Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (Full Version)

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



Message

Proprietrix -> Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 10:29:21 AM)

This is kind of an off-shoot of the coming out thread, but I didn't want to hijack there. But I do want to respond to this concept of visibly being out in the vanilla world and what level of responsibility we have to shield others from our lifestyle. (Especially children.)... and see how others feel on the subject.

To paraphrase:
Someone made a comment about how is a parent supposed to explain someone wearing a dog collar to their 7 year old. Someone else commented that if that's the question, we might also want to question how a parent explains homosexuals holding hands in public.

Here's my personal opinions on the matter:

In my opinion, it is a parents responsibility to explain the world around them, to their children. I don't feel it is my personal responsibility to monitor my wardrobe based on other people's morals. But then, I also don't feel that lifestyle outness can inherently be assumed as some sort of evil impressed on the innocence of children....

I take no personal responsibility for "the innocence of the children of the world." Even if I wanted to, once we start assuming other parents' moral codes, I feel we are treading on their parental rights. If I assume that parents don't want their kids exposed to collars and leathers, should I also assume they don't want their children exposed to bikinis? Is it then my responsibility to only wear a full one-piece swimsuit? Should I also assume that they are of a specific religion, and I should keep my thighs covered as well? Should I assume they belong to a certain political party and I should not cast my opinion if contrary?
What right do I have to assume anything about someone's belief system based on their parental status?
And what responsibility do I have to try to accomadate their belief system when I'm in public?
In my opinion...  none.
It is neither my right, nor my responsibility, to be accountable to the upbringing of other people's children.

When I became a parent, I took the responsibility of explaining the world to my son, on my terms. I feel that others can take up the same responsibility for their own children. It is their responsibility to explain (or not explain, if that's their choice) the whats and whys of the society their child is being exposed to.
I raised my child completely lifestyle aware. I also raised him aware that there are rich and poor in the world, there are gay people, there are handicaps, there is prejudice, there are politicians, there is crime, and on and on and on....

I wear some of the most controversial T-shirts in town. (i.e. "How to train your bitch." with silhouettes of women crawling toward other women.) I purchased this shirt at the mall. The public mall, that children walk in and out of all the time. This would be the same mall where teenagers sit at the food court listening to music that has lyrics that would make guys at the bar cringe. The same mall where women are wearing skirts so short you can see butt cheek hanging out. The same mall where people yell derogatory names across the isle. And the majority of these people, also go to public grocery stores, banks, post offices, and walk down the street.
When one takes their child out in public, I feel they have to leave certain expectations of moral censorship at home. A parent can't take a child into the world and expect that everyone is going to abide by their personal dress code.

I really never bought into the mantra of "involving vanillas non-consensually". Nor do I see *being exposed to something* as *being forced into practicing it*. My submissive wearing a collar in public is a far cry different than me running up to someone and flogging them without permission.

If we buy into the belief that exposure = involvement, then on a daily basis I am non-consensually being involved in business matters which I find unethical. I'm daily being involved in a pop-culture which I didn't choose to be in. I'm being involved in religious crusades which I abhore. I'm being involved in drunken conduct when I don't drink, public displays of affection when I don't know the people, and low-carb diets when I'm a pasta lover. Hell, I'm being invovled in veganism, christianity, hate-groups, sports, politics, diets, and sexism. None of which I consented to.

I just simply can't swallow the line that being exposed to something is being non-consensually forced into it.

We have certain laws that protect minors, and in my opinion, that's more than sufficient. Anything beyond that is left up to the parents. If parents don't want their children exposed to the realities of other people's lifestyles, I feel they should stay home, or at a minimum, spend all their time in vicinities that adhere to their specific set of values.

But then, I also drive a car that has a bumper sticker that says "Don't lie to kids."



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 10:33:54 AM)

Like I said, there's a balance.  Unfortunately everyone's balance point differs, and when you shove a whole lot of people with a very wide range of what they consider acceptable into a very small space...you're going to have conflict.

I personally don't feel it's a big deal, nor would I make someone else for feel wrong for not sharing my own values- but then I think public nudity and sex shouldn't be a big deal either. 

This past year in VA a bunch of people got a Victoria's Secret window display to get majorly tones down because they considered what was up to be inappropriate.  I consider that ridiculous.

It's ok to get offended, and it's ok to speak your mind.  I did a thread on that when my sister got the Calvin Klein display down- she should have as much of a voice as anyone else, even if I completely disagree with her. 

But it's not necessarily someone else doing something WRONG, and it's not ok to say someone else is bad for not sharing your values.



truesub4u -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 11:15:34 AM)

Not meaning to be rude here... but where you do things your ways.. other will do them theirs. I actually have to run both ways in my household. I got one teen who's mentally my age to a point. Where the other is not. My oldest knows more that I wished she knew... but she's a nosy twit. Where my other likes to go her own way and not care who i'm talking to about what (Unless she hears her name come up then she's just as nosey.. LOL) So not to step on no ones toes... I can't.. sense I got both going on here. It's all in how people want to handle their won lives.

I prefer my girls knew nothing at all. But they know enough to know mom isn't as boring as other moms...LOL I'm very open with my girls about sex, drugs, music, politics, gays, anything they come and ask me about. I won't dance around. I tell them what I know.... and tell then what I don't know... but will find out what I can. This makes me appreciate the fact that they know they can come to me and talk to me about anything they want. And with them being at the age of more questions than a 2 year old... with their bodies changing..... minds... who they hang with... what everone else is doing compared to them. And why they're not fitting in... or are fitting in. I just teach them the best that I can... and hope for the best... and take what's given in return as far as what roads they decide to take. All I tell them... is if they end up behind bars... don't call me... if you did what I warned you not to do... LOL



perverseangelic -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 11:26:44 AM)

I agree with Proprietrix largely, but I think there -are- some things that shouldnt' be done in public. However, I think the same rules apply to vanilla relationships that apply to kinky ones.

That is, I don't think it's appropriate to beat someone in public, but neither do I think it's appropriate to have sex with someone in public.  I am not upset by individuals dressing in clothing that doesn't conform to gender norms, but I -am- upset by someone crawling after someone in a public place. Fine line, yeah, but it's there for me.

When I have kids, I hope that I'll be able to express to them that there are many, many ways that adults love each other, and that as long as both adults have chosen it, that it's ok.



thetammyjo -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 1:51:56 PM)

This is one of my pet peeves because some folks seem to think that munches can be automatically located at places where children aren't allowed and yet are still open to all adults (nope -- lots of bars don't allow under 21 and 18-20 is still an adult folks). This complaint that "children might see the munch" is one of the things that drove me from my local community. "Oh, my god, a child might see adults eating! How horrible because their parents never eat!"

In terms of clothing, I see so many offensive things on people of all ages every day when I'm out in public. I think as long as the legal code for dressing is observed, we should have the freedom to wear what we wish.

In terms of behavior I prefer to be subtle in public. The most important person who needs to know of and respect my authority is my slave; its no one else's business. In terms of physical affection, I side with my above comment about the legal code.

I think we live in a society which makes a big verbal deal about "protecting children" but other than that, we do very little. We don't have public policies that protect children and we play political games all the time with issues that if we really cared about children there would not be arguments about (in my opinion). Heck, we have computers and televisions that we can set up to block "adult materials" because as a society we don't even expect the children's own parents to do much parenting any more... if it isn't driving them to different events or buying that toy we sort of ignore how folks treat their kids until the neighbor complains.

If the people who complain the most about "protecting the children" actually spent time with their own children or volunteering for service with children, I think a much better world would exist. I guess its much easier to bitch and try to pass laws though than doing something hands-on, huh?



VvShadowspawnvV -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 7:50:34 PM)

We have children. They know my collar is very special, because Master gave it to me. (the baby loves to play with it- it's stainless steel, and she thinks it tastes good, apparently) They hear me call Him "Sir". They know He is the boss of the house. They don't need to know more than that, at their ages. Actually, from outward appearances, our family is kind of a classic, 1950's kinda family. The man is the head of the house, and all that. Like the way my grandparents were raised. When/if the children ask for more info, we will give them more.

i do realize that the fact that we're M/f makes us a bit more socially acceptable that way. Church people love us- we fit the New Testament description of a husband and wife to a t... we also fit the master/servant one- such over-achievers we are! =)

becca



WyrdRich -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 8:28:07 PM)

        Strange how things work sometimes.  I was kinda pressed for time when I posted my reply to Philosophy over on the coming out thread and the coffee hadn't worked it's morning magic yet.  My intent was to refer to the effect on parents and the animalistic instinct to protect their own kids, rather than the effect on the kids themselves.  (Does sparking that instinct in parents help or hurt us as a community at large?)  Children have very flexible minds.

        And yet, another good topic has been launched.

        We have every right to be who we are and express that to the world as we decide is appropriate.  Everybody else has that right too, so my guiding principle is to be no more "in someones face" about things as I'm willing to put up with from a Fundamentalist Christian.  (Not to say I go knocking on doors with the Good News about CBT).  They have a fish on their car, I have a dead fish on mine.  I'm not an activist or a crusader.  I live here and like my life simple and peaceful.

         Where is the line on turning being yourself into forcing a 'nilla to join your scene?  I'm not sure.  It's gray and variable but if a Domme sends her sub through the checkout line at Piggly-Wiggly with a box of condoms, a cucumber and a jar of vaseline they've crossed it.  Stopping at a convenience store in full fetish dress because you need something on the way home from a party is well inside bounds.  If you NEVER take that collar off then don't but if you don't wear it to work and Sunday dinner with Grandma then you don't really need to wear it to a baseball game.

       These are just my values and I'm



KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 9:10:57 PM)

I don't dress in fetish gear in public, but I do have opinions about it.

I don't feel that it's my job to protect children from how I wear my clothing or what I choose to wear, or how I choose to act. However, if I am going to Chuck E Cheese or a family restaurant or somewhere else where kids are welcomed, I'm not going to wear a collar or a low cut top with a push up bra. That wouldn't be appropriate.

I work in a retail environment, and wouldn't wear revealing clothing or "questionable" adornments that would lead to odd stares or commentary. After all, I'm there to serve the customer, not bring inappropriate attention to myself.

So, while I don't think that I should have to censor what I wear to comfort the babies, I also think that I need to dress and act appropriately to the situation. If I didn't care about how society functioned, I wouldn't choose to be a part of it.



Reasonable -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 9:30:23 PM)

Respect means never having to say ,"You want HOW much for bail!!!!??????"[:(]

(And that was to the op[;)])



chainedphoenix -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 9:30:53 PM)

I pretty much go with the 'what they don't need to know, I don't need to show' attitude. Things which the 'nillas won't notice are fine, like clothes and small behaviours (e.g. calling a Dom 'Master' or 'Sir'), but once it gets into the realm of TMI, then probably not a good idea. It's kinda like opening the curtains when you're having sex - not really necessary.

As KittenWithATwist said, go by what's appropriate to situation.



juliaoceania -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 9:51:35 PM)

Do I think that you should dress so not to offend people that do not venture into this realm? No I do not. There are public indecency laws and as long as you stay legal I do not think anyone has a right to tell you what to wear so you will not offend their kids. At the same time there are many places where T-Shirts like the one you were wearing would get you asked to leave, and private places of business have the right not to serve whom they like.

I do not care what you wear in front of my child, and I have to say more vanilla people than BDSM people have acted rudely in front of my child. I remember one gal at a public pool that asked a man to rub her down with oil and told him she was "Horny" in front of my 4 year old, now that steamed me a lot. But wearing a collar or even a leash in public might get my notice, but not my anger....

That being said if you plan to exercise your freedom to wear what you wish you must also be prepared to deal with the reaction to it. This is the real world we live in and if people are offended by you they have the freedom to voice it just as yuou have the freedom to express yourself...aint the First Amendment grand folks!



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/20/2006 10:22:37 PM)

As far as public dress. Well, people display who they are to some degree in the way the present themselves in public. The woman with the ass hanging out at the mall is probably an attention whore, and uses her body to get what she can't get otherwise. Hrmmm, no offense, but a person wearing a vulgar shirt she knows some people will get offended by, well probably likes conflict and being the standard rebel type personality.  That's how I read peoples dress, though I have no kids that's pretty much the way I'd explain it to them. Wearing a collar in public when virtually no one knows what it means. Harmless mostly, all it will do is get people looking at you funny, and thinking your weird. I don't think it's going to hurt anybody though. Probably get someone askig about it, so maybe a recruiting tool.

As far as telling kids all about BDSM, well that depends on how deep you go really. Explaining collars, and "Sir" that's pretty innocent enough. Explaining, the details, well I don't see the point of it. I can't see any benefit of explaining anal play, or asphyxiation to even a teenager really. What's to gain? Other than someone got to talk about their kink. That would be more a need of the parent not the child. But the basics I see no harm in.



truesub4u -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/21/2006 4:08:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reasonable

Respect means never having to say ,"You want HOW much for bail!!!!??????"[:(]

(And that was to the op[;)])


LOL Respect is saying.... I told you to not to call me to be bailed out in the first place!!!!



Proprietrix -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/21/2006 7:57:19 AM)

(First off, I hope I did this quote thing right. It's the first time I've quoted multiple users.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich
My intent was to refer to the effect on parents and the animalistic instinct to protect their own kids, rather than the effect on the kids themselves.  (Does sparking that instinct in parents help or hurt us as a community at large?)

Thanks for pointing that out. I never even thought of that aspect. But it truly plays into the whole situation. How parents react is the main factor in how kids interpret things.

***
I found it interesting where different people "draw the line". It seems to have no rhyme or reason other than individual tastes. (Except for a few of us extremists who draw the line exactly where the law draws it.)

***
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
there are many places where T-Shirts like the one you were wearing would get you asked to leave, and private places of business have the right not to serve whom they like.
if you plan to exercise your freedom to wear what you wish you must also be prepared to deal with the reaction to it.


I totally agree with this. Ironically, I actually have very few confrontations about what I wear in real life. I occasionally get people who kind of chuckle and say "I like your shirt." or at the worst "Interesting shirt."
Ironically, the people who seem to complain most about my choice of clothing, are lifestylists I'm conversing with online. I could even narrow that down more specifically to lifestylists who have been in the lifestyle a while and take some sort of political stance on the lifestyle, and I'm conversing with them online. To me, it's sheer irony that the soccer mom down the road, and the little old man across the street have no qualms about my fetish wear, or my submissives' collars, but BDSM activists halfway across the country, who've never even seen us, ask us to tone down on behalf of the soccer mom down the road and the little old man across the street. [sm=confused.gif]

I guess that's part of the reason I asked the question here on CM. I know these forums have a larger population of all different levels of experience, and aren't primarily populated by 'lifestyle activists'. So I get a more broad range of responses.

***
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Well, people display who they are to some degree in the way the present themselves in public. The woman with the ass hanging out at the mall is probably an attention whore, and uses her body to get what she can't get otherwise. Hrmmm, no offense, but a person wearing a vulgar shirt she knows some people will get offended by, well probably likes conflict and being the standard rebel type personality.

I was going to get into a Sociological diatribe about Symbolic Interactionism, but suffice it to say "no offense taken".

***

Thanks for the responses!



badpaliden -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/21/2006 9:10:08 AM)

    Having read all this  I have come to the conclusion that it boils down to .."How deep is your  comfort zone". By that I mean a couple of things. How deeply comfortable are you in your "skin"? How deeply comfortable is your community  with things outside of the "normal" day to day? ( If you live in the heart  nilla land an want to dress like say vampira ...) Just how  comfortable are you with pushing the envelope around you? All are personal calls  and need to be respected. I was taught an old addage  that "My rights end, where your nose begins." I still try to remember this and live accordingly.. Tho  please dont take me as some sort of "We must be  Politicly  Correct " ass! I'm far from it! I was taught that living in a community has certin responsibilitys of conforting to standards. Its trying to be who WE are and still respect those arounds us and have them respect us back  that we all want.
  



Phoenixandnika -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/21/2006 12:27:19 PM)

I have meet my share of "protective "parents. Parents who try and sheild their children from alot of things. To me that is their personal choice. However, the moment they stepside out their home they have no control over what their child may come in contact with.
 
The reality is children are curious. Children will ask blunt questions if they see something that catches their attention. An example of this when my daughter was like 7 yrs old we were in line at a grocery store and a woman was in line in front of us. My daughter looks at me and says " mom is that a man or a woman?" the lady had a full grown beard. My daughter was not trying to be rude and the woman did not take it as such. She laughed and then got down to my daughters eye level and told her she had a desease that made her have alot of body hair.
 
If children do not ask questions who in gods name will they ever learn?
 
I also think that as adults we are far more judgmental than any child is. When I was a head teacher of a preschool in the cilician valley, I was diar need of a substitute because one of my regular teachers had called in sick and we were over ratio. I called the service we used was asent the "only" sub they had that was not already working at another site. He arrives bright pink mohawk and all. He had several visible peircings beyond his ears. The kids thought he was the coolest thing since mac and cheese but parents where uphald. He turned out to be wonderful with the kids, however; because parents did not approve of his appearance and several had some pretty harsh comments we could not continue to use him.
 
For me personally, I think its about self expression. Its about if as an individual if your willing to face the consequences of what you choose to wear. Do you want people reading that tank top that say " All dressed up and no one to blow" ? Do you want people looking at you for that spiked collar you wear?And yes, though as adults it our choice to wear what we are confortable in there may be consequences. People may make deragatory or snide comments. People may look at your strangely. People may enjoy your look or humour. However, are you prepared for public scrutinity. IF you put yourself out as "different" from the norm in appearance ect someone will scrutinice you either openly or in their own mind.
 
Nika{Phoenix}



akisha -> RE: Non-consensual involvement of vanillas vs. being exposed (4/21/2006 2:24:11 PM)

I grew up in a very open and honest house. My mother felt if i was old enough to ask then i was ready to hear the answer. Of course the answers were always gauged to my age and how much i'd understand. Then when you're a little older you either ask again for more detail or figure it out on your own.

As for collars and fetish wear out in public... umm have you seen how some of the goth kids dress? Leather, collars, chains. So really what is the difference? I might take a double look if i saw a Dom walking his slave down the street naked but then again so would the RCMP. We have laws for that sort of thing.

While i was living in Edmonton i saw a man talking seriously with a lady. He then turn her around and gave her three swats on the ass. This was right in the middle of the mall. The reason i noticed is i'm a people watcher *g* but when i looked around maybe one or two other people even seemed to notice. Personally i kinda chuckled to myself *s*

What i would consider as Non-consensual involvement of vanillas would be if someone went up and grabbed a lady they didn't know and spanked her in the middle of the mall. Other then something like that i'd say there is nothing wrong with wearing whatever you wanted where you wanted.

I don't like overly demonstational activity in public as it is. I don't fight in public and i don't neck and grope in public. But that is a personaly preference. i don't like to see it so why would i submit others to seeing it? But i'd never call someone down that did it. I'd just look elsewhere.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02