RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (Full Version)

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



Message


BecomingV -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 6:49:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
You say they shouldn't be exposed to marriage if that's my position. So then I guess in your point of view, prostitutes should be able to hawk their wares in the kids' park as well? After all, they are making a lifestyle choice, are they not?


http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/422/

LL, before you ever write again about prostitutes, please avow yourself of an education about what you are talking about! Jesus Christ! Prostitutes ARE kids.

The idiocy astounds!

And, did you notice how you did NOT address the point about exposing kids to marriage? I'm interested in that response. I had the same thought.




BecomingV -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 6:55:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

I don't consider exhibitionism to be a de facto part of D/s, nor do I see it as having any automatic relationship with D/s. One can be D/s without being exhibitionist and be exhibitionist without being D/s. Exhibitionism has nothing to do with consent or submission and needs to be considered separately.

Ultimately, exhibitionism is the desire to force others to be confronted by your sexuality - it is by nature non-consensual. An exhibitionist would not get their kick by 'displaying' in a room full of people who couldn't care less - they *need* the shocked reaction and / or disapproval of those watching in order to get a thrill. This is much easier to achieve when those watching have not consented to witnessing the display and when the display is inappropriate to the time and place.

Exhibitionists will often downplay the non-consenting aspect of their kink as though the non-consenting third parties were irrelevant to their enjoyment. Yet they will admit that they simply don't get the same thrill being led around on their leash in a place where they are unlikely to be seen by such people. The exhibitionist is similar to the flasher in the dirty mac who exposes himself to unwilling people - they both want to shock and outrage and they need the non-consenting third party to do so. I personally consider it a kind of sexual harassment. When you're getting your sexual kicks out of people who don't want to be a part of your sex life, then it is at best a violation of non-consenting parties and, at worst, a kind of sex offence.


I'm definitely disagreeing with a lot, tonight, but so be it.

These are two different concepts.

The BDSM kink of exhibitionism is a consensual act.

The pathological exhibitionist lacks the ability or desire to meet their needs in a way that respects the rights of others - in other words, criminals.

Best to not blur that very clear line between the two.




LafayetteLady -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 7:19:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
You say they shouldn't be exposed to marriage if that's my position. So then I guess in your point of view, prostitutes should be able to hawk their wares in the kids' park as well? After all, they are making a lifestyle choice, are they not?


http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/422/

LL, before you ever write again about prostitutes, please avow yourself of an education about what you are talking about! Jesus Christ! Prostitutes ARE kids.

The idiocy astounds!

And, did you notice how you did NOT address the point about exposing kids to marriage? I'm interested in that response. I had the same thought.


Why should they not be exposed to marriage, which is a legally binding, committed relationship between two individuals? Notice I say individuals, not a man and a woman, because I support gay marriage, and have happily watched as the walls started to crumble and continue to crumble so that everyone can get married.




BecomingV -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 7:55:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Why should they not be exposed to marriage, which is a legally binding, committed relationship between two individuals? Notice I say individuals, not a man and a woman, because I support gay marriage, and have happily watched as the walls started to crumble and continue to crumble so that everyone can get married.



I think the point was that if you think kids should be able to choose for themselves, then they should be exposed to, and informed about, all of the different ways people bond.

If some wear rings while others wear leashes, what's the difference? Isn't that just a matter of familiarity and getting used to it?

I was at a hetero, religious wedding and at the reception, the bride attached a ball and chain to the groom's ankle, to symbolize her. Now, as a feminist, I'm appalled, and my kids were there, exposed to that disgusting display. So, I had a lot of conversations with the kids about it. Okay, I took care of it.

When it comes to public displays of kink, I guess I think, "It depends." Fashion is limited by laws, so... there's that. My interest there is that the sexualizing of women's bodies means that some perv decided that women's mammaries need to be covered up while male mammaries should not. Total, arbitrary BS. Topless is topless, male or female.

So, it seems to me that we all already deal with limitations. Kids are exposed to gore, gun-toting cops and religions, so what's a little kink-suggestive fashion or display going to hurt? Not sex, kink... the collars and leashes. I mean, kinky or vanilla, the limits to public displays are the same.




BecomingV -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 8:06:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeekingTrinity

All I want to say is that when someone gets a hard on for you, Gauge...they put John Holmes to shame with how freakin' ginormous that hard on is [:)]


It's really more general than that, and coming from a place of loving homosexual men, including the ones who express the feminine.

See how respectful I just was in describing them?

The hateful stereotype just needed some balance on the thread. And,

"That which we permit, we promote."

If one poster is free to spew hate, they should expect another poster to bring them up to speed.

Holmes, huh? LOL Yeah, I do get protective of my gay guys.




SeekingTrinity -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 8:29:31 PM)

Holmes as in big fuckng dick with a big ass hard on.

Honest opinion, V? I think Gauge just pissed in your Cheerios over on the 50 Shades thread and now you are just looking for reasons to jump in his shit...no matter the subject. It's like if he said the sky was blue, you'd honestly argue that it really was pink with yellow polka dots.

The greatest man aside from my father, grandfather, and love of my life I ever knew was a gay man back in 1996. Flamboyant as a gay man could ever get, but the size of this guy's heart put Texas to shame. And I watched that man die a painful and horrible death from full-blown AIDS. Watched as in held him in my arms as he took his last breath in hospice. Just like my father and grandfather, I lost a great friend. For a few years afterwards, the slightest homophobia shown by anyone met with a she bitch rage out of me that scared even me at some points. I'm damned lucky I never got arrested in all honesty. I was that hypersensitive to even the slightest whiff of homophobia.

Now while I'm older and less feisty than I was, homophobia still pisses me off. And not even i got as bent out of shape over what he said. It wasn't an attack, it was a point. Why aren't you this bent out of shape over what you perceive might be attacks on transgendered people, married people, kinky people, kids, people who keep their kink private, people who let their kink flag fly, or any other group mentioned here?




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 8:36:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

They're not actually being involved in it though. It's not like anybody's being forced to take the leash or spank her ass. They're being forced to tolerate the existence of a lifestyle that's different from theirs. Further I think Gauge has brought up a good point, what standard does one use to justify forcing tolerance of trans and gay lifestyles on a non consenting public and then turn around and discriminate against me for wanting the exact same right.


Said with the clarity I wish I had had when I wrote what I wrote. Thank you.





Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 8:39:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

So because it's NYC there are automatically no small children about? Sorry folks, I still think it's wrong simply because there are kids all over the place. We lived there when my daughter was young and I wouldn't have wanted to explain this to her.


Before I get accused of being extreme again, this is for example sake.

I believe, for myself anyway, that it is far more disturbing to have to tell a child what to do if a classmate walks into their school and begins killing people than it is to have to explain to a child why that man is walking a woman on a leash. The one I can explain easily, the other is fucking horrifying.




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 8:43:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

When I wrote that, I was thinking of the flamboyantly gay example used earlier in the thread. Gay people don't have all the rights that others do, so there may be more reason to having a voice about the fact that they're gay - in my mind anyway . I was also thinking outside of kink. Drawing attention to yourself to further a cause is not quite the same thing as drawing attention because it gives your ego a boost.

ETA. I reread what you said. To clarify - I don't think it's necessary for the world to know that I like to be yanked around on a leash now and then because I'm not denied any basic rights because of it. So no, I don't believe everyone here fits into the downtrodden or discriminated against group.


And yet the message is equality for the gays. So, are you telling me that equality doesn't apply to what we do as far as the acceptance of it? I do not wish to be argumentative, I am trying to stimulate further discussion.




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 8:52:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
Are our attitudes toward this sort of thing more of a cultural thing here in America because sex is vilified and often suppressed to the point of stupidity? Is this sort of thing handled differently in other countries, particularly Europe and the oft wacky UK?


I can only speak for the UK and France. In both these countries it very much depends where you are. In London and Paris its an every day occurrence to see the weird, the wild and the wonderful. In London I have seen a human pony and trap, a Goddess carried over London Bridge on a throne chair as well as a few people on collars and leashes. In Paris I have walked behind a very pregnant woman who's loose skirt was so short I could just see her bum cheeks. As the wind blew, the skirt kept blowing up and she clearly wasn't wearing knickers!. In both Paris and London we see some very provocatively dressed T-girls.

In both London and Paris, I wouldn't turn a blind eye on a woman dressed from head to toe in latex on a collar and leash, assuming she isn't showing any naughty bits. If I had young children with me and they questioned me about her/them, I would answer the same way I would if they asked me about the six foot man dressed from head to toe in ladies clothes, "Some people like to express themselves a certain way and that's fine, don't you think?"

Out in the sticks its different, though T-girls are still a common and mostly unnoticed minority.




So there is a bit of a difference then. I have seen European advertisements and they were overtly sexual and would never see the light of day in America. I believe the example of what you would tell your kids is absolutely perfect. I remember the early punk rock movement in the UK and then America, people got a ton of looks at first and then it became acceptable, and even expected. I think that our attitudes toward accepting something that we may be uncomfortable with need to change a little. Sure, I don't want to see some things, but who am I to tell someone that they cannot do it?




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 9:00:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

If you need to shock the natives so you can pretend you are "extreme" or more "serious" then you to gain some self confidence and maturity.



I don't think so at all. With the way you worded it however, with the need to shock in order to prove a point, then yes, I fully agree. If you do not have that need to shock and just want to do something that is maybe against a cultural norm, then why shouldn't you be able to do so?

quote:

I want to expose my woman's cunt to a stranger, I do it to a guy in a bar, the chance of offending someone is near zero.


True, but by your logic, is this not the same need to shock in order to show how powerful you are?

quote:

It like the teenage kids who walk REAL slow in a crosswalk, relishing the rare moment of power they are experiencing, its small and petty.


I agree in this example. Isn't a gay pride parade a moment of power for the participants? Is it not designed to display solidarity? Is it not an exercise in acceptance? Why then are the standards different when it comes to walking a woman on a leash down the street?




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 9:10:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Because I don't think it is something you should do around your kids to be quite frank. A child seeing a stranger do this will ask their parent/guardian. A child seeing their parent do this will ask their parent. Children need to be free to make their own decisions in life and this is the type of thing that may give them defined roles instead of being able to choose for themselves.



But if you turn the question into a lesson about making choices and being free to choose to do things, would that not be the best statement to make? It will no more influence them than it would to see a gay man in a dress as far as gender roles or defined roles in life.
quote:


As for the appropriateness of the place....it depends on the place, as I've already mentioned. A grade school function? If you are there as a parent, you should look like a parent, not someone's pet. A church? I know you are an atheist, but if you attended a church for a wedding or whatever, you should have respect for the people who are congregants there. A courtroom? Well, if you are stupid enough to show up for court in latex and wearing a leash, go for it. The judge will handle that in due course, and you aren't likely to be happy about it.


Setting definitely has a lot to do with it. School, Church, Court, all are established institutions and whether or not we agree with it or not, there are a few basic rules of decent conduct in order to enter one or all of those places. They are also, not fully public places, which is where I have confined my examples to. A transvestite can go to a school as a parent, yes? Can the transvestite attend a wedding? A court proceeding? My point being that the appropriateness of the setting changes for the transvestite and not for a kinky couple. There is no good reason for that. Make no mistake, I get your point, it is just food for thought.




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 9:12:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

~FR~

I have tattoos.
I have two slave bands, one around each arm. They start on the bicep and extend downward to my wrist.
I have a tattoo across my shoulders in the back which says, in very large black letters 'property of xxxxx xxxxx" the x's being my late husbands name.

I wore a collar for more than 20yrs. I wore this collar around my neck, 24/7.
Not a necklace that 99% of those here call a collar.
A real slaves collar. With a lock on it, and tag identifying my owner.

I also raised 4 children. Went to school with them, attended school functions, took them to church.

I never covered my tattoos or tried to hide my collar.
They are a part of me. A part that I was and am very proud of.

The school never batted an eye. The other parents never batted an eye. Those in church never said a word, or looked disgusted/shocked.

My kids grew up watching how their father and I interacted with each other. If they had questions, they asked and were told the blunt, honest truth. We did not believe in sugar coating or lying.
Did we run around the house naked? Of course not. But the tattoos, the piercings and the collar were all explained honestly.

My kids had no problems with it.
Their friends had no problems with it.
The parents of their friends had no problems with it.

So, if I see someone walking down the street on a leash and collar...I applaud the person for having the confidence to be themselves in a world that says hiding is better.


Bravo to you!

Good for you, good for everyone that looked past what might be different and interacted with you, the individual.




Gauge -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 9:19:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

I don't consider exhibitionism to be a de facto part of D/s, nor do I see it as having any automatic relationship with D/s. One can be D/s without being exhibitionist and be exhibitionist without being D/s. Exhibitionism has nothing to do with consent or submission and needs to be considered separately.

Ultimately, exhibitionism is the desire to force others to be confronted by your sexuality - it is by nature non-consensual. An exhibitionist would not get their kick by 'displaying' in a room full of people who couldn't care less - they *need* the shocked reaction and / or disapproval of those watching in order to get a thrill. This is much easier to achieve when those watching have not consented to witnessing the display and when the display is inappropriate to the time and place.

Exhibitionists will often downplay the non-consenting aspect of their kink as though the non-consenting third parties were irrelevant to their enjoyment. Yet they will admit that they simply don't get the same thrill being led around on their leash in a place where they are unlikely to be seen by such people. The exhibitionist is similar to the flasher in the dirty mac who exposes himself to unwilling people - they both want to shock and outrage and they need the non-consenting third party to do so. I personally consider it a kind of sexual harassment. When you're getting your sexual kicks out of people who don't want to be a part of your sex life, then it is at best a violation of non-consenting parties and, at worst, a kind of sex offence.


There is a difference between a sexual exhibitionist and one that wants to walk his fully clothed slave on a leash, is there not? Do you believe that it is a sex offense to do so? How is it involving someone in my sex life if I choose to do this with my slut? Is there a bit of a thrill from the attention, sure, but that is definitely the point. I can tell you that I would really only do that to my slut to watch and study the reactions that we got. For her, however, it would be a display of her submission, one that she never thought she would do, but has expressed a mild curiosity about. The jury is still out on whether or not I would do it... but it would be an interesting experience given the responses here.




LafayetteLady -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 9:36:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge


Setting definitely has a lot to do with it. School, Church, Court, all are established institutions and whether or not we agree with it or not, there are a few basic rules of decent conduct in order to enter one or all of those places. They are also, not fully public places, which is where I have confined my examples to. A transvestite can go to a school as a parent, yes? Can the transvestite attend a wedding? A court proceeding? My point being that the appropriateness of the setting changes for the transvestite and not for a kinky couple. There is no good reason for that. Make no mistake, I get your point, it is just food for thought.


Actually, yes a trans person can attend all those places. Is the pastor of the church likely to welcome them with open arms? Probably not, which is sad. Are they going to court in a suit or looking like a drag queen? Appropriate form a dress, again.

The setting doesn't really change for the kinky couple, but how the kinky couple presents themselves in the situation can make a difference, just like with the transgender person (see court room apparel above).

I said right from the start it is a slippery slope because if we are going to preach tolerance, it is tolerance of all types, not just what we can accept. But while I do my best to be tolerant, there are some things that will annoy the crap out of me that have nothing to do with kink. Appearing in court in cut offs and flip flops; people chatting loudly in doctor's waiting rooms, are just two examples. I believe in freedom, but I also believe in discretion, which is why I think any type of overt sexual activity should remain in private. Don't make out in front me, get a room, type of thing, not simply hugging, holding hands or the simple kiss (regardless of the gender of those involved).




GotSteel -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/17/2014 9:48:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
I've admitted it can be a slippery slope.

I don't think I'm talking about a slope I think I'm talking about things which are directly equivalent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
The point I'm making is that BLATANT displays should be kept at home.

Why?
Also would you say this sort of thing to someone who's trans, that blatant displays of their gender identity should be kept at home?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
Should the transgendered not take their children to the park? Of course they should. But they shouldn't be feeling up their partner while their there, and neither should the heterosexual couple.

Sexual activities are a different category and I included exhibitionism in that earlier in the thread. I'm not advocating for public sex acts, I'm advocating for tolerance toward alternative lifestyles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
As Irishmist said, she was honest with her children, but they didn't blatantly display their roles in front of the kids (i.e. going around naked).

1. What do you have against nudists?
2. If an obvious locked collar and slave tattoos don't constitute blatant where exactly do you draw that line?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
You say they shouldn't be exposed to marriage if that's my position. So then I guess in your point of view, prostitutes should be able to hawk their wares in the kids' park as well? After all, they are making a lifestyle choice, are they not?

Well that would be a career not a lifestyle, which once again different category.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
I'm all for people having freedom, but there are some things that I think people should use a little discretion about the when and where.

What is it about my lifestyle that makes it something which you think should require discretion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
A perfectly "vanilla" example: One shouldn't be drinking alcohol openly in the kids' park either.

Why?




BecomingV -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/18/2014 12:24:45 AM)

I can see why you think that. AFTER Guage suggested here, that I was trolling him, which made no sense to me, I went to the forums page and after a bit, ran across his last response on that thread. I had no idea that there was more, from him. LOL So, that's inaccurate. I'd said my peace on that thread and really couldn't fathom his objection to people getting their information from NSFA, on consent. But, I'd moved on. I'm okay with standing disagreements. That one became about ego, so I got bored.

I'm sorry for the loss of your grandfather. I didn't lose anyone that close, but I spent the late 70's and early 80's working in theater. I returned to San Francisco on Broadway National Tours, repeatedly, for months at a time. You get very close to each other, as roadies. Much like soldiers do, with each other. And, so many of our gay friends died. It was horrible! Heck, A Normal Heart just won the Emmy for movie of the year - it's about those times and what we went through.

I have been known to go off on people who are being so heartlessly disrespectful to a group. Here, as I recall, the last time was when someone shat on poly people. Of any group in our local community, it's the poly people who are very well networked. They are responsible for helping abandoned slaves get housed, jobs and hugged! They help newbies by taking them to their first munches. They alert everyone when someone is in the hospital and their pet needs feeding or they need company or support of any kind. I'm blown away by the hearts of poly people. So, I got some feedback that I went a bit strong. What can I say? Guilty.

The "point" could have been made using language that is not hateful. If you step back and think about it, it wasn't "gay men," it was other descriptors which negatively targeted gay men who celebrate their feminine sides. You have to be a special kind of low life to perpetuate the hate, IMO. Which I made perfectly clear. Only stupid people can't think of other ways of expressing themselves, and I wouldn't call Guage stupid. Just, hateful in that post and whiny in another. It's a mistake to think I connected the two. I had forgotten about the other one. And, while he may have an ongoing problem with me, it's not reciprocated. I've read maybe 40 of his posts... he can be impressive and interesting. Perhaps I expect more of him. Someone who is not homophobic wouldn't use those words. He reveals himself. But, say I'm wrong, for the sake of argument. And, he just used hate language to make a point... where was the part where he apologizes to not only gay people but to anyone who cares about them and respects them, explaining that he has no personal malice, but is pretending to be a homophobe for purposes of debate?

Seriously, here we are mindful to not disparage others for their kinks, but hating gay guys is okay? No. Keep that crap in your own colon and let it fester there. Throw it out here, some of us will respond.

As to why I react differently than you do? We're different people, I suppose.

I recently admonished a poster for referring to herself as "bitchy," - she was admitting that her reply to me was "bitchy." While she clearly disagreed with me, I perceived no rancor in the strength of her disagreement. I thought she'd read what I'd written, considered it and rejected it. I respect that. But when I read her categorization, I felt sad for her. It made me think that someone had told her that if she's strong, or disagrees or argues, then she is somehow "less." Calling strong disagreement "bitchy" is a way to discourage women's power, so I asked her to not participate in perpetuating that hate, and never again refer to women as bitches. Yes, I did notice that you suffer from the same ailment. It's all too common.

So, you see, gay guys aren't the only ones I stick up for. The need just arose on the thread, IMO.




Moderator12 -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/18/2014 8:37:41 AM)

Please could everyone conduct themselves with a little more decorum. Remember it is ok to disagree with a post, but it's not ok to attack the poster.

It is also worth noting that if you find yourself wanting to make a firm point about someone's post, it's well worth giving the post that has annoyed you a second read, just in case you're making a mountain out of a molehill




GotSteel -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/19/2014 11:05:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

I don't consider exhibitionism to be a de facto part of D/s, nor do I see it as having any automatic relationship with D/s. One can be D/s without being exhibitionist and be exhibitionist without being D/s. Exhibitionism has nothing to do with consent or submission and needs to be considered separately.

Ultimately, exhibitionism is the desire to force others to be confronted by your sexuality - it is by nature non-consensual. An exhibitionist would not get their kick by 'displaying' in a room full of people who couldn't care less - they *need* the shocked reaction and / or disapproval of those watching in order to get a thrill. This is much easier to achieve when those watching have not consented to witnessing the display and when the display is inappropriate to the time and place.

Exhibitionists will often downplay the non-consenting aspect of their kink as though the non-consenting third parties were irrelevant to their enjoyment. Yet they will admit that they simply don't get the same thrill being led around on their leash in a place where they are unlikely to be seen by such people. The exhibitionist is similar to the flasher in the dirty mac who exposes himself to unwilling people - they both want to shock and outrage and they need the non-consenting third party to do so. I personally consider it a kind of sexual harassment. When you're getting your sexual kicks out of people who don't want to be a part of your sex life, then it is at best a violation of non-consenting parties and, at worst, a kind of sex offence.


No that's not necessarily the case, here for instance is a thread of exhibitionists talking about the rush of performing in various nude/sex shows where audiences came to appreciate them: https://fetlife.com/groups/398/group_posts/5870102




MariaB -> RE: Hey, it's okay, we're consenting adults (9/20/2014 11:16:28 AM)

edited because I thought better of it.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625