hard thing to pick up on, else I would have put some text in my initial post!

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875