Rochsub2009
Posts: 2536
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SuzeQ
Would it be OK to have a sub wear diapers and have to interact with somebody in public without mentioning the diapers in any way? What about the incontinent person who has to wear them but also gets off on wearing them? Are they supposed to just stay home?
One of the things about the "exposing the public to our kink" argument is that the public has to be aware that they have been exposed to it for the argument to have even a semblance of validity, don't you think?
I agree with you. That's why I've been saying that (IMO) it's not a problem if the public isn't even aware that any kink is even going on. And it's very easy to create a public scene that essentially leaves the public completely oblivious to what actually occurred.
But this topic never goes anywhere on these boards. There are some who vehemently believe that the non-consenting public should NEVER be exposed to our various kinks, regardless of how oblivious they may be to the fact that a "kink" is even taking place.
If we were to take this argument out of the world of BDSM, and talk about things that are more vanilla, I think the problem becomes more clear.
For example, there are gay men who are out of the closet and walk around as a couple in public. They might even hold hands or kiss, just like a heterosexual couple would. That is their right. Yet, some people find their very existence to be highly offensive. They feel that homosexuals are an abomination in the eyes of God. And they'd probably like to see all of them deported to the the Island of Homosexualia, where "decent folks" would never have to see them again. But I don't hear anyone on here telling homosexuals to stop exposing the "non-consenting public" to their homosexuality.
Many older people get offended when they see the younger generation wearing tattoos and piercings all over their bodies. Some find the look to be offensive, but there's nothing that they can do about it. But I don't hear anyone telling people with tattoos and piercings not to expose the "non-consenting public" to their tattoos and piercings.
Many people get offended by public displays of affection. Yet, we've all seen a heterosexual couple get a little carried away with their passion in a public setting. You know, the kiss that last just a bit too long. Or the kiss where we see them locking tongues. When that happens, people just keep going about their business. Nobody stops and tells them to stop involving the "non-consenting public" in their affection.
Some people get offended by the way young urban males wear their pants so low that their underwear shows. Similarly, some older women don't like the way some young women wear low-rise pants that expose their thongs. Many people don't want to see other people's underwear. But I don't see anyone telling the kids to stop exposing the "non-consenting public" to their underwear.
Heck, the potential for offense even happens on these boards. I personally think your friend Hannah cusses more than is necessary. But that's just my opinion. I don't complain about her exposing the "non-consenting public" to her f-bombs. I have no right to do so.
We could spend eternity coming up with examples of things that could potentially shock, offend, or make others uncomfortable. Yet we can't legislate that nobody is allowed to make anyone else uncomfortable. It would be a silly law, and it would be impossible to enforce.
That's why I draw the line at intervening when I see someone doing something that is blatantly illegal, or that might cause physical harm to another person. So if I see someone who is about to strike his wife/girlfriend, I will intervene. Or if I see someone breaking into somebody's house, I'll call the police. But if it's not illegal, then what right do I have to force my opinion on people who didn't ask for my opinion?
Sure, I may not like the fact that somebody is cussing in a room where children are present. I might even quietly ask them to refrain from doing so. But I can't make them stop. Moreover, they have every right to be offended by the very fact that I tried to dictate to them how they are allowed to speak. And they'd be just as right in their position as I am in mine.
These are just a few examples. But hopefully they illustrate how it becomes a slippery slope when we try to dictate other people's actions when there are no actual laws that prohibit them. No matter how strongly you may believe that someone shouldn't be doing XYZ in public, if there is no law against it, then it is simply your opinion against theirs. And by trying to make them stop, aren't you being a bigger jerk than they are for doing the act in the first place?
Besides, other than getting into a fist fight and physically forcing them to stop, how does one force their own opinion upon another who doesn't share your views?
Sure, it's your right to say that Master UberDom shouldn't make his slave wear a collar in public. But if he chooses to do so, what law are you going to call upon to make him stop? Moreover, what right does anyone have to make him stop? Is he really hurting anyone? He and his slave probably aren't complaining. And I'd like to see proof that any innocent bystander was actually damaged by their behavior.
While I do understand people's concerns about exposing the non-consenting public to our kink, when you get right down to it, it's generally just a matter somebody trying to force their personal views on another person. And they usually have no legal footing to stand upon, which makes their argument that much more spurious.
< Message edited by Rochsub2009 -- 11/22/2011 7:23:11 AM >
|
RE: ideas for leftist humiliation - 
Profile
). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread