Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it

Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Elisabella -> Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/21/2009 11:49:38 PM)
Where do you personally draw the line between "imposing your kink on unwilling bystanders" and simply "refusing to live a closeted life"? For me, the simplest distinction is whether the interaction with the third party is a part of the kink, or even if you're interaction with that third party is kink oriented. Flashing someone in a park needs a third person to work; telling your friends that if they come over your slave will be naked doesn't, because the slave would be naked anyway and they have a choice whether or not they want to visit your home. Wearing a collar in public is just a refusal to take off what you wear otherwise, whereas calling a saleswoman "Mistress" is inappropriate. I also think that it's considered an imposition if you do something at, say, a restaurant or shop, and the manager or owner has to ask you to leave because you refused to stop when asked. You can do what you want in your own home - in public you have to follow public laws and on other people's property you have to follow their rules. Thoughts?

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:08:41 AM)
I have a notoriously small expanse of interactions that I think merit defending in favor of the perceiver. I would normally be tempted to draw the line simply at issues where a non-consenting individual's physical person or property is being assaulted, but I would also likely be rather strict about verbal harassment with no intent other that to directly intimidate or upset (and maybe even to people who espouse terminology that is known to intentionally and directly intimidate or upset for little reason other than engaging in a fad). If there is the chance that what someone is doing/saying is a personal reflection of something positive/beautiful in their life, I'm likely to be all for it. My predisposition is to treat such events, by default, as expressions of such rather than indications of 'attention whoring'. Exemptions would be when the person doing/saying things appears to clearly be going out of their way to do said things in front of someone or in front of a specific audience. And, I refuse to use the word "kink" as the initial way to describe instances such as these because that too is spoken with a presumption to cheapen the act semantically by the innuendo that it is being used as some show rather than a personal interaction/expression. I think the differing views likely start with people for whom facets of WIITWD are indeed just "kink" (bedroom only, role-playing) as opposed to reflections of parts of themselves they think are important. Like the difference between a teenager who wears an obscure baseball team's cap because of support of the team and one that wears it because of the 'kewl' color scheme and logo style.

Elipsis -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:28:34 AM)
I'm glad you made this thread because I found that discussion interesting as it was developing in the previous thread. It is certainly a difficult distinction with some gray area. There are certain kinks that essentially require the participation of parties who have not consented to be involved. Elisabella mentioned flashing as a good example, another one is exhibitionism such as leading your slave around on a leash through the local mall. Even here there is a distinction. The former activity involves much more direct interaction with the unconsenting party, where the latter is much more ignorable. If I'm looking to define precisely where it becomes imposing on others I could try to say that the fine line is when the focus of the activity becomes those others. This definition is shitty, however, because you end up in the situation where the exact same activity could fall into either category depending on the attitude of the kinsters involved. Lets take the leash example again. If your attitude is that "I really enjoy leading my sub around on a leash and the two of us have a need to go to the mall to take care of some things," well then that would be an activity where the focus is your partner that just happens to take place in public. Other people are only as involved as they choose to by observing your behavior and give a shit. On the other hand the exact same activity becomes more focused on others when you decide that you are doing this in public primarily to get a reaction from bystanders. At that point you can't have your fun without those people seeing what you're doing and reacting with surprise / indignation / whatever. Now I've painted myself into a corner because I've set up a definition that defines the same activity as two different things entirely based on attitude and motive. I'm not even claiming to have a good answer to the question really... just putting some ideas out there.

Elisabella -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I have a notoriously small expanse of interactions that I think merit defending in favor of the perceiver. I would normally be tempted to draw the line simply at issues where a non-consenting individual's physical person or property is being assaulted, but I would also likely be rather strict about verbal harassment with no intent other that to directly intimidate or upset (and maybe even to people who espouse terminology that is known to intentionally and directly intimidate or upset for little reason other than engaging in a fad). If there is the chance that what someone is doing/saying is a personal reflection of something positive/beautiful in their life, I'm likely to be all for it. My predisposition is to treat such events, by default, as expressions of such rather than indications of 'attention whoring'. Exemptions would be when the person doing/saying things appears to clearly be going out of their way to do said things in front of someone or in front of a specific audience. And, I refuse to use the word "kink" as the initial way to describe instances such as these because that too is spoken with a presumption to cheapen the act semantically by the innuendo that it is being used as some show rather than a personal interaction/expression. I think the differing views likely start with people for whom facets of WIITWD are indeed just "kink" (bedroom only, role-playing) as opposed to reflections of parts of themselves they think are important. Like the difference between a teenager who wears an obscure baseball team's cap because of support of the team and one that wears it because of the 'kewl' color scheme and logo style. I definitely agree...I guess I have the opposite tendency in that I generally view it as attention whoring first unless I know the person well enough to know that it's not. I also think that it generally tends to be an imposition if the person makes it clear that they're uncomfortable, and they're unable to leave. For example, calling a waitress "Mistress" or "girl" - if she says "please stop, you're making me uncomfortable" or anything along those lines, I think the person should stop. She's at work, she can't just walk away from the interaction. Ditto with, say, coming in on a leash and sitting on the floor of the restaurant. You're choosing to be there, and if the manager says stop then stop it is. I don't think it's a kinky thing either, I'd say the same for a couple making out, a person using swear words or a mother breast feeding...if you really feel the need to do what you want without compromise, don't do it on someone else's property.

Elisabella -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:36:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis I'm glad you made this thread because I found that discussion interesting as it was developing in the previous thread. It is certainly a difficult distinction with some gray area. There are certain kinks that essentially require the participation of parties who have not consented to be involved. Elisabella mentioned flashing as a good example, another one is exhibitionism such as leading your slave around on a leash through the local mall. Even here there is a distinction. The former activity involves much more direct interaction with the unconsenting party, where the latter is much more ignorable. If I'm looking to define precisely where it becomes imposing on others I could try to say that the fine line is when the focus of the activity becomes those others. This definition is shitty, however, because you end up in the situation where the exact same activity could fall into either category depending on the attitude of the kinsters involved. Lets take the leash example again. If your attitude is that "I really enjoy leading my sub around on a leash and the two of us have a need to go to the mall to take care of some things," well then that would be an activity where the focus is your partner that just happens to take place in public. Other people are only as involved as they choose to by observing your behavior and give a shit. On the other hand the exact same activity becomes more focused on others when you decide that you are doing this in public primarily to get a reaction from bystanders. At that point you can't have your fun without those people seeing what you're doing and reacting with surprise / indignation / whatever. Now I've painted myself into a corner because I've set up a definition that defines the same activity as two different things entirely based on attitude and motive. I'm not even claiming to have a good answer to the question really... just putting some ideas out there. No I totally agree...I think intent has a lot to do with it. And the intent isn't always obvious...because then there'd be a difference between "I like seeing my slave on a leash" and "I like being able to display my dominance" or "I like being able to make her publicly show her submission" It's definitely a complex issue.

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:38:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella For example, calling a waitress "Mistress" or "girl" - if she says "please stop, you're making me uncomfortable" or anything along those lines, I think the person should stop. She's at work, she can't just walk away from the interaction. Ditto with, say, coming in on a leash and sitting on the floor of the restaurant. You're choosing to be there, and if the manager says stop then stop it is. That's more direct harassment. To that extent, it doesn't matter if the word used is "toots" or "Mistress", it's calling her something that's completely not reflective of any real relation to her upon which the use of the word would apply. But people are griping if the poor waitress had to hear, instead: "My Mistress is in the restroom but she would like the lobster carbonara." Apparently, having to hear about the reality of other people's lives is being "imposed" upon by their kink. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I don't think it's a kinky thing either, I'd say the same for a couple making out, a person using swear words or a mother breast feeding...if you really feel the need to do what you want without compromise, don't do it on someone else's property. Profanity kind of falls under the exemptions I discussed. Profanity is normally specifically used to insult or berate ('tis the nature of the words) and I can't imagine someone who would feel that curse words as so important a part of their being that they would be used for any purpose other than to intentionally annoy or shock.

Elisabella -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella For example, calling a waitress "Mistress" or "girl" - if she says "please stop, you're making me uncomfortable" or anything along those lines, I think the person should stop. She's at work, she can't just walk away from the interaction. Ditto with, say, coming in on a leash and sitting on the floor of the restaurant. You're choosing to be there, and if the manager says stop then stop it is. That's more direct harassment. To that extent, it doesn't matter if the word used is "toots" or "Mistress", it's calling her something that's completely not reflective of any real relation to her upon which the use of the word would apply. But people are griping if the poor waitress had to hear, instead: "My Mistress is in the restroom but she would like the lobster carbonara." Apparently, having to hear about the reality of other people's lives is being "imposed" upon by their kink. Agreed, I think that in that context the waitress or salesperson isn't the direct recipient of the 'kinky word' so to speak, and I think you drew a good parallel to a gay man...is he not supposed to talk about his boyfriend? It's hard for me to define an actual line of when it becomes inappropriate...but as a general rule I'd say that "doing what you normally do, under the condition it isn't making anyone else's life more difficult" would be a good starting point. I don't think it makes someone's life more difficult to hear the word "mistress" spoken in passing...I do think it makes someone's life more difficult to have to serve a plate of food to the slave who refuses to sit in a chair at a restaurant. That being said I'm sure there are waitresses who would find that an amusement rather than an imposition. And as always I recommend the golden rule of "if you are going to do something in public, expect it to be commented on publicly."

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I can't imagine someone who would feel that curse words as so important a part of their being that they would be used for any purpose other than to intentionally annoy or shock. Now that I think about it, this boils it down really well. Some people, it seems, cannot dissociate between things they find shocking/annoying and things they presume are done with the intention to shock/annoy.

Elisabella -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 12:58:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I can't imagine someone who would feel that curse words as so important a part of their being that they would be used for any purpose other than to intentionally annoy or shock. Now that I think about it, this boils it down really well. Some people, it seems, cannot dissociate between things they find shocking/annoying and things they presume are done with the intention to shock/annoy. Very true...I'd still say that a business owner has a right to stop people from engaging in behaviour that a high percentage of their customers simply find shocking/annoying, but so long as it's done on public property people need to get over it and learn that they don't have to pay attention to things that bother them.

Elipsis -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:06:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero And, I refuse to use the word "kink" as the initial way to describe instances such as these because that too is spoken with a presumption to cheapen the act semantically by the innuendo that it is being used as some show rather than a personal interaction/expression. I think the differing views likely start with people for whom facets of WIITWD are indeed just "kink" (bedroom only, role-playing) as opposed to reflections of parts of themselves they think are important. Like the difference between a teenager who wears an obscure baseball team's cap because of support of the team and one that wears it because of the 'kewl' color scheme and logo style. I disagree with you here. I suppose it depends somewhat if you precisely define the word "kink", but if you take it to mean a non-standard or uncommon activity or interest in regards to what would commonly be considered a fetish, that's exactly what it is. I don't think that the use of the word necessitates the lack of existence of a meaningful personal interaction lying underneath the activity. It might very well be an expression of a part of themselves that they think is important, but it is still deviant and nontraditional behavior that I would think fits the definition of the word. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Profanity kind of falls under the exemptions I discussed. Profanity is normally specifically used to insult or berate ('tis the nature of the words) and I can't imagine someone who feel that curse words as so important a part of their being that they would be used for any purpose other than to intentionally annoy or shock. I actually had a specialized use for the word "bitch" that was intended neither to insult or berate but that's an entire other topic. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella No I totally agree...I think intent has a lot to do with it. And the intent isn't always obvious...because then there'd be a difference between "I like seeing my slave on a leash" and "I like being able to display my dominance" or "I like being able to make her publicly show her submission" It's definitely a complex issue. And while somehow attitude is very important to this discussion, it is necessarily irrelevant if we're going to talk about an activity and how it affects third parties. I drew a line there, but it is a line that only exists in my head. You brought up an interesting scenario that is another part of this discussion, or at least you lead my thoughts there... by mentioning the scenario of sitting on the floor of a restaurant and I tried to answer for myself if I'm okay with this as a public behavior or not. Basically, the question boils down to "Is it wrong to make other people uncomfortable?" Let's assume that, more specifically to avoid the previous stumbling block, the question is "Is it wrong to make unintentionally (and indirectly) make people uncomfortable?" The next question is "What activities make people uncomfortable?" The answer to that is "everything" if you have the right people. Then you have to change the question to "What activities make reasonable people uncomfortable?" Then you have to define "reasonable" Two gay guys holding hands in a mall might make a lot of people uncomfortable, but I would advise those gay guys to tell those people to fuck off and I would in that instance not respect other people's uncomfortableness. When is public display of affection inappropriate? Always? Never? Do you have the right to make out with your girlfriend in a movie theater if it is upsetting the old people three rows behind you? Are they out of line and should be minding their own business, or should you respect them? Unfortunately the answers to these questions are too personal and subjective to clearly derive. When should other people mind their own business and be respectful of your unusual BDSM relationship... versus when should you be respectful of those other people and put aside some tenants of that relationship in order to function in society without causing (unreasonable?) discomfort? Even worse, these questions are regional (gay PDA in the north versus south), cultural (America versus somewhere like Japan), generational, and other things that end in *al that I haven't even thought of yet. Once again... I'm generating questions than answers on this subject. :(

Elipsis -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Very true...I'd still say that a business owner has a right to stop people from engaging in behaviour that a high percentage of their customers simply find shocking/annoying, but so long as it's done on public property people need to get over it and learn that they don't have to pay attention to things that bother them. Eh... that kind of moves out of the scope of this discussion as far as ethics of exhibitionism and such... because at some point a business owner is going to have to make a business decision without regard to people's perceived rights and feelings. Financially speaking, telling 95% of your customers to "get over it" is just a poor business decision no matter how reasonable or unreasonable "it" is. You could be the owner of "Bob's Racist Hick Diner" where all the white people go who hate eating with black people... and technically speaking your best business decision is to enforce the preference of your racist consumer base and tell the black guy that he isn't allowed in because he "makes people uncomfortable," no matter how reasonable it might be that he wants to sit down and eat and be left the fuck alone.

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:20:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Very true...I'd still say that a business owner has a right to stop people from engaging in behaviour that a high percentage of their customers simply find shocking/annoying, but so long as it's done on public property people need to get over it and learn that they don't have to pay attention to things that bother them. Well, private business owners can do whatever they want, sensible or not.

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis I disagree with you here. I suppose it depends somewhat if you precisely define the word "kink", but if you take it to mean a non-standard or uncommon activity or interest in regards to what would commonly be considered a fetish, that's exactly what it is. I don't think that the use of the word necessitates the lack of existence of a meaningful personal interaction lying underneath the activity. It might very well be an expression of a part of themselves that they think is important, but it is still deviant and nontraditional behavior that I would think fits the definition of the word. People don't usually use the word "kink" if they are speaking of something they view as inherent to them. In that case, they normally just say "this is me". In the context of when the "don't impose your kink on others!" phrase comes out, the use of the word "kink" has a preemptive derogatory flavor, because it's easier to feel justified telling someone to stop doing something whimsical rather than something personal.

Elipsis -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:30:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis I disagree with you here. I suppose it depends somewhat if you precisely define the word "kink", but if you take it to mean a non-standard or uncommon activity or interest in regards to what would commonly be considered a fetish, that's exactly what it is. I don't think that the use of the word necessitates the lack of existence of a meaningful personal interaction lying underneath the activity. It might very well be an expression of a part of themselves that they think is important, but it is still deviant and nontraditional behavior that I would think fits the definition of the word. People don't usually use the word "kink" if they are speaking of something they view as inherent to them. In that case, they normally just say "this is me". In the context of when the "don't impose your kink on others!" phrase comes out, the use of the word "kink" has a preemptive derogatory flavor, because it's easier to feel justified telling someone to stop doing something whimsical rather than something personal. Don't they? I see your argument for this, but what if someone's attitude is "This is me. I am (unashamedly) a kinky individual."? I take the term kink to mean "Unusual sexual behavior or interest," and I certainly feel that such things are an inherent part of my nature and intertwine with how I view human relationships. In your latter context, I feel like the preemptive derogatory air comes from the word "impose". Perhaps if we talked about "Exposing your kink around others," it would connote something different?

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:39:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis Don't they? I see your argument for this, but what if someone's attitude is "This is me. I am (unashamedly) a kinky individual."? Fine by me. I'm not even arguing to constrain it even if someone would call it kink. I mean, fantasy baseball if just a hobby of mine but I don't feel I've "imposed" on someone via my "hobby/kink" if I decide to talk about it where others might hear. quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis I take the term kink to mean "Unusual sexual behavior or interest," and I certainly feel that such things are an inherent part of my nature and intertwine with how I view human relationships. Moral issues with nudity or sexuality are much tougher metals to soften. So, I would have to (at least in understanding) balance the fact that it shouldn't be a genuine "imposition" if I'm talking with a partner about planning for fellatio later on in the evening with the fact that I know it will easily be too much for some to handle. I still have to, misanthrope that I am, realize the moral issues that people will have when I go in public, at least to incorporate it to weighing the potential consequences (which leads to understanding legal issues). quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis In your latter context, I feel like the preemptive derogatory air comes from the word "impose". Perhaps if we talked about "Exposing your kink around others," it would connote something different? Naw. I think people would still get uppity. "Expose" would likely steer their thoughts to some flashing of nudity....like public breast-feeding, for instance.

LadyChallene -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:44:57 AM)
While I am not into hiding parts of myself … I do not fall down, roll in neon and advertise to just anyone either. Every situation is unique. Every conversation is, or should be, just as unique, unless for some reason they are in to needless repetition.

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 1:47:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyChallene While I am not into hiding parts of myself … Says the lady showing off some good thigh in her avatar. [img]http://www.robguimaraes.com/s/winkgrin.gif[/img]

Elipsis -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 2:04:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis I take the term kink to mean "Unusual sexual behavior or interest," and I certainly feel that such things are an inherent part of my nature and intertwine with how I view human relationships. Moral issues with nudity or sexuality are much tougher metals to soften. So, I would have to (at least in understanding) balance the fact that it shouldn't be a genuine "imposition" if I'm talking with a partner about planning for fellatio later on in the evening with the fact that I know it will easily be too much for some to handle. I still have to, misanthrope that I am, realize the moral issues that people will have when I go in public, at least to incorporate it to weighing the potential consequences (which leads to understanding legal issues). Dialog on its own with no observable action from the participants is almost an entirely separate issue, but eventually you get back to the larger issue of being yourself versus making others uncomfortable. Once again the answers to these ones are very much a matter of personal choice... I for one tend to lean on the side of not giving a fuck what the people around me are thinking as far as potential evesdropping or overhearing things that I feel like talking about. Aside from not being overtly disgusting while the people next to me are eating in a restaurant, I don't see the need to censor myself when I'm talking to my friends in a public place. Even then there are exceptions... a friend of mine got (rightfully) blasted by some young mom for repeatedly swearing somewhat loudly in a toy store. On the flip side of the coin if we're waiting in line at midnight to see an R-rated movie I might not be on guard for 5 year olds to mind my dialog in front of and if someone decides that that is a good place for their child to be I don't really see how that is my problem. It's too much of a digression to explain at length, but I recently also got into a long argument with my father about "swearing in front of women". I told him he was sexist. You can derive our positions and arguments from there... quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis In your latter context, I feel like the preemptive derogatory air comes from the word "impose". Perhaps if we talked about "Exposing your kink around others," it would connote something different? Naw. I think people would still get uppity. "Expose" would likely steer their thoughts to some flashing of nudity....like public breast-feeding, for instance. You're probably right but it was still a worthwhile thought experiment. I never said that people wouldn't be upset, only that the connotation would be at least somewhat different. We've changed the implication from it's original aura to something more... um... flesh related.

NihilusZero -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 2:10:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis Dialog on its own with no observable action from the participants is almost an entirely separate issue, but eventually you get back to the larger issue of being yourself versus making others uncomfortable. Yeah, but the people who are naturally more introverted and private get the luxury of "being themselves" while potentially being able to claim the higher ground on the 'tact scale'. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis Once again the answers to these ones are very much a matter of personal choice... I for one tend to lean on the side of not giving a fuck what the people around me are thinking as far as potential evesdropping or overhearing things that I feel like talking about. Aside from not being overtly disgusting while the people next to me are eating in a restaurant, I don't see the need to censor myself when I'm talking to my friends in a public place. Echo. quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis It's too much of a digression to explain at length, but I recently also got into a long argument with my father about "swearing in front of women". I told him he was sexist. You can derive our positions and arguments from there... Oh...there are times when swearing at them will elicit some delicious responses... But, that's probably not what was being discussed... quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I never said that people wouldn't be upset, only that the connotation would be at least somewhat different. We've changed the implication from it's original aura to something more... um... flesh related. Which is why I brought up public breast-feeding. That's usually one of the better 'nudity vs. morality' examples in such a case.

Elipsis -> RE: Involving others in your kink vs. Not feeling the need to hide it (11/22/2009 2:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis Dialog on its own with no observable action from the participants is almost an entirely separate issue, but eventually you get back to the larger issue of being yourself versus making others uncomfortable. Yeah, but the people who are naturally more introverted and private get the luxury of "being themselves" while potentially being able to claim the higher ground on the 'tact scale'. [:D] I wouldn't know, tact isn't one of my vices. That said one potential solution to that problem is to drag them kicking and screaming off their high horse and onto the other side of the scale. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis It's too much of a digression to explain at length, but I recently also got into a long argument with my father about "swearing in front of women". I told him he was sexist. You can derive our positions and arguments from there... Oh...there are times when swearing at them will elicit some delicious responses... But, that's probably not what was being discussed... I would certainly believe that such responses exist but this argument was more so about traditional, and dare I say antiquated, responses. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Elipsis I never said that people wouldn't be upset, only that the connotation would be at least somewhat different. We've changed the implication from it's original aura to something more... um... flesh related. Which is why I brought up public breast-feeding. That's usually one of the better 'nudity vs. morality' examples in such a case. Breast-feeding is a little bit of a different animal, however, because there is the additional argument that feeding is "necessary" ...or at the very least more directly related to an actual legitimate physical need than, say, public play. (edit: fixed yet another error with nested quotes)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625