quote:

Ultimately if someone is being offended by something it is because they are applying their own definition to the act...

AMEN, Mistress Jasmyn. Perception is the responsibility of the perceiver, not the perceived. Everybody views life through some kind of tinted glasses. The responsibility for how disruptively warped one allows one's own glass tint to become lies with the wearer of those glasses. Someone that has a problem with seeing someone else kneeling in a restaurant needs to get over their own aversion to kneeling in public places, rather than point fingers at the kneelers. Similarly, someone that has a problem with seeing a man wearing a dress in a restaurant or other public venue needs to get over their own aversion to crossdressing, rather than casting aspersions on the CD.

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to Jasmyn)

quote:

ORIGINAL: malepleases4ever
light public Kissing between friends or lovers - ok
overtly demonstrative affection - not ok

sub walking behind dom in mall - ok
sub walking behind dom in mall linked by chain or leash - not ok

quote:

sissymaidlola

quote:

Ultimately if someone is being offended by something it is because they are applying their own definition to the act...

AMEN, Mistress Jasmyn. Perception is the responsibility of the perceiver, not the perceived. Everybody views life through some kind of tinted glasses. The responsibility for how disruptively warped one allows one's own glass tint to become lies with the wearer of those glasses. Someone that has a problem with seeing someone else kneeling in a restaurant needs to get over their own aversion to kneeling in public places, rather than point fingers at the kneelers. Similarly, someone that has a problem with seeing a man wearing a dress in a restaurant or other public venue needs to get over their own aversion to crossdressing, rather than casting aspersions on the CD.
Respectfrilly Yours,

quote:

"To learn the art of submission a slave must first give up the desires that drew him to submission in the first place." Mistress Jasmyn Jan 2005.

quote:

I couldn't help but wonder when I watched their reactions, if there was one, how a lone closet crossdresser in their midst felt right then...if that is how they reacted to a stranger in a bar on a dare. :(

Dear Mistress Jasmyn,

You know, Ma'am, sissy would hardly call wearing a bra and panties over one's male clothes, for a dare, and with such clear heterosexual Female support from multiple Women, as really challenging any of our social mores very much. That the men at the bar got so bent out of shape by such a tame, albeit public, display reflects much more on THEIR male insecurity than the dare-devil male "catalyst" whooping it up with Your group of friends ... clearly he was totally secure in HIS own masculinity to be able to "put it at risk" like that. You state, Ma'am, that You couldn't help but wonder what a lone closet CD in the midst of all this, should there have been one, would think of the blatant homophobic / transphobic reactions of the men at the bar. sissy Would suggest that if there was such a closet CD in the midst of all this, there is a high probability that he was one of the men at the bar that was reacting so violently to such a tame demonstration of gender-bending (if one can even call it that).

To better understand what sissy is saying, he would refer You, Ma'am, to one of his all-time favorite movies, American Beauty. sissy Is a big, big Kevin Spacey fan, mainly because his great talents (as a performer, actor, comedian and singer) are so understated, and also because he pursues the more difficult bizarre and unusual acting roles rather than the much easier stereotypical Hollywood "macho male" clichéd ones. sissy Also thinks that Annette Bening is hot ... but now he digresses <giggles>. There is a character in this movie, Col. Frank Fitts (played by Chris Cooper), who is an American marine that is worried that his son may be gay. It's been quite a while since sissy has watched this movie, so he cannot remember if the boy is actually gay, or his father just fears that he might be, but to be honest, it is irrelevant.

Throughout the movie the disposition of the seriously homophobic father - who owns the house next door to the house in which Lester (played by Kevin) and his wife Carolyn (played by Annette) Burnham and their daughter, Jane, live - is the epitomy of American military heterosexual masculinity. This includes severely punishing his son (he takes his belt to him and punches him out a couple of times during the course of the movie, if sissy remembers correctly) every time he suspects him of having done something that is anything less than perfectly straight or masculine. Col. Fitts, USMC, repeatedly demonstrates clear disdain for homosexuality and the (incorrectly) assumed effeminacy that goes along with it. One of the twists in the movie (this is a sub-plot subordinate to the mid-life crisis that Spacey's character is undergoing) is that Col. Fitts turns up at Lester's house in the middle of a thunderstorm, crying, and breaks down and admits to Lester (whom he incorrectly believes is also gay) that he is a closet homosexual. All of his super-masculine heterosexual lifestyle and belief system is just a grand complex fabrication constructed to prevent the world from ever guessing his own dark and dirty (in his mind) secret ... and constructed in preference to getting in touch with his own true personality and sexuality. The man is living his own macho lie, and making other people's (such as his mute wife's and his abused and beaten son's) lives a misery in doing so, including his own life.

In this sissy's mind, spending your whole life running away from yourself and being in denial of basic truths, is a hallmark of cowardice NOT strength. And before anyone twists sissy's words here, he is not saying that ALL USMC masculine males are cowards. Far from it. The big clue here is the demonstration of flagrant homophobia and/or transphobia. A male that is secure in his own masculinity can hold his Wife's handbag in public (while She goes off somewhere), buy Her flowers, or buy Her intimate articles of clothing or lingerie, without feeling totally uncomfortable and embarrassed. He knows that he is a well-balanced, functioning man; he knows that his wife sees him as a well-balanced, functioning man too; and he knows that all his friends, family and work associates also see him as such. What has he got to be afraid of ? How is holding a purse or purchasing flowers going to make his masculinity suddenly evaporate ? A male that does balk at doing such acts because he fears they may instantly nullify his own manhood clearly doesn't have much manhood to begin with if it can be so easily nullified. Therein lies the true weakness of the homophobic and/or transphobic male. They literally protest too much, immediately letting others, that are discerning of such body language, see their own real fears.

To the discerning observer of Your restaurant scenario, Ma'am, the strong male was the one that could flounce around in public wearing articles of Women's clothing with impunity, while the weak males were those at the bar who instantly recognized the symbolism of this antagonistic attack on their own socially constructed gender and were in terror of it. And how apropos that the secure male in bra and panties was the one surrounded by a large faction of groping Females, while the angry ones at the bar went home alone to continue to fail to confront their own fears head on, but rather to revel in their own dread of how feebly constructed their own masculinity really is, and hatred of everything and anything that should happen to remind them of this fact.

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to Jasmyn)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

I couldn't help but wonder when I watched their reactions, if there was one, how a lone closet crossdresser in their midst felt right then...if that is how they reacted to a stranger in a bar on a dare. :(

quote:

Let me guess - Monday to Friday you are Press Secretary Scott McCleland - that is truly some Republican grade spin

Let sissy see now, you attribute words to him in your quote that he never wrote, and then accuse sissy of being a spin doctor ? Get real, Mr. Rove. There was nothing political in sissy's post so why are you trying to hijack this thread with a clearly contentious partisan post that has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand ? Can you spell "troll" ? GOOD. Now write out 1000 times in your best Medieval Cistercian script: "In order to be a better submissive i must learn to take control of the c**t troll within me."

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to malepleases4ever)

quote:

FROM YOUR EARLIER POST:

Yes. The ever lovely MsC has great suggestions for making shopping trips unobtrusive, but kneeling in a restaurant is definitely crossing the line - unless it is empty or some other mitigating circumstance. Being a believer in public propriety, seeing this would make me very uncomfortable. In my mind it is inconsiderate. (emphasis added by sissy maid lola)

FROM THE POST TO WHICH THIS ONE RESPONDS:

Having had a bad experience with a "dominant woman" when I was just a contractor working in her house, I think it is NEVER a good idea to involve others in your little games. If I was the clerk helping the above clown, I would be RIGHT FUCKING PISSED OFF. (emphasis added by sissy maid lola)

You seem to operate quite a convenient hypocritical standard, malepleases4ever. Why is it OK for you to fill all the PC screens of the readers of this message board with gratuitous profanity, yet you, in return, expect others not to be so "inconsiderate" as to upset your sensibilities by doing what comes as naturally to them as typing the "F" and "P" words clearly come so naturally to you ? What if sissy told you that his 8 year old nephew got a glimpse of the text of your post on sissy's PC screen before he had a chance to minimize it, and now he's asking his Auntie Lola, "What does 'FUCKING PISSED OFF' mean ?" Why is sissy not allowed to kneel next to his Mistress in a restaurant because it upsets your sense of "public propriety" and "makes you feel very uncomfortable", but it is perfectly OK for you to teach minors disgusting profanity over the internet against the explicit wills of their adult guardians and parents ? You may have just corrupted a minor, but you probably believe that your non-victimless action is still OK ... yet what harm does someone performing a victimless activity such as kneeling in a restaurant do ?

Don't you think your view of what is permissible in public might not be a little self-serving and malepleases4ever-centric ?

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to malepleases4ever)

quote:

damn, I screwed up the quote - should always check my work - anyways although we have not agreed on much, I still have enjoyed talking with you - I always like seeing an alternate point of view

Ooops, you made your last post while sissy was working in threaded mode on the first page and he appears to have crossposted against you. It would appear that not only does sissy crossdress, but he crossposts too! However, that doesn't change anything that sissy said in his last post ... but it may explain to someone reading this thread the unusual sequencing of the last couple of messages.

Your last correction may negate sissy's claim as to your own spin doctoring ... but your accusation that sissy is himself a right wing spin doctor is still somewhat uncalled for and totally bizarre. It should appear to most folks reading this thread that sissy is the one arguing the more liberal viewpoint, while your own views on public propriety are much more conservative ... and, sissy has argued, a little too uptight and self-serving. What makes typing gratuitous profanity on a public message board OK (and presumably, if you type it, you probably cuss and swear fairly freely in your actual speech) but sissy going shopping in the mall for a new dress while en femme, or someone kneeling in a restaurant, so egregious in comparison ?

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to malepleases4ever)

quote:

Blaming the offended for being offended strikes me as a little silly, but uniquely modern and American. Remember my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. One of the reasons every aspect of our lives are legislated, and real freedom is eroding faster than the florida coastline is that people will no longer grant each other even modest courtesies, like don't act like an asshole in a public place. Ultimately I guess, it us up to each person.

If I see someone walking in a public place with a leash, I don't see it as holding hands, or making a courageous personal statement - I see it as a sign of a damn fool who has a lot to learn. (emphasis added by sissy maid lola)

Well now, that has a nice ring to it, doesn't it ? ... "blaming the offended for being offended (is) a little silly." Almost as good a ring as ... "blaming the perceived for the unreasonable biases of the perceiver is a little silly." Yes, yes, the latter definitely has the better ring to it !!

We do appear to be approaching this problem from opposite extremes, maleplease4ever. Nevertheless, sissy suspects that at the end of the day we would both agree that (1) some kind of lines between what is acceptable behavior in a public social context, and what isn't acceptable behavior, have to be drawn, and (2) in many of the areas where those lines have to be drawn, we would probably also be in agreement much of the time as to exactly where that line of demarcation should actually lie. For instance, sissy does not disagree with your own couple of examples cited in one of your other posts, viz:

light public Kissing between friends or lovers - ok
overtly demonstrative affection - not ok

sub walking behind dom in mall - ok
sub walking behind dom in mall linked by chain or leash - not ok

What sissy effectively disagrees with is your means to attaining this end (i.e., the truth of the above four statements) rather than the end in itself. You arrive at this end from an observer/perceiver-centric bias. In comparison, sissy would probably arrive at the same end, but from an observed/perceived-centric bias.

Your biggest fear appears to be that our society, if left unchecked, has a built-in bias that will cause it to eventually become overrun with sociopaths, psychopaths and criminals that have absolutely no respect for appropriate public conduct, and therefore any sense of public propriety must eventually go to hell in a hand basket. Consequently, your immediate knee-jerk reaction to try and prevent this eventuality from coming about, is to insist that everybody's public behavior must ultimately be subjugated to the weakest sensibilities of ALL possible observers. If going to the mall dressed in green might possibly upset someone else there that is "greenophobic" then you probably shouldn't do it. Just to be on the safe side. Ditto kneeling in restaurants. That, in your opinion, is being a responsible citizen. But where does it all end ? How uptight a person must sissy (or anybody else, including yourself) accommodate in refraining from indulging his own constitutionally guaranteed pursuit of happiness ? Just how much responsibility should one take on one's own shoulders for the stupid, bigoted and whacko ideas of others ? If you were King of the World, and your purview came to pass, one could possibly end up with the situation where nobody could leave their homes lest they possibly offended someone else by doing so. That doesn't sound much like the "land of the free and the brave" to this sissy.

In contrast, sissy's biggest fear is that our society, if left unchecked, has a built-in bias that will cause it to eventually become under the control of Big Brother authoritarianism and self-righteous religious right type crackpots with completely whacko or paranoid rules and expectations for the behavior of other people (note that these types NEVER seem to apply these same rules to themselves!). Under this scenario, rather than all sense of public propriety disappearing off into oblivion, as you seem to fear, the rules and regulations governing such public propriety will instead grow and multiply out of control until they eventually stifle our natural individuality and freedom. You yourself stated that "every aspect of our lives are legislated, and real freedom is eroding faster than the florida coastline." Exactly, and given enough time, someone will actually pass laws making it illegal to kneel in restaurants or for men to go out in public wearing dresses. The justifications given for these laws will be that people are not intelligent or mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions, therefore the government must intervene and force them to do the right thing (although nobody will remember at this point exactly what the protective intent of the rule was, or why it was the right thing to do).

Thus, if someone had knelt in a restaurant and been fed food scraps from the table, and some minor had witnessed this public scene, then rather than admonish those people involved for crossing the line by irresponsibly imposing their D/s activity on an unwilling public (and also making extra sure that our children are properly educated enough to fully understand the concept of taking intelligent responsibility for their own actions) let's instead pass a law preventing kneeling in restaurants so that such a problem can never accidentally happen again - and with the added extra benefit that it relieves anybody from having to ever think about the consequences of their own actions ever again. Now, sissy realizes you are not advocating passing a law banning kneeling in restaurants, but your argument still buys into this mindset, maleplease4ever. If we don't prevent ourselves from kneeling in restaurants "they" will sure as hell have to pass a law preventing it, so let's just not open up that can of worms but rather preempt it, and instead exercise some self-discipline by simply refraining from kneeling in restaurants. But what exactly is the difference between preventing yourself from kneeling in a restaurant (when that is something you would like to be able to do) because there is a law prohibiting it, or because you fear that by doing so you might possibly offend someone and therefore ultimately cause such a law to come about to prohibit it ? In either case you are NOT kneeling in restaurants when you want to (or would at least like the freedom to, if you so chose), which IsHO is the whole issue here.

The real problem that is underlying the original question posed in the OP, and many of the subsequent posts since, is simply one of the lost imperative of teaching people to think for themselves so that they can take thoughtful responsibility for their own actions in life. We don't seem to understand that principle any more in this country, where litigation, political correctness, and a general wussiness WRT asserting one's individuality is the order of the day. If people are responsible, then the letter given to the store clerk by the CD that has to buy feminine apparel will be as creative as Ms Cameron suggested, such that both the store clerk feels good and the CD gets his public humiliation while being none the wiser. Or for the D/s couple that wants to go for a stroll in a public setting with the sub on a collar and leash ... by all means do so, but make sure that it is done in a setting where there can be no minors present (possibly at an adult disco, or in the mall after 10 p.m. at night). And for the Domme that wants to eat in a restaurant with Her pet kneeling at Her side, make sure You first phone the restaurant up and ask if it's OK. If the restaurant management are totally cool about it, You shouldn't then still have to worry about not upsetting ALL possible observers of Your planned little adventure. If You do, You'll never do it, because YOU CANNOT KEEP EVERYBODY HAPPY ALL OF THE TIME. Understand, the sheer fact that you are currently reading this post (on a site that some self-righteous nincompoops would deem to be pornographic) is almost certainly offending someone right now, maleplease4ever.

The BDSM code is always SSC. One simply has to understand that in a public context the "C" requires that you also have the tacit consent of the public that may be unexpected (for them) witnesses to your public humiliation scene. Since BDSM is considered by most people to fall under the category of an "adult sexual situation" performing your activity in a location where you cannot guarantee the non-presence of minors is an absolute no-no. For most locations, that criterion alone might be enough to dissuade Y/you from pursuing the activity after all. The offending of other innocents in society, such as the very old or the mentally weak, also applies. However, the offending of a bigot is NOT a valid criterion !!! An African American should NOT be prevented from leaving his home lest he offend a racist; a homosexual couple should NOT have to refrain from a demonstration of mutual affection (such as a mouth to mouth kiss) lest they offend a homophobe; and a transvestite should NOT have to refrain from shopping for frillies in Macy's lest he offend a transphobe.

As you say, maleplease4ever, "Ultimately I guess, it us up to each person." sissy Totally concurs with that sentiment, except that he believes that it is up to each person to be the unique individual he/she was created to be, and that each unique person should act responsibly in expressing that individuality. But it is not up to each person to cower in the closet or continually live their lives in the fear of offending bigots, or any other folk that would like to control or denegrate them (without their mutual consent, that is!).

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to malepleases4ever)

quote:

but once I was told to go to the adult bookstore and by a vibrator, well there was a young lady saleclerk, I was stunned, no way could I look at her! I know I was three shades of red. Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: LASub4Real
However, I don't seem to be able to bring myself to admire the idea of imposing on others for ones own satisfaction. It almost seems selfish... but I must be wrong. It must be brave and noble after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LASub4Real
But when do you finally say that you need to be you and the rest of the world needs to deal with it since you aren't hurting anyone else? Is that selfish?

A perceptive question that goes to the heart of the matter, my friend. I hope you don't mind my calling you that? I am truly impressed by the restraint and ethical concerns shown by so many in the lifestyle. The very fact that this ethical issue has come up and is being discussed is, to me, a barometer of the good attitude that most BDSMers have with regard to consentual behavior. I admire what you have said Emeraldslave2 about taking others into consideration and I admire you for saying it. I believe that you care about others and I think that the fakers and the takers among us are always shocked to realize what a depth of respect is among us for the sensibilities of those outside of our community. I would venture to say that all of us have family and friends in the wide vanilla world and that most of us don't have any particular agenda to shock them or make them uncomfortable.

Now, as to your question, I guess it depends on what you mean by "being you" and having the rest of the world "deal" with it". I suppose it also has very much to do with who is defining the term "hurting," the offender or the offended? If you tell me that you have been hurt by something that I have done, and I insist that your complaint is petty because I don't believe that you could have really been hurt by my actions, then you tell me, am I selfish?

I have always believed in the old adage, "What goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults is nobody elses business." A very sensible statement. But, when people wish to bring a third party into the dynamic of what was previously going on only behind closed doors, then it is only good manners to ask them if the would-be participant wishes to participate or not. In other words, don't deny them the very freedom to choose that you yourself hold so dear. That is my only point, and from what you have written above, I think that we both are close to agreement on this idea.

(in reply to EmeraldSlave2)