7 Jan 12, 5:04 PM
Juantastic
UK(CH), 22 mths
 |
Ms_Valentine wrote:
Juantastic wrote:
Ms_Valentine wrote:
Some items of clothing, traditionally called fetish were worn because they gave the wearer a sexual thrill. If that is it's purpose, I would tend to say keep it for the bedroom. To take it in public is to take your sex life and impose it on others without consent. Ignore this and it is not surprising if others object.
If you like wearing rubber or leather or any other material and fabric just because it is nice,you feel good in it, or sexy in appearance to others but are not doing it as a sexual kick or turn on, then no problem.
Intent is one of the ways I would judge an action as fair on others or not.
|
But isn't it okay to express yourself, yes even sexually, in modern day UK society? Certainly a lot of fashion wear for women is very sexually suggestive.
I have a number of humourous T-Shirts that could be considered offensive - one has the word 'fuck' on it (as included in This be the Verse by Philip Larkin) another depicts a very drunken man struggling to aim at a urinal, and my personal favourite (from Amsterdam) features Stewie from Family Guy in a bra and knickers, touting for business from a red light district window. People could easily take offence or proclaim 'think of the children' at any of the above, but the reality is that I've yet to have anyone pass a comment that wasn't positive.
As I see it, you cross the line when you start engaging in sexual activity in public. The emphasis here being on activity, rather than appearance. Though pushing the envelope too far could still get you into trouble.
Yes, it may look a little odd to outsiders and leave parents with some explaining to do to their kids, but no more than the lad with the bleached spiky hair, the girl with piercings through her cheeks, or me with my t-shirts.
|
No words in and of themselves offend me, so I don't care at all if the word 'fuck' is on an item of clothing. Words in certain contexts may offend some but not all.
However, just because you haven't had people tell you a word or image on an item of clothing is not what they want to see, doesn't mean they all approve. Some may be too shy, nervous or polite to say so to your face.
Besides, the items you describe are not fetish, although designed to shock more than anything else and so are not sexual in the way I mentioned earlier. I take it you do not get an instant erection every time you put on your rude 'Family Guy' shirt?
Sexually suggestive clothing is stuff people wear to be sexy for others which is an aesthetic judgement thing but again not I suspect to make the wearer personally moist or hard.
Sexy is fine but taking your sex life out onto the street is I would imagine less so.
|
Those are your particular triggers, and that's fair enough.
But why would it matter whether I got an erection or not? At least as long as the erection is not visibly bulging through my trousers. It might sexually excite me to go out with a pair of the wife's knickers on instead of underpants, or to go out wearing a cock ring, chastity cage or butt plug. All done for sexual pleasure, and in public, even if not necessarily visibly so. But my motivation is still the same as for the man or woman clad head to toe in rubber.
So presumably it's about what the public can see, and if the public can see that you're dressed in an unusual manner that they disapprove of, then it's up to them to cope with it. To my mind, behaviour only becomes questionable once you begin to include actual sexual acts.
That's why, as someone already mentioned, a lot of us are more offended by a couple heavily snogging than we would be by seeing someone dressed oddly for obviously sexual reasons. |
7 Jan 12, 5:18 PM
mia
UK(M), 4 yrs
  
   |
I think people should be responsible, but where that line is drawn is a difficult one.
Full on face snogging might be a nice way to show your vanilla partner how much you care for them, but it's not particularly nice to see at a bus stop. Similarly being led on a lead might be a nice thing for you both if you're kinky, but i don't think it'd be to many people's tastes.
However, a kiss or holding hands is fine for vanillas, so i think being held by the wrist, instead of the hand, can be a nice way to publically be yourself if you're of a kinky or D/s nature.
Yeah i think we should be able to do what we want (when not in view of minors) and we should be able to do much of what we want (infront of anyone), however, with rights come responsibilities and i think we should think about others feelings as well as our own and make a balanced judgement as to how to act.
x Now where were we? Ah, yes - abject humiliation!
@Modified_Bodies
@O_and_P
@LGB_Forum
|
7 Jan 12, 6:54 PM
fetishist11
UK(KT), 6 yrs
|
rehtael_ni_dal wrote:
vanilla world and our community
I have always hated the word vanilla unless it is followed by 'ice cream' or 'coke-cola'.
The term 'vanilla' also does nothing to promote acceptance
of the activities practised under BDSM and is somewhat divisory to this end. It sets people apart as a label, highlights differences which may or may not exit and puts them in a specific box.
Instead of highlighting differences similarities should be encouraged to promote and help undertsanding that I am a person who likes BDSM rather than a a BDSMer who is a person.
|
The fuller context was "the lines that may or may not exist between the vanilla world and our community" so I am certainly open-minded about similarities between our different 'worlds' and expect to find many.
As for the term 'vanilla' I chose it because it seems to be the one most used by us to differentiate, not because I like using it. I'm happy and interested to hear other ways of expressing it.
The 'breach of the peace' concept is certainly a grey line. I remember a couple of years ago when they did the art installation on the plinth at Trafalgar Square where hundreds of people each had an hour to stand on the plinth and do almost anything they wanted. Around six of those hundreds went up there naked and, out of those six, one man
was told to get dressed because there was a complaint and one woman who wasn't naked but pole-dancing was told to tone it down or words to that effect. So the whole concept is very much 'in the eyes of the beholder'
Thanks for all your thought-provoking replies. I do wonder whether the ones who are more open to revealing their fetishes publicly are the ones who have held back more here.
It seems the most commonly held opinion is that on the whole we should keep our proclivities to ourselves for risk of offending others. Not including illegal activities obviously, but are we then choosing to segment ourselves from the rest of society too much without giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Edited 7 Jan 12, 6:55 PM by fetishist11
|
7 Jan 12, 8:42 PM
NightFox
UK(CV), 3 yrs
|
Lets look back a hundred years when a woman wearing a skirt short enough to show her ankles would have have been pronounced decadent and immoral. I have no doubt mothers would have covered their children's eyes back then. Now skirts so short they can be confused with belts are mainstream. Those brave enough to push the boundaries of convention at the time are always subject to derision, anger and abuse by those who hold the moral high ground.
Its a numbers game. If enough people go out dressed in latex, or on a leash attached to a dog collar then within a short while nobody would bat an eyelid.
As for inquisitive children asking mum why that girls on a lead and is gagged. Simple: 'Well, to stop her from trying to bite you my love'.
NF
|
7 Jan 12, 8:50 PM
Souci_X
UK(BA), 5 yrs
|
NightFox wrote:
Its a numbers game. If enough people go out dressed in latex, or on a leash attached to a dog collar then within a short while nobody would bat an eyelid.
|
Its a gradual thing, the women did not start off wearing mini skirts, I still think taking it slow is better. Like now people don't really bat an eyelid if you go out in a heavy leather collar, I just think its best not to push too far too fast. |
7 Jan 12, 8:54 PM
tanken
UK(NR), 2 yrs
|
Souci_X wrote:
NightFox wrote:
Its a numbers game. If enough people go out dressed in latex, or on a leash attached to a dog collar then within a short while nobody would bat an eyelid.
|
Its a gradual thing, the women did not start off wearing mini skirts, I still think taking it slow is better. Like now people don't really bat an eyelid if you go out in a heavy leather collar, I just think its best not to push too far too fast.
|
I think it also depends where in the world (or where in the UK) you are. People may not bat an eyelid in London or Birmingham but might do so in a small country town for instance.
Also there are some occasions (like Halloween) where people don't mind what they consider as 'fancy dress' but might not be so tolerant on other days of the year.
Happiness is a warm bum 
|
7 Jan 12, 8:57 PM
Ms_Valentine
UK, 9 yrs
|
Juantastic wrote:
Ms_Valentine wrote:
Juantastic wrote:
Ms_Valentine wrote:
Some items of clothing, traditionally called fetish were worn because they gave the wearer a sexual thrill. If that is it's purpose, I would tend to say keep it for the bedroom. To take it in public is to take your sex life and impose it on others without consent. Ignore this and it is not surprising if others object.
If you like wearing rubber or leather or any other material and fabric just because it is nice,you feel good in it, or sexy in appearance to others but are not doing it as a sexual kick or turn on, then no problem.
Intent is one of the ways I would judge an action as fair on others or not.
|
But isn't it okay to express yourself, yes even sexually, in modern day UK society? Certainly a lot of fashion wear for women is very sexually suggestive.
I have a number of humourous T-Shirts that could be considered offensive - one has the word 'fuck' on it (as included in This be the Verse by Philip Larkin) another depicts a very drunken man struggling to aim at a urinal, and my personal favourite (from Amsterdam) features Stewie from Family Guy in a bra and knickers, touting for business from a red light district window. People could easily take offence or proclaim 'think of the children' at any of the above, but the reality is that I've yet to have anyone pass a comment that wasn't positive.
As I see it, you cross the line when you start engaging in sexual activity in public. The emphasis here being on activity, rather than appearance. Though pushing the envelope too far could still get you into trouble.
Yes, it may look a little odd to outsiders and leave parents with some explaining to do to their kids, but no more than the lad with the bleached spiky hair, the girl with piercings through her cheeks, or me with my t-shirts.
|
No words in and of themselves offend me, so I don't care at all if the word 'fuck' is on an item of clothing. Words in certain contexts may offend some but not all.
However, just because you haven't had people tell you a word or image on an item of clothing is not what they want to see, doesn't mean they all approve. Some may be too shy, nervous or polite to say so to your face.
Besides, the items you describe are not fetish, although designed to shock more than anything else and so are not sexual in the way I mentioned earlier. I take it you do not get an instant erection every time you put on your rude 'Family Guy' shirt?
Sexually suggestive clothing is stuff people wear to be sexy for others which is an aesthetic judgement thing but again not I suspect to make the wearer personally moist or hard.
Sexy is fine but taking your sex life out onto the street is I would imagine less so.
|
Those are your particular triggers, and that's fair enough.
But why would it matter whether I got an erection or not? At least as long as the erection is not visibly bulging through my trousers. It might sexually excite me to go out with a pair of the wife's knickers on instead of underpants, or to go out wearing a cock ring, chastity cage or butt plug. All done for sexual pleasure, and in public, even if not necessarily visibly so. But my motivation is still the same as for the man or woman clad head to toe in rubber.
So presumably it's about what the public can see, and if the public can see that you're dressed in an unusual manner that they disapprove of, then it's up to them to cope with it. To my mind, behaviour only becomes questionable once you begin to include actual sexual acts.
That's why, as someone already mentioned, a lot of us are more offended by a couple heavily snogging than we would be by seeing someone dressed oddly for obviously sexual reasons.
|
Things under clothes which are to all outward appearance are not going to upset anyone else as they can't see them, so they can all be taken out of the discussion.
Snogging and all everyday romantic gestures and petting are not bdsm so they aren't what I was talking about.
I have said all along that things people wear visible to non consenting others out on the street are the area where our personal moral standards come in. I know what I would do or not do. I am not right or wrong, just expressing my viewpoint. Others will do other things and if,in doing so, they offend, get criticised, ridiculed or arrested then they are the ones who have to wrestle with their consciences or not as the case may be.
I do not know where the line is drawn in every situation as they will be different, so yes, if an impotent man is wearing head to toe rubber in Sainsburys, then without an erection his hidden but still existing sexual thrills could not be detected from the outside. So, then it is down to him and his inner self to judge the right behaviour for him to lead a morally consistent life.
All I
Dominant partner in an FLR with @paulss
|
7 Jan 12, 9:14 PM
fetishist11
UK(KT), 6 yrs
|
If you consider snogging, heavy petting etc ok what about sucking someone's toes in public? More fetishistic maybe but should it be hidden if the other things aren't? |
7 Jan 12, 9:23 PM
AshUK
UK(EN), 7 yrs
£
|
misunderstoodslave wrote:
I can't accept it's "a shame" to use rights as an argument. But then I am a lawyer.
My point was, if you exert the right to dress in a silly way, you accept that others have the right to stare/titter. It's a reasonable quid pro quo. Otherwise I should act on her advice when my mother tuts that my skirts are too short and my heels too high for a woman over 40. Why should I?
Equally, if the lady with the dog collar wants to wear it, for whatever reason, I can be shocked, amused, whatever, but so what?
I am firmly of the view that there is no right not to be offended. I see things that offend me every day, but I am content that others are expressing their rights of free speech in saying those things. If the world was run around the lowest common denominator principle of not upsetting anyone, there'd be no profile pics of gas masks on IC, as it's my particular phobia. But how wrong would that be? (for the avoidance of doubt - VERY.)
There is of course a balance to be struck between libertarian principles and common sense good manners. But I am wary of striking the balance too far down the road of not being shocking/silly/upsetting etc.
|
Completely agree with this. I'm not even sure that the concepts of ' right ' and ' responsibility ' apply here - more ' cause and effect ' .
If I choose to take my girl out in a collar and lead ( cause ) that's up to me. If I get lots of nasty comments ( effect ) then that's just the way it goes, sadly.
Similarly, if I take her out naked ( cause ) and we get arrested ( effect ) then that's my own fault too.
I'm not really sure morality is as relevant as the law of the land. I wouldn't say I'm arrogant, but Superman has pictures of me on his pyjamas.
|
7 Jan 12, 9:25 PM
NightFox
UK(CV), 3 yrs
|
Souci_X wrote:
NightFox wrote:
Its a numbers game. If enough people go out dressed in latex, or on a leash attached to a dog collar then within a short while nobody would bat an eyelid.
|
Its a gradual thing, the women did not start off wearing mini skirts, I still think taking it slow is better. Like now people don't really bat an eyelid if you go out in a heavy leather collar, I just think its best not to push too far too fast.
|
Is it ? Looking back in time humans wore nothing. When we learned the technology to make clothing that enabled us to keep warm and advance into colder parts of the world where we could not survive without clothing. Clothing was a necessity. Wearing thongs for men was probably brought about by the need to prevent their genitalia flopping about and getting damaged when they were chasing prey.
At some point in our history the wearing of clothing to hide our genitalia became necessary on the grounds of modesty. Why this was I do not know, but probably was rooted in religion. We became more and more obsessed with this and eventually nearly every part of the body had to be covered.
In human history terms, this is a relatively new practice. Why, other than to keep warm, do we need to wear clothing at all ? Looking at countries with warm climates where the wearing of clothing as a means of keeping warm is not necessary then people tended to not bother. Its only when Christianity and Islam got there that they were taught that nudity was immoral. That's where we are today. Even though most people are not religious we still have the judgements of what is moral and what is immoral based in religious contexts.
NF Edited 7 Jan 12, 9:27 PM by NightFox
|
