Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Patty Joanna

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

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 😂

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 StellaM
  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 StellaM
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

They get criticism. What are you wanting me to say?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 StellaM
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER & RECEIVE A COUPON FOR
10% OFF
We respect your privacy.You’ll hear about new products, special discounts & sales, and homeschooling tips. *Coupon only valid for first-time registrants. Coupon cannot be combined with any other offer. Entering your email address makes you eligible to receive future promotional emails.
0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Pin
×