Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

This was a little disturbing...a couple today in grocery store...


807 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#151 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6181 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:28 PM

I don't give a rats ass if people want/need to do this in their own homes. 

 

Doing this in public, possibly making the general public part of the "thing", normalizing oppression - in this case of a woman, also normalizing the "MYOB" responses of people is wrong. I'm incredibly sad and horrified that people think bringing this into the public sphere is a valid choice.

 

Choice/consent is not the most important thing. Not when it stands opposed to normalizing oppression.


  • Patty Joanna, samba, Barb_ and 26 others like this

#152 elegantlion

elegantlion

    Wandering and Wondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27906 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:41 PM

My assumption would be (knowing full well what assumption means), would be that there is more equality in their relationship than in ones where women wear invisible collars and leashes. Many of those appear normal in the light of day and we walk passed them all the time. 

 

If I saw this I would probably try to catch the eye of the woman on the leash and gauge from there. 


  • Laura Corin, Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida. and 5 others like this

#153 jewellsmommy

jewellsmommy

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3544 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:41 PM

At the end of the day, I'm far more worried about how I conduct my own life than to spend my time wondering about others.

 

Sure, I would notice and, admittedly, probably think it was kinda' weird.  But, as long as both people seem safe and comfortable, It's not my business.

 

 

But that's the question isn't it? Is that woman safe and comfortable when she is bearing such a strong symbol of oppression. 

 

As a society do we want to condone the use of public humiliation or the public approximation of oppression? Aren't we, as a society, moving away from letting colleges use humiliation and power/submission plays on "willing and consenting" peers as a means for fraternity/sorority selection or in military bonding (otherwise known as hazing)?


  • Patty Joanna, Barb_, Anne and 11 others like this

#154 Moxie

Moxie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8954 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:45 PM

All of you saying to call the police, what about when you see Amish people in the store?? We've talked at length here about how undereducated the women are kept. That is much more oppressive than a collar.
  • Laura Corin, Renthead Mommy, Greta and 9 others like this

#155 CES2005

CES2005

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 972 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:50 PM

But the debate does not seem to be over the implications of this in general, but about this couple being in public at the store.  I would happily debate BDSM in general and whether it's healthy. But people being so freaked out over them being at the store, and how it somehow equals the downfall of society... like I said, I've seen much worse at the store than that. 

 

I would rather see collar/leash couple than:

   A mom cussing and/or slapping her kids

   A Trump that Bitch tshirt

   The person in front of me badmouthing the mentally challenged checkout person

   A religious group handing out "gays will die" brochures

 

All of those things - ALL OF THEM - say more about our society than collar/leash couple.

 

I agree; I wouldn't want to see any of that, either.  Where I differ is that I think all are on the same level as the leash & collar, for more or less the same reason.  For me, public vs. private doesn't change anything. 


  • Barb_, Sadie and Guinevere like this

#156 ktgrok

ktgrok

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19607 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:56 PM

I clearly live under a rock. I had no idea. Never even heard of this.

 

Basically, if you have ever heard of someone playing around and say, tying someone's hands with a silk scarf, that's one form of bondage. It doesn't have to mean chains or whatever. It can...but can be as minimal as that. 

 

The sadism/masochism thing can be as minimal as light biting or scratching with ones nails during TeA, to much more elaborate stuff. For some people the pleasure and pain centers in their brain are connected. 

 

Dominance and submission can be just during TeA to more of a lifestyle. And the submission is one of choice, not one forced by the dominant party. In ethology terms I think it's called a hierarchy of submission versus one based on dominance? 

 

Not justifying, but explaining. 

 

Also it is NOT the same thing as a patriarchal relationship, as the dominance/submission relationship has nothing to do with gender. 


  • Laura Corin, Renthead Mommy, transientChris and 8 others like this

#157 ktgrok

ktgrok

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19607 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:57 PM

I don't give a rats ass if people want/need to do this in their own homes. 

 

Doing this in public, possibly making the general public part of the "thing", normalizing oppression - in this case of a woman, also normalizing the "MYOB" responses of people is wrong. I'm incredibly sad and horrified that people think bringing this into the public sphere is a valid choice.

 

Choice/consent is not the most important thing. Not when it stands opposed to normalizing oppression.

 

But IS it oppression if the person is choosing to wear the collar, versus being forced?


  • Renthead Mommy and DragonFaerie like this

#158 ktgrok

ktgrok

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19607 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:58 PM

I don't give a rats ass if people want/need to do this in their own homes. 

 

Doing this in public, possibly making the general public part of the "thing", normalizing oppression - in this case of a woman, also normalizing the "MYOB" responses of people is wrong. I'm incredibly sad and horrified that people think bringing this into the public sphere is a valid choice.

 

Choice/consent is not the most important thing. Not when it stands opposed to normalizing oppression.

 

But IS it oppression if the person is choosing to wear the collar, versus being forced? Is a person oppressed if they can walk away or call a halt to it at any time, for any reason?


  • Renthead Mommy, MercyA and Tanaqui like this

#159 Lady Florida.

Lady Florida.

    New again (old) avatar. Same old me.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12556 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:58 PM

All of you saying to call the police, what about when you see Amish people in the store?? We've talked at length here about how undereducated the women are kept. That is much more oppressive than a collar.

 

Right. So in the case of Amish consenting adults or say, FLDS (and I know that not all those women are even adults but in the cases where they are) we don't call the police because that violence isn't visible in the form of a collar? In the case of what also looks like consent but is outwardly visible we do? Why? Because it's different from any choice we'd make?

 

I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't notice or think the couple was a bit odd, but I wouldn't assume abuse either. It's not something I'm interested in but like an  Amish couple, those people are adults who appear to have made a choice. Possibly even more so if the Amish woman was raised in a culture where her treatment (and possibly abuse) wasn't even questioned.


Edited by Lady Florida., 13 September 2017 - 09:59 PM.

  • Laura Corin, Renthead Mommy, kiana and 5 others like this

#160 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6181 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:01 PM

But IS it oppression if the person is choosing to wear the collar, versus being forced? Is a person oppressed if they can walk away or call a halt to it at any time, for any reason?

 

Whether or not she is actually being oppressed could be debated but it isn't the issue. It looks like she is - that's the role that they are "playing". It's being normalized when it's in public & the response is, "meh, it's her choice".


  • samba, Anne, TechWife and 7 others like this

#161 Ausmumof3

Ausmumof3

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4728 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:02 PM

DD went through a phase where her favorite game was that DH "be a doggy" and she walked him around on a leash all the time. We did keep it inside the house though. :laugh:


Yeah I was thinking I wouldn't want one of mine to see it because she would be wanting to do it at home full time... 😂
  • Ravin, goldberry and heatherwith3 like this

#162 Tangerine

Tangerine

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2124 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:03 PM

Many of you have likely seen people in collars and not noticed. It's a pretty symbolic item in some sub/dom relationships. They just weren't leashed. The trafficking concern seems patently absurd to me, but I guess if I were genuinely unfamiliar with the practice I can see jumping to that in my mind. I would like to find one instance ever of someone being leashed at the Piggly Wiggly and it being a trafficking situation.

Now as far as the porn or involving others for the thrill thing goes, I'm going to agree that that could actually be a possibility. It doesn't have to be overtly sexual to the average person, and no nudity would need to be involved for that to be the case. The public humiliation component could be the kink factor.
  • Renthead Mommy, kiana, heatherwith3 and 6 others like this

#163 TechWife

TechWife

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9011 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:04 PM

All of you saying to call the police, what about when you see Amish people in the store?? We've talked at length here about how undereducated the women are kept. That is much more oppressive than a collar.


The Amish follow the laws of their respective states. If meeting the minimum education requirements is abusive, it's news to me.
  • JanOH, Debbi in Texas, BigMamaBird and 3 others like this

#164 Lady Florida.

Lady Florida.

    New again (old) avatar. Same old me.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12556 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:05 PM

The trafficking concern seems patently absurd to me, but I guess if I were genuinely unfamiliar with the practice I can see jumping to that in my mind. I would like to find one instance ever of someone being leashed at the Piggly Wiggly and it being a trafficking situation.

 

 

Yes, that belief/concern really has me scratching my head.


  • Renthead Mommy, heatherwith3, Sk8ermaiden and 2 others like this

#165 ktgrok

ktgrok

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19607 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:12 PM

Whether or not she is actually being oppressed could be debated but it isn't the issue. It looks like she is - that's the role that they are "playing". It's being normalized when it's in public & the response is, "meh, it's her choice".

 

You are assuming the point is to play that she is oppressed. That is probably not the case. I'm way to tired post hurricane to try to explain, but it is not about oppression to them, I'm betting. 


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., TeenagerMom and 3 others like this

#166 Sadie

Sadie

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22326 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:15 PM

You are assuming the point is to play that she is oppressed. That is probably not the case. I'm way to tired post hurricane to try to explain, but it is not about oppression to them, I'm betting.


Cos being lead around by a collar and leash is so liberating ?!
  • 8circles, Serenade and marbel like this

#167 Sadie

Sadie

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22326 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:15 PM

Its like doublethink. Enslavement will make you free.
  • Patty Joanna, Anne, BigMamaBird and 11 others like this

#168 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6181 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:16 PM

You are assuming the point is to play that she is oppressed. That is probably not the case. I'm way to tired post hurricane to try to explain, but it is not about oppression to them, I'm betting.


Again, i think it could be debated but it doesn't matter if playing oppression isn't their goal. It's a woman with a leash on her neck, controlled by a man. But we're not supposed to think oppression?

#169 PrincessMommy

PrincessMommy

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6635 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:17 PM

I guess this is where I get caught up. I was playing this out in my head with a different image of the people...let's say all stays the same (2 legal age consensual adults) when does the line cross leading to the sensationalized headline of outrage? Now same scenario here....

60 year old man and his 18 year old consenting wife on a leash

25 year old wife with her 70 year old husband on a leash

White male with his black wife on a leash

White male with his black husband on a leash

Seriously...would everyone still be saying 2 consenting adults, not in a vaccuum with potential childhood issues rearing up? Or would double standard kick in? Is it only okay in certain demographics, with certain situations? I am curious when it over steps a line in public.

 

exactly.  Arab man with an hajib wearing wife?   What if it was one of the Duggar husbands leading his wife on a leash?   Does it ever stop being consensual and becomes brainwashed?

 

Aside from wondering the above.. I also vote for not in public.  I wouldn't want this normalized either.  


  • JudoMom, Patty Joanna, samba and 11 others like this

#170 Ausmumof3

Ausmumof3

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4728 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:37 PM

I have two issues with stuff like this. One is how can you be totally sure it's consensual and two, please don't be conspicuous about your private stuff around my kids. I don't want to have to explain that.

I think my view is slightly coloured by the fact that a woman died here this year who was supposedly in a consensual thing. The guys clearly took it too far and were too cowardly or didn't care enough to get medical help and left her to die. Overall I think some things grow healthy societies and some just don't.
  • Debbi in Texas, Laurie, transientChris and 12 others like this

#171 ktgrok

ktgrok

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19607 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:41 PM

Again, i think it could be debated but it doesn't matter if playing oppression isn't their goal. It's a woman with a leash on her neck, controlled by a man. But we're not supposed to think oppression?

 

They aren't caring about what you think, most likely. They are caring about their feelings about it, and those probably have nothing to do with oppression. 


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., Ravin and 4 others like this

#172 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:47 PM

But IS it oppression if the person is choosing to wear the collar, versus being forced? Is a person oppressed if they can walk away or call a halt to it at any time, for any reason?


The oppression is part of the fetish. Otherwise there would be no need for public humiliation.
  • transientChris, Quill, 8circles and 6 others like this

#173 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:49 PM

And I am one who would have immediately called the police, and detained the couple until their arrival.  With all my 6 kids, with no hesitation.  I would have been all over that situation in a second. 

 

You may want to hesitate before detaining two adults against their will without  very strong evidence of a crime or you will be the one facing felony charges. 


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., kiana and 6 others like this

#174 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3224 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:50 PM

They aren't caring about what you think, most likely. They are caring about their feelings about it, and those probably have nothing to do with oppression. 

 

Actually, I suspect that many (most?)  people who bring this into PUBLIC...specifically DO care about the feelings of the public.  They WANT people to react.  It's part of the thrill, the feelings of power and control. 


  • Patty Joanna, Carol in Cal., Debbi in Texas and 19 others like this

#175 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:54 PM

Well, now I've heard everything.

 

You do know that 'choice' is not some idol to be worshipped, right ? 

 

When people take their kink out into public, they open themselves up for critique. 

 

Would you affirm the white man's wish to leash a black 'partner' also ? You don't see how that is problematic?

 

Okay.  So how do we remove "choice" from consenting (I know you don't like the concept of consent but it is a legal factor) adults?


  • Lady Florida. likes this

#176 Guinevere

Guinevere

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:55 PM

You may want to hesitate before detaining two adults against their will without very strong evidence of a crime or you will be the one facing felony charges.

Nah, they wouldn't even know they had been detained. You know that lady in the cereal aisle who can't find the box of cereal that you have in your cart? And then after you help her, goes on for 15 minutes about how she ate that cereal since she was a kid and yada yada yada. That'd be so me right then.

Eta Stalled is probably a better word than detained. I agree detained does have a specific context.

Edited by Guinevere, 13 September 2017 - 10:56 PM.

  • Terabith likes this

#177 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:56 PM

Wow. More things I didn't know: some people are fine with violence against women as long as it seems to be consentual.

I think I better step away from this thread and I am not finished page 1.

 

Can't remember reading that anywhere.  Can you provide the post numbers?


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., Word Nerd and 6 others like this

#178 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:57 PM

Nah, they wouldn't even know they had been detained. You know that lady in the cereal aisle who can't find the box of cereal that you have in your cart? And then after you help her, goes on for 15 minutes about how she ate that cereal since she was a kid and yada yada yada. That'd be so me right then.

Eta Stalled is probably a better word than detained. I agree detained does have a specific context.

 

I am going to go out on a limb and say the folks on the BDSM stroll aren't usually the chatty types in the store.


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., kiana and 4 others like this

#179 Tangerine

Tangerine

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2124 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:00 PM

I am going to go out on a limb and say the folks on the BDSM stroll aren't usually the chatty types in the store.


I'm kinda liking the assumption that they are going to be super polite and listen to some lady ramble about cereal for an entire police response time though. It's a sweet thought about the leash in the supermarket folks.
  • Lady Florida., Ravin, Frances and 8 others like this

#180 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:00 PM

Okay. So how do we remove "choice" from consenting (I know you don't like the concept of consent but it is a legal factor) adults?


She didn't say remove choice! She said choice wasn't the idol, meaning that a) you don't make a choice in a vacuum b) other things should override your choice - like public decency, self control and respect for a person's humanity.
  • Debbi in Texas, Anne, BigMamaBird and 11 others like this

#181 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:00 PM

Yes, that belief/concern really has me scratching my head.

 

I am used to it by now.  Human trafficking seems to be a default response on this board.


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., heatherwith3 and 4 others like this

#182 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:02 PM

She didn't say remove choice! She said choice wasn't the idol, meaning that a) you don't make a choice in a vacuum b) other things should override your choice - like public decency, self control and respect for a person's humanity.

 

Neither a nor b holds the same meaning to the people involved in these sorts of activities, so where does that leave us?
 


  • Lady Florida. likes this

#183 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:05 PM

Neither a nor b holds the same meaning to the people involved in these sorts of activities, so where does that leave us?


It leaves us doing it in private.
  • Debbi in Texas, Anne, tcb and 1 other like this

#184 Sadie

Sadie

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22326 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:06 PM

Okay.  So how do we remove "choice" from consenting (I know you don't like the concept of consent but it is a legal factor) adults?

 

It's not so much that I don't like the concept of consent - I do, and consent is an important minimum standard - it's just not magic pixie dust. It's not like we can sprinkle 'consent' over any activity and that activity magically becomes harmless, kwim ?

 

I don't want to remove 'choice' from adults in a legal sense; I may be dubious about how freely such 'choices' are made, but that's a long way from wanting people's bedroom activities policed by the law.

 

I suppose I would like to live in a society where the idea of leashing other humans in public for sexual gratification was incomprehensible. And I feel unhappy that it isn't. Because it's grotesque and dehumanising, imo, not only but particularly when the leashed person is from a class that has been historically maltreated or oppressed.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Sadie, 13 September 2017 - 11:10 PM.

  • Patty Joanna, samba, Carol in Cal. and 18 others like this

#185 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:09 PM

It leaves us doing it in private.

 

Except when some people don't.  So then what?
 



#186 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:10 PM

It's not so much that I don't like the concept of consent - I do, and consent is an important minimum standard - it's just not magic pixie dust. It's not like we can sprinkle 'consent' over any activity and that activity magically becomes harmless, kwim ?

 

I don't want to remove 'choice' from adults in a legal sense; I may be dubious about how freely such 'choices' are made, but that's a long way from wanting people's bedroom activities policed by the law.

 

I suppose I would like to live in a society where the idea of leashing other humans in public for sexual gratification was incomprehensible. And I feel unhappy that it isn't. Because it's grotesque and dehumanising. 

 

I don't know.  Trying to decree the activity of others as nonconsensual seems like the logical first step towards getting into the bedroom.


  • Lady Florida., gwennn, PinkyandtheBrains. and 1 other like this

#187 Sadie

Sadie

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22326 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:11 PM

I don't know.  Trying to decree the activity of others as nonconsensual seems like the logical first step towards getting into the bedroom.

 

I didn't say it was non consensual. I said there are limits to consent. 

 

I don't think this is a difficult concept. An example, unrelated to the present topic, might be a relationship between professor and student. The student may have consented to the relationship; his or her consent does not negate problems with the power differential between the couple.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Sadie, 13 September 2017 - 11:16 PM.

  • Debbi in Texas, Anne, Quill and 9 others like this

#188 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:12 PM

Except when some people don't. So then what?


They get criticism. What are you wanting me to say?
  • Debbi in Texas, debinindy, BigMamaBird and 4 others like this

#189 nixpix5

nixpix5

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1195 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:15 PM

Neither a nor b holds the same meaning to the people involved in these sorts of activities, so where does that leave us?


That's the rub right? We are all individuals but we share a planet and public spaces. We all cannot just go around doing whatever we please and expect people to suck it up. Someone on a leash with daddy issues, ok, whatever floats their boat but where is the line if we keep pushing it further and further out. I worked with a guy who literally could not maintain an erection if his GF wasn't wearing an animal costume (ears, tails etc). He was a "furry" and became concerned with his own behavior because he could no longer enjoy what he thought of as a normal sexual relationship. If his GF was fine wearing a tail and ears for every sexual encounter should we shrug and say that is fine and normal?

I actually don't have an opinion on that statement to be honest. I am more curious about the gradual shifting of the line forward over time. It is ever so gradual that people acclimate to the pot without sensing a change in temperature. 10 years from now, 20 years from now what will the line be? I do think some things should not be normalized and a person on a leash feels like one to me. Call me old fashioned.
  • Barb_, Debbi in Texas, transientChris and 7 others like this

#190 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:37 PM

As for all the 'what about the amish/duggars/oppressed wives' - what about it? Are they going to be encouraged or liberated by the normalisation of sexualised oppression?

I asked before what people would do if someone consensually slapped their partner across the face in the grocery store, or strangled them? Why not sell sex toys in the grocery store? What if there are rape victims or recovered sex slaves trying to grocery shop, now triggered by their play? The grocery store is not the place to act out your fetishism. It's narcissistic at best to assume that your need for arousal is more important than anyone else's need to feel un-violated while doing their daily chores. And it is a violation, forcing people to help you humiliate your sex-slave is violating.
  • Patty Joanna, samba, Debbi in Texas and 24 others like this

#191 AimeeM

AimeeM

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9645 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:46 PM

I would never assume that this is true, ever. Additionally, wanting/needing someone else to have that level of control over your body is not healthy. I can't even imagine a scenario where that want/need would be considered healthy. 

I would like to think that most on this board are evolved enough to understand that what might be wholly unhealthy for one person, may be perfectly healthy for another. 

Because, you know, individuals have different needs and all that :)


  • Renthead Mommy, Lady Florida., heatherwith3 and 3 others like this

#192 TechWife

TechWife

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9011 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:55 PM

I would like to think that most on this board are evolved enough to understand that what might be wholly unhealthy for one person, may be perfectly healthy for another.
Because, you know, individuals have different needs and all that :)

There are things in this world that are unhealthy for everyone. Needing someone to control your body is one of them.
  • samba, Debbi in Texas, vmsurbat and 16 others like this

#193 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:57 PM

That's the rub right? We are all individuals but we share a planet and public spaces. We all cannot just go around doing whatever we please and expect people to suck it up. Someone on a leash with daddy issues, ok, whatever floats their boat but where is the line if we keep pushing it further and further out. I worked with a guy who literally could not maintain an erection if his GF wasn't wearing an animal costume (ears, tails etc). He was a "furry" and became concerned with his own behavior because he could no longer enjoy what he thought of as a normal sexual relationship. If his GF was fine wearing a tail and ears for every sexual encounter should we shrug and say that is fine and normal?

I actually don't have an opinion on that statement to be honest. I am more curious about the gradual shifting of the line forward over time. It is ever so gradual that people acclimate to the pot without sensing a change in temperature. 10 years from now, 20 years from now what will the line be? I do think some things should not be normalized and a person on a leash feels like one to me. Call me old fashioned.

 

I am going to go out on a limb and say I would have no idea what she was wearing their bedroom.  If they told me I would shrug my shoulders though because I have no interest in lecturing someone about what makes their penis erect.

 

Personally I think the leash thing should be confined to the bedroom but it isn't something you can make illegal, and I don't wear pearls that I can clutch if I see people out and about doing this.


  • Lady Florida. and Tanaqui like this

#194 Sadie

Sadie

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22326 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:18 AM

I was waiting for someone to bring up the pearl clutching. For those not in the know, it's an insult that many liberal feminists use to denigrate other women who have concerns around porn, BDSM and prostitution.


Edited by Sadie, 14 September 2017 - 12:20 AM.

  • Patty Joanna, Debbi in Texas, unsinkable and 13 others like this

#195 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:22 AM

Next we'll be called hysterical. Can't critically evaluate someone's precious choice now.
  • Patty Joanna, Debbi in Texas, unsinkable and 12 others like this

#196 nixpix5

nixpix5

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1195 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:33 AM

I was waiting for someone to bring up the pearl clutching. For those not in the know, it's an insult that many liberal feminists use to denigrate other women who have concerns around porn, BDSM and prostitution.


Hey I learned something else new today :) damn, need to get me some pearls ;)

Well, this has been a fascinating thread where I feel I crossed over into some strange twilight zone. I think I need to stop reading because I just get further perplexed and disturbed. To each their own I guess.
  • Debbi in Texas, Anne, debinindy and 4 others like this

#197 KungFuPanda

KungFuPanda

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12486 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:46 AM

Based on what?? It sounds like they were buying groceries. Pretty tame porn, two people, fully clothed, buying some green beans.


I guess I missed my window to get interested in porn and the golden era has passed. Grocery shopping, even in costume, just does not do it for me.
  • transientChris, heatherwith3, WendyAndMilo and 1 other like this

#198 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 01:02 AM

I was waiting for someone to bring up the pearl clutching. For those not in the know, it's an insult that many liberal feminists use to denigrate other women who have concerns around porn, BDSM and prostitution.

 

lol

The phrase has a much longer history than whatever you have decided to imagine.

 

 


  • Lady Florida., heatherwith3, gwennn and 2 others like this

#199 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7603 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 01:04 AM

Next we'll be called hysterical. Can't critically evaluate someone's precious choice now.

 

To what end?  Seriously?  BDSM has been around in some form likely forever.  People like what they like.  I personally don't understand it and probably never will, but as long as they are not actually forcing (real force - not Sadie's definition) someone into their games it really is none of my business.


  • Lady Florida., heatherwith3, DragonFaerie and 2 others like this

#200 LMD

LMD

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 01:41 AM

To what end? Seriously? BDSM has been around in some form likely forever. People like what they like. I personally don't understand it and probably never will, but as long as they are not actually forcing (real force - not Sadie's definition) someone into their games it really is none of my business.


To what end? Why critically analyse anything?
To the end that society says oppression of fellow humans isn't sexy? To the end that young women know that they don't have to be dominated, sexually or otherwise, and they are allowed to say no. Life is not a frigging porno, we are allowed to speak out and say no!
  • Debbi in Texas, unsinkable, debinindy and 9 others like this