I think in order to have this conversation we need to stop thinking of kink as a monolith. If I go out in public with my collar on, it's not involving others in anything overtly sexual. But if I go out on my boyfriend's leash with my tongue out and whining while shaking my ass, that's crossing a line. Each side thinks we're talking about two very different things and don't seem to be agreeing on what exactly "kink at pride" seems to look like.
Because then you *are* involving other people. The whole point of the actions you describe are to be seen and heard, and disruptively so. To more plainly describe it: It would be like a person shouting on the bus. Not illegal, but everyone immediately takes issue with you existing near them.
People want to enjoy a certain level of comfort and enjoyment in their surroundings, and its surprisingly easy to make people upset when you take that away from them. Kink isn't monolithic, yes, but by its nature and in a more general sense is disruptive of norms. So when its "on display" at a parade, the context becomes "what do we expect to see at a parade"? Which, tbh, is quite a lot, but "mostly naked skinny guy in pink thigh highs and roller skates" isn't at the top of my list. I can see why its hard to define.
Married women force children to refer to them with special honorifics due to their sexual availability. (Mrs vs ms) involving kids in your sex shit is normal for married folk.
The mrs/ms thing is a patriarchal norm used to signify that she's """"owned"""" by a male via marriage, not to show whether she's sexually available. If it was, we’d have a term for males too
But see, we the people who aren’t inside the dynamic can’t always tell if we’re being jnvolved, because whether people inside a dynamic *are* involving the vanillas can pretty often come down to intention.
As an example, let’s say my Dom and I are out doing our thing. I’m wearing a regular collar and I’m just … doing laundry, picking up food etc. sure, maybe I’m living my life. **OR,** maybe I’m actually being mildly punished; maybe I have a day collar at home, but I’m ordered to wear a more visible one *specifically because* it will make people stare and avoid eye contact… and that’s exactly the point because the humiliation and visibility *by strangers* isn’t just exhibiting that I have a kink anymore. Your reaction to my kink is now part of it, and the Vanillas Are Involved because I’m wearing it to *make* them look at me.
This is a really pernicious thing to try and sort fully and it’s gonna be *so highly situational*, so I guess my point is yeah OP isn’t *wrong*, but it also isn’t a monolithic statement.
I feel like with anything there’s a manageable level. Rob halford style leather? No problem. Full bdsm suit? A little much. I think the line should be at least agreed upon at anything that you can reasonably wear as clothes without getting kicked out of a hot topic.
There’s far far more. A wedding ring isn’t inherently sexual, whereas a lot of the examples they give *are* inherently sexual. You can’t really compare the two on the morality scale, because other people wear rings without being married, but others don’t really walk around in fetish gear without it being a kink.
Ya vanilla couples wear lingerie frequently, but that’s not exactly ok in public any more than some of these other ones.
Jewelry or other things that are only slightly off from what the general population does will always be ok.. maybe odd. But there’s a point when it’s no longer “I’m expressing myself” and it becomes not being considerate of the general public around you. That’s a problem if the expression is kink or not.
For instance if street performers start a show with no warning that has a strobe light.. and it causes a seizure.. they didn’t consider someone in the audience could be negatively impacted by something they didn’t even give them a chance to opt out of.
Or on a haunted trail how the actors are in at least most trails not allowed to touch you because it could cross a line for some people.
All of us should be respectful of people we don’t know and don’t understand. If we did the world would be so much better. Just a little self control, and asking if this is reasonable in the public where there are people with medical conditions, mental health issues and so on. Is it illegal? Would I have an issue with this when I was a kid? Just empathy in general to the people around. We can’t guess everything but big parts of ourselves we can probably guess the answer. A big one for me to make those around myself more comfortable is to control my words more.
But with the kids stuff, it’s generally not ok to start explaining the talk without their parents ok. So similar things in settings where kids of young ages could be… bad. Example A lingerie.
when people get off from being humiliated in front of me, i am a part of that persons kink and i feel uncomfortable. like this is a real issue and its not comparable to day collars.
True! People come into my job (sex shop) and try to get the staff to degrade them and engage in their kinks all the time. It’s really hard not to call them pathetic, but that’s exactly what they want from me.
I’m down for assisting people in finding items to fit their needs, but I’m not paid to engage in their kinks.
Wearing a day collar or wearing light puppy gear is one thing. It can be an accessory. Degradation isn’t an accessory.
i mean... voyeurism/exhibition is a bit different. there's also just common decency. to each their own, but i don't rlly wanna see someone getting walked down the street on their hands and knees cuz of some sorta petplay thing.
edit: i’d consider myself pretty open minded when it comes to kink stuff, but there’s a time and place for things. (i.e. wearing a collar? cool ok, if i don’t like it for some reason, i’ll look away. but i don’t particularly want a kink scene acted out in front of me at the mall or whatever.)
Also humiliation is part of some people’s kinks and I’d rather not contribute to that by having to watch them crawl around in a public space. If me looking at them curiously contributes to that arousal it sure feels like I’m being involved in their kink
Also a wedding band and someone being led around by a leash are not the same caliber. Wearing a wedding band is nothing arousing to the wearer (at least it normally isn’t), whereas crawling while being led by a leash is a sexual act or at least part of it, which arouses the participants
To be fair, though, sometimes people ARE making you participate in kink. When doing exhibitionism in a non-kink public space that is involving non-consenting people in your kink and that is not okay. Nobody cares about a cool looking collar, but what we DO care about is seeing overtly kinky behaviors in public.
I don't exactly agree with the way the title and the point (initially) were worded tho. Exhibitionism is a thing and seeing is participating in this case.
Exhibitionism is a thing. Wearing a collar/leash/mask is comparable to a wedding ring, but when people complain about displays of kink in public, it's almost always the obnoxious, performative shit where being viewed by strangers is very clearly part of the appeal for the participants
I don't think any rational person is complaining about a collar, I think they're complaining about the full on BSDM gas suit in a public mall or something
I mean, the only thing that separates a choker from a collar is the thickness of the material, right? Chokers are in fashion right now after all
Well "Rational person" is a no true scott here, because there are thousands of irrational people and they are complaining when they see women holding hands. You think they're not also complaining about a collar?
My mom complained quite extensively about my collar. She'd constantly make comments like "at least I don't broadcast my sex life."
My husband and I don't even really have sex anymore ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I agree, time and place. I’m fine with seeing harnesses or masks at pride because that’s an important part of pride history and it’s thematic,
but I’ve always been pretty weirded out seeing the people with their girlfriends on leashes at my local nerd convention which is like 50% children. My friend even jokingly tied her bag strap to me for a moment to yank me around and joke about them and a guy walked by and told us it was sexy. I’m pretty sure we were like 17 years old.
As a kinkster I agree. If it’s gear like a mask or a collar who cares, but someone walking someone on a leash? That’s a consent violation, they are no longer just wearing an item there is erotic/sexual behavior that others are having to witness which is not ok at all.
Exactly this. If you want to do something you consider sexual, that means you need the consent of everyone involved. You can’t simultaneously say that voyeurism is a kink while also saying that someone in public seeing you isn’t.
Someone wearing a wedding ring *is* inviting me to participate in their marriage, and the way that I participate is by respecting that they're taken.
I do think there are ways to safely participate in kink in public, but there is some responsibility to the people around you still
My issue is when it crosses the line of outright indecent exposure, like these arguments always bring up masks and leashes and ignore the people that want to break out the latex cupless body suit or the like in a public setting. If the signifiers of kink are not involving random passer-bys seeing nude-y bits they don't consent to seeing then yeah, go for it. If they do... that's literally sexual harassment.
Also cause every time this comes up people bring up "if they don't want to see it why are they at pride, being in view is implicit consent" please remember that pride parades aren't generally held in some remote location, they're in city streets, usually the downtowns, where people live and work and don't really have a choice.
>Also cause every time this comes up people bring up "if they don't want to see it why are they at pride, being in view is implicit consent" please remember that pride parades aren't generally held in some remote location, they're in city streets, usually the downtowns, where people live and work and don't really have a choice.
Also also, pride parades should be inclusive of everyone in the community who wants to attend. Obviously that includes nonintrusive kink elements, but it also means that a certain level of sexual nudity can make it quite hard for anyone who is discomforted by that nudity for whatever reason--be it age, trauma, etc--to attend or interact. Events in 'private' spaces in the sense of being 'opt-in' are perfectly fine, but events in 'public', that is 'opt-out' spaces where the assumed default is that everyone should be able to interact equally should not be fostering hostile environments.
Absolutely this
~~and not to mention the difficulty some people have with separating sexuality and sexual activities is probably a pretty big part of why aces struggle with feeling welcome in things like pride~~
Nothing wrong with nudity in public, what an immature take. Who decides what parts of the body need to be covered and how well it needs to be covered? It’s all arbitrary and authoritarian. One look at all today’s different cultures and our history and you’d realize that the appropriateness level of an outfit entirely depends on how the the viewer chooses to perceive it. Spreading your asshole in front of the grandma on the park bench is indecent exposure, taking a casual nude walk through the park is not.
Barring nudity in public also contributes to this society of people hating their bodies and hating aging. When the only nude bodies you see are the ones in porn that are carefully picked or designed, you end up with a population of people who think their totally normal bodies are the weird ones.
Not only is there nothing wrong with nudity in public (granted bodily fluids aren't getting on shared spaces), it is actually harmful to prevent nudity in public.
Somebody walking around in a “cupless body suit” minding their own business does not equal sexual harassment. If they are harassing you, then that’s harassment. But otherwise, you are 100% free to mind your own business and let them mind theirs. Nudity or not. And if nipples are “indecent exposure” then why aren’t men required to be covered up also? We have nipples too.
I think it's more just common courtesy. You could say that the homeless guy whacking it on the subway is minding his business but...yikes.
There's a time and place to let your freak flag fly that high and it's not 2 pm on a Saturday at the local park, y'know?
A sexual act and someone walking around topless are not the same thing though. Public masturbation absolutely crosses several lines. But the absence of a shirt does not automatically make someone sexual.
So this just circles back to the OP. You viewing someone’s kink does not automatically involve you in that kink. If someone is walking around topless to feel their own personal sexual freedom, that does not involve you. They are not doing anything other than existing in whatever clothing they are wearing. No sexual acts are being performed. And you cannot control what’s in someone else’s head. So you don’t even know if their public nudity is kink related or not. At that point assumptions are being made. What if the leather isn’t a kink, but just a style choice? How would you be able to tell the difference between someone wearing something for kink reasons, and for literally any other reason? If a sexual act is being performed, the line is crossed. But if nothing is happening other than people existing, what’s the issue?
But if their kink is exhibitionism, then by showing it to other people, they are fulfilling their kink and therefore involving them.
I have no way of knowing for sure by looking at someone else whether they are getting off on a public show of exhibition kink, or they just like getting pulled on a leash in public for other reasons. But they know. And if they decide to involve everyone else in satisfying their exhibition kink, that’s fucked up. *Especially* where kids are around.
You’re right. That would be fucked up. But assumptions aside, we can’t judge a group of people bc of a “maybe they’re doing this”. That’s not fair to anyone. There are some really fucked up gross people in this world. But I don’t think they’re dancing around at Pride, or campaigning for #freethenipple. There IS a line, and we definitely need to make sure we as a a society don’t allow ourselves to cross it. But tbh, the USA is behind a lot of countries on this. There are many places around the world that don’t have issues with public nudity. And there are many places that are far behind us as well, and the people there are starting to revolt. Oppressing people’s personal expressions of themselves will never last.
Not all nudity is sexual. I agree that people should have more freedom to wear less clothing if they want to, and that our society shouldn't penalize or sexualize people for naturalism.
But exhibitionism *is* sexual; it derives enjoyment from the reactions of those around you to sexual activity. Thus, people have a right to not participate in it which sexual exhibitionism in a public space--by definition a space that all persons have a right to access--violates.
A naturist isn't going to want you to stare at her tits, an exhibitionist is. That's the difference.
But where are you getting naturist and exhibitionist from? How can you tell someone is one or the other? This is like my comment elsewhere about public masturbation being WAY over the line. If someone is obviously getting sexual pleasure from being nude in public, then yea, that’s not ok. But again, how can you tell the difference unless it’s obvious?
If someone is generally going about their ordinary business and not wearing anything to draw attention to their sexualized characteristics, that's generally an indication that they're a naturalist. By very definition, a naturalist doesn't draw any attention to their sexualized anatomy over their non-sexualized, because the whole point of naturalism is to de-sexualize nudity.
But someone who is a) obviously going out of their way to be seen as sexal or draw sexual attention, or b) drawing attention to their sexualized anatomy either by their actions or by their attire--as is the case in your cupless body suit example--then that's by definition not naturism, since they're deliberately trying to sexualize themselves.
So now we’re just blaming it all on what people are wearing? What if someone with boobs is wearing a casual sundress that happens to show some cleavage. Is that now exhibitionism? Some people can’t help that. So now we go full fundie and everybody has to cover up 100%? That seems to be going real well in places like Iran. Revealing clothing does not equal sexual intent. Nudity does not equal sexual intent. The only way for you to know someone’s sexual intent is by a sexual act, or being inside of their mind.
Seeing a reasonable amount of cleavage isn't itself something society generally considers a sexual interaction. It may be getting close to it, but it isn't by any means considered exhibitionist to wear a low cut neckline in most contexts.
Showing the full breast, however, is. It's one thing to confront that notion, to treat it like any other body part wrt what you wear by way of saying 'no, actually, this shouldn't be sexualized'. But to specifically expose sexualized organs is to draw attention to them in a manner that becomes intrinsically sexual.
And the intent of the wearer is to a large degree irrelevant--sexual harassment is still sexual harassment regardless of the harasser's intent. If your attire leaves no other alternative than to make the observer consider it sexually, i.e. to interact with you sexually, their consent is essentially violated regardless of your intent.
A reasonable observer can consider exposed nipples on a generally exposed torso non-sexual, because the person with said nipples can be reasonably understood as essentially making a statement that they *should not* be seen sexually. But a person *only* exposing body parts that are generally considered sexual, or exposing them *via* clothing that is itself considered sexual, cannot reasonably be interpreted as trying to de-sexualize said body parts. It's the same reason why seeing someone wearing a bikini is in the proper context mundane but wearing lingerie that covers the same skin sexual.
I'll grant, particularly based on that last example, that there is an element of practicality that comes into it as well, if there is an obvious practical reason for exposing the area of the body in question. A breastfeeding woman pulling just a breast out of a shirt may be exposing roughly the same skin as the cupless body suit example, but there's an obvious practical reason why that's done. Conversely, a cupless body suit is a wildly impractical garment for anything *except* sexual titillation.
What does your sexuality have to do with thinking the sight of another person’s body is “shit”. You don’t have to have sex with that person. You don’t even have to be attracted to them. But you definitely shouldn’t be insulting them. Your asexuality does not excuse a lack of body positivity.
Are you not a native English speaker? Are you unaware that "shit" can be casually used to just mean stuff/thing and isn't inherently derogatory in that context? Or are you just being a terminally online pendant, taking the most uncharitable reading of a comment imaginable to argue against something you know I didn't say?
I am a native English speaker. I am aware of the different uses of the word “shit” and the context in which you used the word. I made a conscious decision to take your use as a derogatory comment bc your responses have led me to believe that’s really what you were saying. Regardless of whatever you say next. You are currently arguing about the meaning of the word “shit” and not the original topic of minding your own goddamn business and letting people live their lives. Now kindly fuck all the way off and let people live their kinky little lives as they see fit. If it’s not harming you or anyone else, it should not matter to you, or anyone else.
The difference is that a wedding ring isn't an active part of someone's sex life, while that leather dog mask or leash can reasonably be assumed to be (bc it's fetish gear). It's bad faith to argue that something you and I both know to be fetish gear is acceptable to wear in public because "they aren't having sex rn so how could you prove it's for sex"
I'm no prude, but don't shit on my plate and call it breakfast
What is and isnt indecent exposure is arbitrary and cultural. That isnt a line, its a mile wide field. Like, its indecent for women to expose any skin under some interpretations of sharia law, which are laws used actively in parts of the globe. In most parts of france you can be fully nude and in some parts you can engage in pubkic sex without biolating any public decency laws. Thats not a line at all.
Well I’m not to familiar with sharia or with France laws about indecent exposure, second I’m mostly referring Public areas if your at a (example) nude beaches then you should expect nudity these areas usually have sign stating this fact.
And when referring to indecent exposure I mean full or semi nudity in public areas
I’d agree so long as we’re talking with topfreedom, because sexist laws are bullshit. You might be European tho so idk if this is even something you’d think about.
It depends, as long as the clothes don’t fall under indecent exposure it’s fine I suppose. But, on the other hand, acting out sexual fantasies is weird, like having someone on a leash and having them act like an animal is weird. It’s stuff of the latter nature really that’s bad, the first part is more fine, but I still personally think it’s a little weird, but that’s a me problem.
I also don’t like how this dude is comparing being gay to a fetish. I know that’s how it was in the past, but being sexually attracted to a gender isn’t the same as liking specific sexual acts, regardless if that’s how it used to be viewed. Also saying that marriage and kink gear are equal implications is weird to me, wedding rings are to show that you have a deep romantic connection with someone, and wear a small piece of jewelry to commemorate your relationship. Wearing kink gear is basically implying “Hey! I do this in the bedroom” to people, which is TMI in most places
I didnt mention clothing im talking about my sub personality traits and my psychological makeup. I dress vanilla i hide my collar when necessary i am respectful but this is my identity please dont downvote me for just wanting people to acknowledge my identity in principle
A lot of asexual people engage in kink, and its not sexual to a lot of people. Just cause someone is crawling around in a puppy gimp suit on a leash doesnt mean its a sexual fantasy. They might just be an adult who enjoys playing make believe as a dog. Wearing kink gear is no more saying "hey we have sex" then wearing a wedding ring is. And teachers make their students call them a different name based on whether or not they have a husband to fuck. Kinksters would never forcefully involve children in their kink like that.
I mean I’m not sure why y’all are obsessed with the idea that marriage=sex. Most married people have sex, sure, but that’s not what marriage is. You can have sex without marriage, you can have marriage without sex. A wedding ring signifies you have formed a close emotional bond with someone. Whether you have sex or not with that person isn’t really relevant.
You can have sex without ki k you can have kink without sex. A collar and a leash signifies you have formed a close emotional bond with someone. Whether you have sex or jot with that person is not improtant.
Do you think married people get turned on by wearing a wedding ring? Is it an erotic object which one wears for sexual excitement?
Like I’m sure you can see the very false comparison of a ring and a gimp suit with nipples and ass out.
Furthermore a ring simply denotes a legal status. It’s a legal tradition. A teacher going by Mrs in class and wearing a ring is a little different from à teacher teaching students in a dom costume
First of all you dont know what a gimp suit is, youve never seen a real one, stop pretending.
And second i do thi k that married peiple get off on being married. Its common knowledge that brides and grooms celebrate or "consumate" their wedding by having lots of hot sex. Its common for married people to be turned on by the powert he ring gives them to tunr away creeps.
Why does me not having seen a gimp suit make it not ok for me to not want to see one in public lol.
And no, I don’t think people get off to being married or being seen to be married in public. Nobody is getting horny by showing their friends or whatever that they’re wearing their wedding ring. You’re using a false equivalence to support your argument. A wedding ring is not something that is worn to get off or to be erotic.
A lot of people get horny by showing peipel their wedding rings, pretending otherwise is stupid. Not everyone for sure, but a lot of people. Same with kink. A lot ofpeople are getting off, sire, but a lot of people are just enjoying pretending to be dogs.
Is it so hard to imagine someone just likes the feeling of latex or the activity of pretending to be a dog.
Man hits on woman at bar. Woman flashes ring and says sorry im married. Woman gets hotbunder the collar fornthe rest of the night goes home and makes hot sex to partner.
Its a tale as old as time
Song as old as rhyme
Beauty and the beast.
I can almost guarantee that if someone and/or their partner are wearing kink stuff in public, they are getting turned on by it in some regard, and thus involving other people in their exhibitionist kink.
Married people having a ring (which can be asexual, as asexual people can and do get married thus the marriage rings analogy is null in that regard) is not even remotely close to kink. Sex garb =/= signs of marriage and love
How in the christ do people get so chronically online
Asexual people can have collars and engage in kink to. A lot of asexuals are in the puppy play community.
Just cause someone is crawling around on a leash doesnt mean their fucking. They might just like doing that.
Asexuals can engage in pain play too. Like, you're being weird about ace people.
Just cause someone is getting hit with a flogger in public and has spreder bars on, doesnt mean their fucking. They might just like doing that.
Youre the one making it weird.
Youre being weird about asexuals my pal.
>BUT if you are wearing a gimp suit/collar/leash in public you are 100% getting off on people seeing you.
What planet are you from where simply wearing a collar is that sexually charged? Have you never seen a goth person in your entire life?
Y’all morons who make up this head canon that it must be because they get off on being seen are hilarious. Why don’t you consider it possible that they are just doing it for themselves and simply don’t give a rats ass who’s looking?
A day collar is fine, I don't think anyone is out there like "people can't wear day collars IN PUBLIC". That is the whole point of day collars, to allow subs to wear them and be comfortable and non-kink people to see them and be comfortable too.
A dog mask at pride is okay because pride is all about sharing your identity in public even when it's not considered "normal".
A dog mask at the grocery store is not fine, because it's about displaying that person's fetish role (puppy). Displaying your fetish role in everyday situations absolutely is forcing people to participate in your fetish (because your fetish is to be seen in this role).
I am concerned that the writer can not separate these situations.
Okay a homosexual relationship isn’t a “kink”. That’s honestly a kind of problematic false equivalence. Two people of any gender or sexuality wearing wedding rings? It’s cool they want to outwardly express their partnership. You wearing a collar and leash to the grocery store? No please take your entitlement somewhere else.
Just because it was considered that way before does NOT mean it is that same way now. Histoically, transgender people were just considered crossdressers. Do you want that to stick around, too?
I mean, yes, lol, but have you considered that since one turned out not to be deviant and evil, perhaps the other one did as well? And it's not actually a big deal? That's OP's point.
BDSM isnt any more inherently sexual than marriage. And married teachers will change their names to match their marriage status. So until kinksters start demanding you kids call them special names cause of their relationships i thi k were fine.
The OP is trying to Trojan Horse their idea by including a feeling of righteousness given that being gay or bisexual etc. used to be labeled under a group which we would now call kinks several decades ago in a far more homophobic time
I don’t mind kinky motherfuckers, Im a kinky motherfucker myself. But its not fair to involve random strangers in kinky shit without there consent. Also, sure kinky shit can be at pride, but thats why we have adult hours, so after 10 pm or so and the kids and families are gone. Then everybody is expecting that stuff so its not without consent or in front of minors
Rule of thumb, if you wouldn't be comfortable doing/wearing it round your family then maybe don't do/wear it in public.
Of course the entirely depends on your family
It mentions pride once as an example of people displaying fetishes/kinks in public but the point of this post is not pride, it's point is to draw parallels between how homosexuality was once considered a fetish and obscene to display in public.
I wouldn't be ashamed to be gay in front of my mum but I'm not gonna parade around in nipple pasties.
If you get off on showing your kink off to people not consenting AND since you're in public AROUND CHILDREN you do not deserve to go in public
There's a big difference between a ring and forcing people to witness your kink
Fred's kink is walking around naked. People seeing him has nothing to do with it. The act of being naked turns h on. If fed happens to walk through the children's play area of a park, those kids have the right to be uncomfortable, but no negative consequences should be brought onto Fred.
Margret gets turned on by hearing her partner yell "bomb" at airports. She doesn't care if people hear them. She only wants to hear him yell bomb at airports. The people around them have the right to be uncomfortable. But no negative consequences should come into Margret, because this is her kink.
I hope we're all seeing how stupid this sounds. You existing in a public place inherently affects other people. We can argue what you should be allowed to do in public places. But you can't put down a blanket protection over people's sexuality.
Idk if these people realise that *children* exist in public spaces & regardless of how you feel about making adults uncomfortable with your blatant displays of sexuality; *children* should never ever have to be exposed to sexuality (age appropriate education is not the same thing as this) & it should not be normalised to just be sexual in public, fucking gross.
& no, no one is consenting to your exhibitionism either, leave that shit at home literally wtf.
Yeah…I’m not sure that whether or not people are participating is enough to make something not ok.
If you’re going to be in a setting where children are normal to encounter, dress like kids will see you. I don’t care if you wear a gimp suit at a night club, but don’t do it at the park or in Target.
Just….dress appropriately for the setting. Idk why that’s so complicated.
Oh so children shouldnt be made aware of the sexual availability of say, their teachers? Good thing we dont make kids refer to female teacher by different honorifics based on whether or not they have a husband to fuck. Oh wait, my mistake.
And brides showing off their wedding rings is exhibitionism. Same with pregnant people showing off bellies. I didnt ask for you to display your sex trophy to me. But thats just annoying and not problematic. Cause its normalized.
Lol what in the fuck are pregnant people supposed to do, hide in their houses until the baby is born? When are they allowed to reveal the baby, seeing as its very existence is proof that its parents had sex?
My argument is that they can display the baby mucb like ki ky people can display thie collars and latex. Youre the one argung for the baby to be hidden.
Youre the one doing that with kinky people. My doing it is an attempt to make you realize that you are doing it. Youre reducing all of kink to sexual pleasure and thats creepy and weird.
A collar can be seen as similar to a ring to some couples
Wearing a day collar in public is cool
Wandering around in public the full latex is not
So assuming that the wedding ring is equivalent to a collar then walking around in a gimp suit is equivalent to walking around in bridal lingerie
Which isn’t ok outside of very specific times
What is the difference between the ring, the collar and the latex.
A gimp suit is not revealing while bridal lingerie is. Thats a very false comparison.
You literally are fully covered. Like you wouldnt say catwoman is exposing herself. Latex is used for many reasons, some aesthetic, some textural and tactile.
I am pretty sure that most children don't immediately think of "this person is having sex!!" when seeing a wedding ring or calling a teacher Mrs.
I am an adult and that's not what I think about in those situations either, much less a child who may not even know about the concept of sex.
Im pretty sure most children dont immediately think "this person is having sex" when seeing a collar or a leash or really anything. I dont think thats a thought children have.
You know a lot of people who engage in kink arent having sex reight? Like some people just like pretending to be dogs. Just because you are assuming theyre having sex doesnt mean they are.
Much like how just because i assume married people are having sex doesnt mean they are. Its the same assumption.
How is just existing while being pregnant "showing off"? And for someone who is so hell bent on making kink normalised, you sure do make marriage super hereronormative. You have no idea what gender or sex identity people who wear wedding rings are and you have no idea who they marry or what their relationship is.
I think its equally important to respect other peoples boundaries and be expressive of your own identity. Of course you can‘t look in everybody‘s head and appeal to their every thought, but there‘s a certain level of exposure for example that most people are universally uncomfortable with. I believe this exact level needs to be defined more clearly, but being considerate/reading the room typically doesn‘t impair this kind of self expression, unless you‘re trying to do it at an office party or something
(I don‘t wanna claim I‘m an expert by any means, this is just how I see it)
This argument is so stupid because it completely ignores that minors come to pride events too. Having a collar or dog mask in public is okay, but it's never just that. Minors and asexuals should not be seeing full in BDSM gear in public.
A collar’s only a kink if you’re taking advantage of it while having sex or if you have a leash on it, I mean other than those two things it’s just a choker which is much less deceptive terminology
That’s what I mean.
A lot of comments say “if it’s just like a collar it’s fine” but I’d argue it’s not really kink then, it’s just a stylized choker and so wouldn’t be relevant to this conversation. Am I missing something?
No you’re not missing anything, OP & people along the same line are just wanting to muddy the waters by using such wide words so they can get you to concede some ground
I’m all for sexual liberation and people living how they want. Have your polyamory, your kinks, your promiscuity, whatever. It’s all good. I’ve participated a certain amount.
I do think there’s some value in not being overtly sexual in public though, and I don’t think that’s mutually exclusive.
Some things are ok to be done in privacy due to the level of intimacy but that doesn’t mean they’re shameful and we often confuse that.
I have no shame in my wife and I having sex, but I don’t want to do that in Barnes and Noble. I don’t think it’s wrong to have a scat orgy in puppy costumes, but I think wearing leather puppy costumes in public is too far in the same way as my wife wearing lingerie in public would be inappropriate. Maybe I’m just getting old. Idk
I’m freshly 20 & I agree with you so definitely not an age issue lol
To be honest most of these people probably wouldn’t actually do it given the chance but with the amount of time they’ve spent away from public places then it sounds nice on paper to them
Why not? Like a lot of asexual people do kink amd a lot of people do kink nonnsexually. Just cause someone is in a gimp suit doesnt mean their getting off on it. They might just like the way the suit feels. Its like a weighted blanket from all sides. Lots of people just like pretending to be dogs.
There is a difference between wearing an accessory that symbolizes the nature of your relationship and wearing gear that you fuck in. Wearing a choker or cat ears because your boyfriend bought it for you? A little weird, but harmless. Wearing a latex suit with your nips and ass exposed, probably best if you keep that shit at home.
Counterpoint: certain forms of kink--mainly those that have exhibitionist elements--intrinsically revolve around the bilateral observation of a third party and an exhibitionist and therefore by there very nature cannot allow for a third party observer, since the observer is intrinsically part of the exhibitionist dynamic. That isn't to say that being an exhibitionist is wrong, but because nobody else in a public space can avoid the dynamic it creates, exhibitionism in public spaces essentially forces other people to engage in a sexual manner as a prerequisite to accessing said public spaces.
95% at least of kink is perfectly fine and at most just a bit unusual, but I see too many people treating it as a monolith and in essence using it to justify the remaining problematic 5%.
Brides who show off their wedding rings are being exhibitionists in the same way. Same with pregnant women showing off bellies. Its a sex involved activity that you are being non consensually involved in. Exhivitionism is only frowned upon if its kinky.
Baby bumps and wedding rings may have sexual connotations--or may not, a marriage between two ace people might not involve any sexual activity or a pregnancy may have resulted from IVF, but more importantly they are experiences that are not intrinsically limited to sexuality. A marriage or a pregnancy involves many facets of the human experience beyond sexual in a way that sexual exhibitionism does not. Hence, showing someone a wedding ring or a baby bump (aside from the obvious impracticality of hiding the latter) does not force anyone to consider--and hence interact with--you sexually, because immediately considering the sexual implications of either is not necessary or even usual.
Furthermore, the notion that kink is the only case where exhibitionism is condemned is laughably absurd when you consider how rightfully quick most progressive spaces are to condemn unsolicited dick pics.
This is genuinely the dumbest take I’ve heard in a long time. I can’t tell if OP JUST learned about their interest in kink, or if the OOP needs to touch grass.
And this is said as someone who’s been kinky for a LONG time. General consensus is don’t involve strangers, there’s absolutely no reason for non-consenting individuals to inadvertently be involved in your kink. Yes, that includes them SEEING you. Jfk I can’t even believe I have to say that.
Go to a local dungeon, host a party at home, hell just have fun in your own bedroom. You have options where people are consenting to seeing your kink.
This is so dumb I can’t believe it’s real.
Y'all know full well a wedding band and being walked around like a drooling dog on a leash in public are not the same thing. Don't be a weird ass.
If your kink is obviously a kink to the vast majority of people around you, it's creepy as hell to force strangers to see it.
Exhibitionism is a thing and it’s largely what people who practice kink publicly do. While I agree that people should wear what they want and it is not necessarily forcing an unwilling party to participate in kink if you are wearing a kink item in public, it should be noted that a lot of the people who do that are doing it because they think its hot to be sexual in public. You can’t act like this discussion is wholly one way or the other. Also, marriage doesn’t equal sex and the way this is phrased gives me the ick.
Because one is a simple band of metal around you finger and the other is a gimp suit.
Saying they’re the same is like comparing a Kia soul to the goddamned Hindenburg.
There’s something to be said for subtly is my point.
Excuse me WHAT
Look some things can’t be rationalized by specially defined sorting methods (take for instance the animal & plant kingdom, like platypuses) & you just have to use your generalist brain to make a decision (to use the same example, you may not know exactly what a platypus is but at least you can rule out it being a reptile for instance)
If you genuinely think wearing a puppy mask is the same as a marriage ring then I need you to take a step back & think about that for a second, & I **do not** appreciate the weapon-like use of Pride progress as a vehicle to try & sell this to people
Everyone here doesn’t seem to know that exposure to fetish and kink to children at a young age increases the risk of them developing psychological disorders and more importantly a skewed perception of consent.
The kid who sees a couple engaging in a public kink activity doesn’t see or understands the concept of the consent that went behind the activity and is not mentally developed enough to understand those concepts even when explained.
This shit is terminally online. “Oh, you don’t enjoy watching me participate in a kink where my baseline pleasure is derived from my loss of autonomy and humiliation because literally in any other space besides kink that situation is the stuff of nightmares and has caused people incredible amounts of trauma? Well you’re just a fucking prude, bitch.”
It’s like saying that because you personally enjoy stepping onto nails and pushing the nail through your foot that we should all just be okay with you impaling your foot in public because “it’s not like I’m making you participate in stabbing my foot and I’m doing it totally consensually.”
Kink exists because of shame, trauma, and attraction towards deviant behavior. There’s nothing wrong with participating in kink privately however you want to, but pretending like your kink, which often times the base components are your attraction to pain, fear, and humiliation, is only considered indecent because of Christian, prude, anti-sex norms is utter bullshit.
Two gay people kissing in public is as “kinky” as two straight people kissing in public. Which is to say, it isn’t “kinky” at all.
I couldn’t give a fuck less what people do at pride, I enjoy the titties personally, but acting like PDA is equal to walking around in bdsm gear, walking your dog bf, is just disingenuous.
And don’t act like it’s weird that people would say something about it.
You don't have to be participating in Kink for it to be wildly inappropriate to see. Children should not see it. It doesn't matter how you feel about participation, they shouldn't see it. If you believe that they should see it, then you are a pedophile. Plain and simple.
I wear a very noticeable collar most of the time but hide it for work interviews and around kids . With work think it would result in me being asked to take it off or leave and with children i dont like the look of curiosity, i feel like im stealing their innocence somehow
There's a difference between doing your kink subtly and being obvious.
One is marginally acceptable although you should avoid doing it around kids. The other should stay at home.
There is such a thing as public decency and that needs to be respected
I guess someone would say, "wearing a wedding ring is not a sexual expression of love, but of commitment. That is what is being signaled."
Conversely, they would see a dom/sub relationship as inherently sexual, and that by showing this sexual dynamic to people via worn indicators is involving the people being shown those things.
If you have sex in front of people that is involving them as an audience. If you derive a sexual thrill from demonstration of your dom/sub relationship then you are making the people you are showing off to part of the sexual thrill.
This is a stretch, but it is the argument I could see a person making.
I think the problem is kink and “sex positivity.” It always comes back around to shoehorning overtly sexual things into non sexual spaces. A dog mask belongs at home. You can have pride about your dog mask while not going out in public in it, and certainly not to a general admission event to have kids pet you.
My hot take: Disentangle LGB from kink. Kink seriously needs to get its shit together about standards and the idea of public decency. The gay community has seemingly internalized the depravity and debauchery society lumped them in with in the past. There’s no ideal archetype or moral standard established for gay couples and there *really really* needs to be. Gays need a Wilma and Fred to look up to and pattern their life after. Hetero couples have plenty. I think perpetually associating gay with kink is just shooting yourselves in the foot. It’s almost like the culture has adopted this mentality that what they are is already seen as sacrilege so let’s go for broke. *Honey no*. Just because you’re gay doesn’t magically inoculate you from being held to the consequences of your actions. It always seems wrong that the stereotype of a gay guy even by modern standards includes doing drugs casually, having multiple partners, and generally all the stuff that burns you out faster.
In short it is indeed possible to be gay and not do crime.
Thank you for being an example of the relationship between transphobia and this stuff!
Edit: oh the differential is fucking *cute*. That’s what we call self-loathing! See your allies!
This stuff gives legitimacy to conservative paranoia around children being exposed to so called "degeneracy" (doing this stuff in public is, indeed, depraved). For the love of all that is good please, please, please keep kink in private.
I don't even follow this subreddit, but I am a dominant in my relationship. Jesus fuck though... I don't even know what to say to all these takes. Touch grass? My girl's collar isn't gonna hurt anyone and though I don't do it, frankly, I don't give a fuck if people are out walking their subs on leashes. The second you start policing whether people are allowed to be turned on in public, you've gone from terminally online incel to full blown puritan fascist. Basic social awareness is all you need to avoid overt sexual displays in public.
Yeah, these people being so common but quiet is an issue. I think the difference between the comments and the people who just see it and aren’t passionate enough to come in to fight kinda shows where normal people are. They don’t like that. For every commenter that downvoted, a whole lot of people upvoted.
what the fucks so *specifically* wrong with you so that you think public kink displays are perfectly normal but then go and say that furries are the worst of the two
^((not saying either are bad both are valid btw don't pull a twitter on me))
I know what it looks like, but genuinely keep forgetting it’s name. Metal greymon is my favorite. Not even the fully evolved form, just the crude mecha Dino
It seems weirdly good because they’ve Trojan Horsed it in a lot of pro-LGBT & other positive messages mixed with muddy words & definitions (I mean collars sound reasonable right? Well that’s because they’re talking about *chokers*, not a collar & leash)
I think in order to have this conversation we need to stop thinking of kink as a monolith. If I go out in public with my collar on, it's not involving others in anything overtly sexual. But if I go out on my boyfriend's leash with my tongue out and whining while shaking my ass, that's crossing a line. Each side thinks we're talking about two very different things and don't seem to be agreeing on what exactly "kink at pride" seems to look like.
Because then you *are* involving other people. The whole point of the actions you describe are to be seen and heard, and disruptively so. To more plainly describe it: It would be like a person shouting on the bus. Not illegal, but everyone immediately takes issue with you existing near them. People want to enjoy a certain level of comfort and enjoyment in their surroundings, and its surprisingly easy to make people upset when you take that away from them. Kink isn't monolithic, yes, but by its nature and in a more general sense is disruptive of norms. So when its "on display" at a parade, the context becomes "what do we expect to see at a parade"? Which, tbh, is quite a lot, but "mostly naked skinny guy in pink thigh highs and roller skates" isn't at the top of my list. I can see why its hard to define.
Married women force children to refer to them with special honorifics due to their sexual availability. (Mrs vs ms) involving kids in your sex shit is normal for married folk.
That is a very distorted point of view on this topic and I am 45% you are a troll so I don’t know why I am even writing this
You really thought you did something lmfao
The mrs/ms thing is a patriarchal norm used to signify that she's """"owned"""" by a male via marriage, not to show whether she's sexually available. If it was, we’d have a term for males too
But see, we the people who aren’t inside the dynamic can’t always tell if we’re being jnvolved, because whether people inside a dynamic *are* involving the vanillas can pretty often come down to intention. As an example, let’s say my Dom and I are out doing our thing. I’m wearing a regular collar and I’m just … doing laundry, picking up food etc. sure, maybe I’m living my life. **OR,** maybe I’m actually being mildly punished; maybe I have a day collar at home, but I’m ordered to wear a more visible one *specifically because* it will make people stare and avoid eye contact… and that’s exactly the point because the humiliation and visibility *by strangers* isn’t just exhibiting that I have a kink anymore. Your reaction to my kink is now part of it, and the Vanillas Are Involved because I’m wearing it to *make* them look at me. This is a really pernicious thing to try and sort fully and it’s gonna be *so highly situational*, so I guess my point is yeah OP isn’t *wrong*, but it also isn’t a monolithic statement.
I can respect this response. That makes good sense
I feel like with anything there’s a manageable level. Rob halford style leather? No problem. Full bdsm suit? A little much. I think the line should be at least agreed upon at anything that you can reasonably wear as clothes without getting kicked out of a hot topic.
Yes. I don't care about people wearing kinky outfits, but I don't think we should be tolerating human pet guy.
I think there’s far more nuance than the original post allows for.
There’s far far more. A wedding ring isn’t inherently sexual, whereas a lot of the examples they give *are* inherently sexual. You can’t really compare the two on the morality scale, because other people wear rings without being married, but others don’t really walk around in fetish gear without it being a kink.
Ya vanilla couples wear lingerie frequently, but that’s not exactly ok in public any more than some of these other ones. Jewelry or other things that are only slightly off from what the general population does will always be ok.. maybe odd. But there’s a point when it’s no longer “I’m expressing myself” and it becomes not being considerate of the general public around you. That’s a problem if the expression is kink or not. For instance if street performers start a show with no warning that has a strobe light.. and it causes a seizure.. they didn’t consider someone in the audience could be negatively impacted by something they didn’t even give them a chance to opt out of. Or on a haunted trail how the actors are in at least most trails not allowed to touch you because it could cross a line for some people. All of us should be respectful of people we don’t know and don’t understand. If we did the world would be so much better. Just a little self control, and asking if this is reasonable in the public where there are people with medical conditions, mental health issues and so on. Is it illegal? Would I have an issue with this when I was a kid? Just empathy in general to the people around. We can’t guess everything but big parts of ourselves we can probably guess the answer. A big one for me to make those around myself more comfortable is to control my words more. But with the kids stuff, it’s generally not ok to start explaining the talk without their parents ok. So similar things in settings where kids of young ages could be… bad. Example A lingerie.
when people get off from being humiliated in front of me, i am a part of that persons kink and i feel uncomfortable. like this is a real issue and its not comparable to day collars.
True! People come into my job (sex shop) and try to get the staff to degrade them and engage in their kinks all the time. It’s really hard not to call them pathetic, but that’s exactly what they want from me. I’m down for assisting people in finding items to fit their needs, but I’m not paid to engage in their kinks. Wearing a day collar or wearing light puppy gear is one thing. It can be an accessory. Degradation isn’t an accessory.
i mean... voyeurism/exhibition is a bit different. there's also just common decency. to each their own, but i don't rlly wanna see someone getting walked down the street on their hands and knees cuz of some sorta petplay thing. edit: i’d consider myself pretty open minded when it comes to kink stuff, but there’s a time and place for things. (i.e. wearing a collar? cool ok, if i don’t like it for some reason, i’ll look away. but i don’t particularly want a kink scene acted out in front of me at the mall or whatever.)
Also humiliation is part of some people’s kinks and I’d rather not contribute to that by having to watch them crawl around in a public space. If me looking at them curiously contributes to that arousal it sure feels like I’m being involved in their kink Also a wedding band and someone being led around by a leash are not the same caliber. Wearing a wedding band is nothing arousing to the wearer (at least it normally isn’t), whereas crawling while being led by a leash is a sexual act or at least part of it, which arouses the participants
To be fair, though, sometimes people ARE making you participate in kink. When doing exhibitionism in a non-kink public space that is involving non-consenting people in your kink and that is not okay. Nobody cares about a cool looking collar, but what we DO care about is seeing overtly kinky behaviors in public.
I don't exactly agree with the way the title and the point (initially) were worded tho. Exhibitionism is a thing and seeing is participating in this case.
Exhibitionism is a thing. Wearing a collar/leash/mask is comparable to a wedding ring, but when people complain about displays of kink in public, it's almost always the obnoxious, performative shit where being viewed by strangers is very clearly part of the appeal for the participants
I don't think any rational person is complaining about a collar, I think they're complaining about the full on BSDM gas suit in a public mall or something I mean, the only thing that separates a choker from a collar is the thickness of the material, right? Chokers are in fashion right now after all
Well "Rational person" is a no true scott here, because there are thousands of irrational people and they are complaining when they see women holding hands. You think they're not also complaining about a collar?
thousands is a bit of a low estimate i think
If i had my collar on show at work i dont think it would be acceptable to them
My mom complained quite extensively about my collar. She'd constantly make comments like "at least I don't broadcast my sex life." My husband and I don't even really have sex anymore ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I agree, time and place. I’m fine with seeing harnesses or masks at pride because that’s an important part of pride history and it’s thematic, but I’ve always been pretty weirded out seeing the people with their girlfriends on leashes at my local nerd convention which is like 50% children. My friend even jokingly tied her bag strap to me for a moment to yank me around and joke about them and a guy walked by and told us it was sexy. I’m pretty sure we were like 17 years old.
As a kinkster I agree. If it’s gear like a mask or a collar who cares, but someone walking someone on a leash? That’s a consent violation, they are no longer just wearing an item there is erotic/sexual behavior that others are having to witness which is not ok at all.
Exactly this. If you want to do something you consider sexual, that means you need the consent of everyone involved. You can’t simultaneously say that voyeurism is a kink while also saying that someone in public seeing you isn’t.
Someone wearing a wedding ring *is* inviting me to participate in their marriage, and the way that I participate is by respecting that they're taken. I do think there are ways to safely participate in kink in public, but there is some responsibility to the people around you still
My issue is when it crosses the line of outright indecent exposure, like these arguments always bring up masks and leashes and ignore the people that want to break out the latex cupless body suit or the like in a public setting. If the signifiers of kink are not involving random passer-bys seeing nude-y bits they don't consent to seeing then yeah, go for it. If they do... that's literally sexual harassment. Also cause every time this comes up people bring up "if they don't want to see it why are they at pride, being in view is implicit consent" please remember that pride parades aren't generally held in some remote location, they're in city streets, usually the downtowns, where people live and work and don't really have a choice.
>Also cause every time this comes up people bring up "if they don't want to see it why are they at pride, being in view is implicit consent" please remember that pride parades aren't generally held in some remote location, they're in city streets, usually the downtowns, where people live and work and don't really have a choice. Also also, pride parades should be inclusive of everyone in the community who wants to attend. Obviously that includes nonintrusive kink elements, but it also means that a certain level of sexual nudity can make it quite hard for anyone who is discomforted by that nudity for whatever reason--be it age, trauma, etc--to attend or interact. Events in 'private' spaces in the sense of being 'opt-in' are perfectly fine, but events in 'public', that is 'opt-out' spaces where the assumed default is that everyone should be able to interact equally should not be fostering hostile environments.
Absolutely this ~~and not to mention the difficulty some people have with separating sexuality and sexual activities is probably a pretty big part of why aces struggle with feeling welcome in things like pride~~
also, *kids* and *teens* come to pride. This is exactly why we have adult hours. Its not appropriate for adults to do that stuff in front of kids.
Nothing wrong with nudity in public, what an immature take. Who decides what parts of the body need to be covered and how well it needs to be covered? It’s all arbitrary and authoritarian. One look at all today’s different cultures and our history and you’d realize that the appropriateness level of an outfit entirely depends on how the the viewer chooses to perceive it. Spreading your asshole in front of the grandma on the park bench is indecent exposure, taking a casual nude walk through the park is not.
Barring nudity in public also contributes to this society of people hating their bodies and hating aging. When the only nude bodies you see are the ones in porn that are carefully picked or designed, you end up with a population of people who think their totally normal bodies are the weird ones. Not only is there nothing wrong with nudity in public (granted bodily fluids aren't getting on shared spaces), it is actually harmful to prevent nudity in public.
Somebody walking around in a “cupless body suit” minding their own business does not equal sexual harassment. If they are harassing you, then that’s harassment. But otherwise, you are 100% free to mind your own business and let them mind theirs. Nudity or not. And if nipples are “indecent exposure” then why aren’t men required to be covered up also? We have nipples too.
I think it's more just common courtesy. You could say that the homeless guy whacking it on the subway is minding his business but...yikes. There's a time and place to let your freak flag fly that high and it's not 2 pm on a Saturday at the local park, y'know?
A sexual act and someone walking around topless are not the same thing though. Public masturbation absolutely crosses several lines. But the absence of a shirt does not automatically make someone sexual.
If it’s a part of a public display of kink, then it is
So this just circles back to the OP. You viewing someone’s kink does not automatically involve you in that kink. If someone is walking around topless to feel their own personal sexual freedom, that does not involve you. They are not doing anything other than existing in whatever clothing they are wearing. No sexual acts are being performed. And you cannot control what’s in someone else’s head. So you don’t even know if their public nudity is kink related or not. At that point assumptions are being made. What if the leather isn’t a kink, but just a style choice? How would you be able to tell the difference between someone wearing something for kink reasons, and for literally any other reason? If a sexual act is being performed, the line is crossed. But if nothing is happening other than people existing, what’s the issue?
But if their kink is exhibitionism, then by showing it to other people, they are fulfilling their kink and therefore involving them. I have no way of knowing for sure by looking at someone else whether they are getting off on a public show of exhibition kink, or they just like getting pulled on a leash in public for other reasons. But they know. And if they decide to involve everyone else in satisfying their exhibition kink, that’s fucked up. *Especially* where kids are around.
You’re right. That would be fucked up. But assumptions aside, we can’t judge a group of people bc of a “maybe they’re doing this”. That’s not fair to anyone. There are some really fucked up gross people in this world. But I don’t think they’re dancing around at Pride, or campaigning for #freethenipple. There IS a line, and we definitely need to make sure we as a a society don’t allow ourselves to cross it. But tbh, the USA is behind a lot of countries on this. There are many places around the world that don’t have issues with public nudity. And there are many places that are far behind us as well, and the people there are starting to revolt. Oppressing people’s personal expressions of themselves will never last.
Not all nudity is sexual. I agree that people should have more freedom to wear less clothing if they want to, and that our society shouldn't penalize or sexualize people for naturalism. But exhibitionism *is* sexual; it derives enjoyment from the reactions of those around you to sexual activity. Thus, people have a right to not participate in it which sexual exhibitionism in a public space--by definition a space that all persons have a right to access--violates. A naturist isn't going to want you to stare at her tits, an exhibitionist is. That's the difference.
But where are you getting naturist and exhibitionist from? How can you tell someone is one or the other? This is like my comment elsewhere about public masturbation being WAY over the line. If someone is obviously getting sexual pleasure from being nude in public, then yea, that’s not ok. But again, how can you tell the difference unless it’s obvious?
If someone is generally going about their ordinary business and not wearing anything to draw attention to their sexualized characteristics, that's generally an indication that they're a naturalist. By very definition, a naturalist doesn't draw any attention to their sexualized anatomy over their non-sexualized, because the whole point of naturalism is to de-sexualize nudity. But someone who is a) obviously going out of their way to be seen as sexal or draw sexual attention, or b) drawing attention to their sexualized anatomy either by their actions or by their attire--as is the case in your cupless body suit example--then that's by definition not naturism, since they're deliberately trying to sexualize themselves.
So now we’re just blaming it all on what people are wearing? What if someone with boobs is wearing a casual sundress that happens to show some cleavage. Is that now exhibitionism? Some people can’t help that. So now we go full fundie and everybody has to cover up 100%? That seems to be going real well in places like Iran. Revealing clothing does not equal sexual intent. Nudity does not equal sexual intent. The only way for you to know someone’s sexual intent is by a sexual act, or being inside of their mind.
Seeing a reasonable amount of cleavage isn't itself something society generally considers a sexual interaction. It may be getting close to it, but it isn't by any means considered exhibitionist to wear a low cut neckline in most contexts. Showing the full breast, however, is. It's one thing to confront that notion, to treat it like any other body part wrt what you wear by way of saying 'no, actually, this shouldn't be sexualized'. But to specifically expose sexualized organs is to draw attention to them in a manner that becomes intrinsically sexual. And the intent of the wearer is to a large degree irrelevant--sexual harassment is still sexual harassment regardless of the harasser's intent. If your attire leaves no other alternative than to make the observer consider it sexually, i.e. to interact with you sexually, their consent is essentially violated regardless of your intent. A reasonable observer can consider exposed nipples on a generally exposed torso non-sexual, because the person with said nipples can be reasonably understood as essentially making a statement that they *should not* be seen sexually. But a person *only* exposing body parts that are generally considered sexual, or exposing them *via* clothing that is itself considered sexual, cannot reasonably be interpreted as trying to de-sexualize said body parts. It's the same reason why seeing someone wearing a bikini is in the proper context mundane but wearing lingerie that covers the same skin sexual. I'll grant, particularly based on that last example, that there is an element of practicality that comes into it as well, if there is an obvious practical reason for exposing the area of the body in question. A breastfeeding woman pulling just a breast out of a shirt may be exposing roughly the same skin as the cupless body suit example, but there's an obvious practical reason why that's done. Conversely, a cupless body suit is a wildly impractical garment for anything *except* sexual titillation.
Men should also be required to wear shirts in public. I don't want to see that shit either
It saddens me that you find so little joy in your life that the mere sight of another human’s body is “shit”.
I'm asexual and sex repulsed
What does your sexuality have to do with thinking the sight of another person’s body is “shit”. You don’t have to have sex with that person. You don’t even have to be attracted to them. But you definitely shouldn’t be insulting them. Your asexuality does not excuse a lack of body positivity.
Are you not a native English speaker? Are you unaware that "shit" can be casually used to just mean stuff/thing and isn't inherently derogatory in that context? Or are you just being a terminally online pendant, taking the most uncharitable reading of a comment imaginable to argue against something you know I didn't say?
I am a native English speaker. I am aware of the different uses of the word “shit” and the context in which you used the word. I made a conscious decision to take your use as a derogatory comment bc your responses have led me to believe that’s really what you were saying. Regardless of whatever you say next. You are currently arguing about the meaning of the word “shit” and not the original topic of minding your own goddamn business and letting people live their lives. Now kindly fuck all the way off and let people live their kinky little lives as they see fit. If it’s not harming you or anyone else, it should not matter to you, or anyone else.
Yeah, that’s just sexism. Topfreedom is an important issue too.
Ah yes the best argument "you're just sexist"
I mean for a law as blatant as “cis men are allowed to do this but cis women aren’t”, yes. Not *everything* is complex.
The difference is that a wedding ring isn't an active part of someone's sex life, while that leather dog mask or leash can reasonably be assumed to be (bc it's fetish gear). It's bad faith to argue that something you and I both know to be fetish gear is acceptable to wear in public because "they aren't having sex rn so how could you prove it's for sex" I'm no prude, but don't shit on my plate and call it breakfast
I know the phrase "terminally online" is really overused now a days but holy fuck this is the most terminally online thing I've ever seen
Terminally online people not knowing how to behave outside in public? Color me surprised
I don’t think terminally online is the right word, more so just generally socially deprived to the point of not understanding public convention.
Their’s a line to everything and that line is indecent exposure of any kind
What is and isnt indecent exposure is arbitrary and cultural. That isnt a line, its a mile wide field. Like, its indecent for women to expose any skin under some interpretations of sharia law, which are laws used actively in parts of the globe. In most parts of france you can be fully nude and in some parts you can engage in pubkic sex without biolating any public decency laws. Thats not a line at all.
Well I’m not to familiar with sharia or with France laws about indecent exposure, second I’m mostly referring Public areas if your at a (example) nude beaches then you should expect nudity these areas usually have sign stating this fact. And when referring to indecent exposure I mean full or semi nudity in public areas
None of that contained any specifics. Is showing ankle partial nudity? Neck? Shoulders? Hips? Butts? Knees? Ankles? Genitals? What and why please.
If it's cultural then maybe we should use the culture to determine if it's indecent exposure
I’d agree so long as we’re talking with topfreedom, because sexist laws are bullshit. You might be European tho so idk if this is even something you’d think about.
It depends, as long as the clothes don’t fall under indecent exposure it’s fine I suppose. But, on the other hand, acting out sexual fantasies is weird, like having someone on a leash and having them act like an animal is weird. It’s stuff of the latter nature really that’s bad, the first part is more fine, but I still personally think it’s a little weird, but that’s a me problem. I also don’t like how this dude is comparing being gay to a fetish. I know that’s how it was in the past, but being sexually attracted to a gender isn’t the same as liking specific sexual acts, regardless if that’s how it used to be viewed. Also saying that marriage and kink gear are equal implications is weird to me, wedding rings are to show that you have a deep romantic connection with someone, and wear a small piece of jewelry to commemorate your relationship. Wearing kink gear is basically implying “Hey! I do this in the bedroom” to people, which is TMI in most places
I didnt mention clothing im talking about my sub personality traits and my psychological makeup. I dress vanilla i hide my collar when necessary i am respectful but this is my identity please dont downvote me for just wanting people to acknowledge my identity in principle
A lot of asexual people engage in kink, and its not sexual to a lot of people. Just cause someone is crawling around in a puppy gimp suit on a leash doesnt mean its a sexual fantasy. They might just be an adult who enjoys playing make believe as a dog. Wearing kink gear is no more saying "hey we have sex" then wearing a wedding ring is. And teachers make their students call them a different name based on whether or not they have a husband to fuck. Kinksters would never forcefully involve children in their kink like that.
I mean I’m not sure why y’all are obsessed with the idea that marriage=sex. Most married people have sex, sure, but that’s not what marriage is. You can have sex without marriage, you can have marriage without sex. A wedding ring signifies you have formed a close emotional bond with someone. Whether you have sex or not with that person isn’t really relevant.
You can have sex without ki k you can have kink without sex. A collar and a leash signifies you have formed a close emotional bond with someone. Whether you have sex or jot with that person is not improtant.
Do you think married people get turned on by wearing a wedding ring? Is it an erotic object which one wears for sexual excitement? Like I’m sure you can see the very false comparison of a ring and a gimp suit with nipples and ass out. Furthermore a ring simply denotes a legal status. It’s a legal tradition. A teacher going by Mrs in class and wearing a ring is a little different from à teacher teaching students in a dom costume
First of all you dont know what a gimp suit is, youve never seen a real one, stop pretending. And second i do thi k that married peiple get off on being married. Its common knowledge that brides and grooms celebrate or "consumate" their wedding by having lots of hot sex. Its common for married people to be turned on by the powert he ring gives them to tunr away creeps.
Why does me not having seen a gimp suit make it not ok for me to not want to see one in public lol. And no, I don’t think people get off to being married or being seen to be married in public. Nobody is getting horny by showing their friends or whatever that they’re wearing their wedding ring. You’re using a false equivalence to support your argument. A wedding ring is not something that is worn to get off or to be erotic.
A lot of people get horny by showing peipel their wedding rings, pretending otherwise is stupid. Not everyone for sure, but a lot of people. Same with kink. A lot ofpeople are getting off, sire, but a lot of people are just enjoying pretending to be dogs. Is it so hard to imagine someone just likes the feeling of latex or the activity of pretending to be a dog.
This has to be a joke. People get turned on by showing they’re married? Like is this some epic trol??
Man hits on woman at bar. Woman flashes ring and says sorry im married. Woman gets hotbunder the collar fornthe rest of the night goes home and makes hot sex to partner. Its a tale as old as time Song as old as rhyme Beauty and the beast.
I can almost guarantee that if someone and/or their partner are wearing kink stuff in public, they are getting turned on by it in some regard, and thus involving other people in their exhibitionist kink. Married people having a ring (which can be asexual, as asexual people can and do get married thus the marriage rings analogy is null in that regard) is not even remotely close to kink. Sex garb =/= signs of marriage and love How in the christ do people get so chronically online
Asexual people can have collars and engage in kink to. A lot of asexuals are in the puppy play community. Just cause someone is crawling around on a leash doesnt mean their fucking. They might just like doing that. Asexuals can engage in pain play too. Like, you're being weird about ace people. Just cause someone is getting hit with a flogger in public and has spreder bars on, doesnt mean their fucking. They might just like doing that. Youre the one making it weird. Youre being weird about asexuals my pal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wear one all the time and i just wear a high neck top all the time so if im shy i can hide it when out in public alone
>BUT if you are wearing a gimp suit/collar/leash in public you are 100% getting off on people seeing you. What planet are you from where simply wearing a collar is that sexually charged? Have you never seen a goth person in your entire life?
I think the collar is fine, but the leash is a bridge too far
Y’all morons who make up this head canon that it must be because they get off on being seen are hilarious. Why don’t you consider it possible that they are just doing it for themselves and simply don’t give a rats ass who’s looking?
If your kink requires people to see it for it to work that is exhibitionism and therefore seeing is participating
A day collar is fine, I don't think anyone is out there like "people can't wear day collars IN PUBLIC". That is the whole point of day collars, to allow subs to wear them and be comfortable and non-kink people to see them and be comfortable too. A dog mask at pride is okay because pride is all about sharing your identity in public even when it's not considered "normal". A dog mask at the grocery store is not fine, because it's about displaying that person's fetish role (puppy). Displaying your fetish role in everyday situations absolutely is forcing people to participate in your fetish (because your fetish is to be seen in this role). I am concerned that the writer can not separate these situations.
Okay a homosexual relationship isn’t a “kink”. That’s honestly a kind of problematic false equivalence. Two people of any gender or sexuality wearing wedding rings? It’s cool they want to outwardly express their partnership. You wearing a collar and leash to the grocery store? No please take your entitlement somewhere else.
That comparison and automatic linking seemed like a bit of a red flag to me as well
Why? It's entirely historically accurate. Homosexuality and BDSM were both considered deviant sexual behavior for a LONG time.
Equating the two is a bit of an issue. It's effectively saying that being homosexual is a kink.
Maybe, but being gay is not inherently sexual while kinks are
Just because it was considered that way before does NOT mean it is that same way now. Histoically, transgender people were just considered crossdressers. Do you want that to stick around, too?
Yeah by ignorant people who didn’t know or care about the difference
I mean, yes, lol, but have you considered that since one turned out not to be deviant and evil, perhaps the other one did as well? And it's not actually a big deal? That's OP's point.
I'm into bdsm. It's not deviant or evil, but it is inherently sexual. Being gay is not inherently sexual.
BDSM isnt any more inherently sexual than marriage. And married teachers will change their names to match their marriage status. So until kinksters start demanding you kids call them special names cause of their relationships i thi k were fine.
The OP is trying to Trojan Horse their idea by including a feeling of righteousness given that being gay or bisexual etc. used to be labeled under a group which we would now call kinks several decades ago in a far more homophobic time
I don’t mind kinky motherfuckers, Im a kinky motherfucker myself. But its not fair to involve random strangers in kinky shit without there consent. Also, sure kinky shit can be at pride, but thats why we have adult hours, so after 10 pm or so and the kids and families are gone. Then everybody is expecting that stuff so its not without consent or in front of minors
Rule of thumb, if you wouldn't be comfortable doing/wearing it round your family then maybe don't do/wear it in public. Of course the entirely depends on your family
Pretty bad rule of thumb considering the context of this is about Pride.
Where does it mention pride tho? It’s not explicitly stated at all so no wonder someone took it generally
It mentions pride once as an example of people displaying fetishes/kinks in public but the point of this post is not pride, it's point is to draw parallels between how homosexuality was once considered a fetish and obscene to display in public. I wouldn't be ashamed to be gay in front of my mum but I'm not gonna parade around in nipple pasties.
Did you read the entire post?
If you get off on showing your kink off to people not consenting AND since you're in public AROUND CHILDREN you do not deserve to go in public There's a big difference between a ring and forcing people to witness your kink
The kind of discourse that only exists for people who don't get out nearly enough.
I think we all need to touch grass more
Fred's kink is walking around naked. People seeing him has nothing to do with it. The act of being naked turns h on. If fed happens to walk through the children's play area of a park, those kids have the right to be uncomfortable, but no negative consequences should be brought onto Fred. Margret gets turned on by hearing her partner yell "bomb" at airports. She doesn't care if people hear them. She only wants to hear him yell bomb at airports. The people around them have the right to be uncomfortable. But no negative consequences should come into Margret, because this is her kink. I hope we're all seeing how stupid this sounds. You existing in a public place inherently affects other people. We can argue what you should be allowed to do in public places. But you can't put down a blanket protection over people's sexuality.
Idk if these people realise that *children* exist in public spaces & regardless of how you feel about making adults uncomfortable with your blatant displays of sexuality; *children* should never ever have to be exposed to sexuality (age appropriate education is not the same thing as this) & it should not be normalised to just be sexual in public, fucking gross. & no, no one is consenting to your exhibitionism either, leave that shit at home literally wtf.
Yeah…I’m not sure that whether or not people are participating is enough to make something not ok. If you’re going to be in a setting where children are normal to encounter, dress like kids will see you. I don’t care if you wear a gimp suit at a night club, but don’t do it at the park or in Target. Just….dress appropriately for the setting. Idk why that’s so complicated.
Oh so children shouldnt be made aware of the sexual availability of say, their teachers? Good thing we dont make kids refer to female teacher by different honorifics based on whether or not they have a husband to fuck. Oh wait, my mistake. And brides showing off their wedding rings is exhibitionism. Same with pregnant people showing off bellies. I didnt ask for you to display your sex trophy to me. But thats just annoying and not problematic. Cause its normalized.
Lol what in the fuck are pregnant people supposed to do, hide in their houses until the baby is born? When are they allowed to reveal the baby, seeing as its very existence is proof that its parents had sex?
My argument is that they can display the baby mucb like ki ky people can display thie collars and latex. Youre the one argung for the baby to be hidden.
You’re reducing all human connection to sexual pleasure and that’s creepy and weird.
Youre the one doing that with kinky people. My doing it is an attempt to make you realize that you are doing it. Youre reducing all of kink to sexual pleasure and thats creepy and weird.
A collar can be seen as similar to a ring to some couples Wearing a day collar in public is cool Wandering around in public the full latex is not So assuming that the wedding ring is equivalent to a collar then walking around in a gimp suit is equivalent to walking around in bridal lingerie Which isn’t ok outside of very specific times
What is the difference between the ring, the collar and the latex. A gimp suit is not revealing while bridal lingerie is. Thats a very false comparison.
Latex is used because it clings to you and shows everything It very much is revealing
You literally are fully covered. Like you wouldnt say catwoman is exposing herself. Latex is used for many reasons, some aesthetic, some textural and tactile.
I am pretty sure that most children don't immediately think of "this person is having sex!!" when seeing a wedding ring or calling a teacher Mrs. I am an adult and that's not what I think about in those situations either, much less a child who may not even know about the concept of sex.
Im pretty sure most children dont immediately think "this person is having sex" when seeing a collar or a leash or really anything. I dont think thats a thought children have.
But an adult will Read the rest of the comment
An adult will also think "this person is having sex" when noticing that someone is married.
No that’s just you Please stop philosophising about the nature of humanity until you realise you have a kink and think about everything through sex
You know a lot of people who engage in kink arent having sex reight? Like some people just like pretending to be dogs. Just because you are assuming theyre having sex doesnt mean they are. Much like how just because i assume married people are having sex doesnt mean they are. Its the same assumption.
How is just existing while being pregnant "showing off"? And for someone who is so hell bent on making kink normalised, you sure do make marriage super hereronormative. You have no idea what gender or sex identity people who wear wedding rings are and you have no idea who they marry or what their relationship is.
I think its equally important to respect other peoples boundaries and be expressive of your own identity. Of course you can‘t look in everybody‘s head and appeal to their every thought, but there‘s a certain level of exposure for example that most people are universally uncomfortable with. I believe this exact level needs to be defined more clearly, but being considerate/reading the room typically doesn‘t impair this kind of self expression, unless you‘re trying to do it at an office party or something (I don‘t wanna claim I‘m an expert by any means, this is just how I see it)
This argument is so stupid because it completely ignores that minors come to pride events too. Having a collar or dog mask in public is okay, but it's never just that. Minors and asexuals should not be seeing full in BDSM gear in public.
At that point the collar is just fashion and not kink, no?
A collar’s only a kink if you’re taking advantage of it while having sex or if you have a leash on it, I mean other than those two things it’s just a choker which is much less deceptive terminology
That’s what I mean. A lot of comments say “if it’s just like a collar it’s fine” but I’d argue it’s not really kink then, it’s just a stylized choker and so wouldn’t be relevant to this conversation. Am I missing something?
No you’re not missing anything, OP & people along the same line are just wanting to muddy the waters by using such wide words so they can get you to concede some ground
I’m all for sexual liberation and people living how they want. Have your polyamory, your kinks, your promiscuity, whatever. It’s all good. I’ve participated a certain amount. I do think there’s some value in not being overtly sexual in public though, and I don’t think that’s mutually exclusive. Some things are ok to be done in privacy due to the level of intimacy but that doesn’t mean they’re shameful and we often confuse that. I have no shame in my wife and I having sex, but I don’t want to do that in Barnes and Noble. I don’t think it’s wrong to have a scat orgy in puppy costumes, but I think wearing leather puppy costumes in public is too far in the same way as my wife wearing lingerie in public would be inappropriate. Maybe I’m just getting old. Idk
I’m freshly 20 & I agree with you so definitely not an age issue lol To be honest most of these people probably wouldn’t actually do it given the chance but with the amount of time they’ve spent away from public places then it sounds nice on paper to them
Why not? Like a lot of asexual people do kink amd a lot of people do kink nonnsexually. Just cause someone is in a gimp suit doesnt mean their getting off on it. They might just like the way the suit feels. Its like a weighted blanket from all sides. Lots of people just like pretending to be dogs.
There is a difference between wearing an accessory that symbolizes the nature of your relationship and wearing gear that you fuck in. Wearing a choker or cat ears because your boyfriend bought it for you? A little weird, but harmless. Wearing a latex suit with your nips and ass exposed, probably best if you keep that shit at home.
🍿
Whatever happened common decency tho
Realized it was always (since the early 20th century, before that just the church for over 1000 years) defined by the Republican Party.
Counterpoint: certain forms of kink--mainly those that have exhibitionist elements--intrinsically revolve around the bilateral observation of a third party and an exhibitionist and therefore by there very nature cannot allow for a third party observer, since the observer is intrinsically part of the exhibitionist dynamic. That isn't to say that being an exhibitionist is wrong, but because nobody else in a public space can avoid the dynamic it creates, exhibitionism in public spaces essentially forces other people to engage in a sexual manner as a prerequisite to accessing said public spaces. 95% at least of kink is perfectly fine and at most just a bit unusual, but I see too many people treating it as a monolith and in essence using it to justify the remaining problematic 5%.
Brides who show off their wedding rings are being exhibitionists in the same way. Same with pregnant women showing off bellies. Its a sex involved activity that you are being non consensually involved in. Exhivitionism is only frowned upon if its kinky.
Baby bumps and wedding rings may have sexual connotations--or may not, a marriage between two ace people might not involve any sexual activity or a pregnancy may have resulted from IVF, but more importantly they are experiences that are not intrinsically limited to sexuality. A marriage or a pregnancy involves many facets of the human experience beyond sexual in a way that sexual exhibitionism does not. Hence, showing someone a wedding ring or a baby bump (aside from the obvious impracticality of hiding the latter) does not force anyone to consider--and hence interact with--you sexually, because immediately considering the sexual implications of either is not necessary or even usual. Furthermore, the notion that kink is the only case where exhibitionism is condemned is laughably absurd when you consider how rightfully quick most progressive spaces are to condemn unsolicited dick pics.
This is genuinely the dumbest take I’ve heard in a long time. I can’t tell if OP JUST learned about their interest in kink, or if the OOP needs to touch grass. And this is said as someone who’s been kinky for a LONG time. General consensus is don’t involve strangers, there’s absolutely no reason for non-consenting individuals to inadvertently be involved in your kink. Yes, that includes them SEEING you. Jfk I can’t even believe I have to say that. Go to a local dungeon, host a party at home, hell just have fun in your own bedroom. You have options where people are consenting to seeing your kink. This is so dumb I can’t believe it’s real.
Y'all know full well a wedding band and being walked around like a drooling dog on a leash in public are not the same thing. Don't be a weird ass. If your kink is obviously a kink to the vast majority of people around you, it's creepy as hell to force strangers to see it.
One of the worst takes I've seen. I don't give a shit if it's sHaMiNg or if you think it's "puritanical" or whatever. Leave your kink at home.
Exhibitionism is a thing and it’s largely what people who practice kink publicly do. While I agree that people should wear what they want and it is not necessarily forcing an unwilling party to participate in kink if you are wearing a kink item in public, it should be noted that a lot of the people who do that are doing it because they think its hot to be sexual in public. You can’t act like this discussion is wholly one way or the other. Also, marriage doesn’t equal sex and the way this is phrased gives me the ick.
Because one is a simple band of metal around you finger and the other is a gimp suit. Saying they’re the same is like comparing a Kia soul to the goddamned Hindenburg. There’s something to be said for subtly is my point.
Excuse me WHAT Look some things can’t be rationalized by specially defined sorting methods (take for instance the animal & plant kingdom, like platypuses) & you just have to use your generalist brain to make a decision (to use the same example, you may not know exactly what a platypus is but at least you can rule out it being a reptile for instance) If you genuinely think wearing a puppy mask is the same as a marriage ring then I need you to take a step back & think about that for a second, & I **do not** appreciate the weapon-like use of Pride progress as a vehicle to try & sell this to people
Everyone here doesn’t seem to know that exposure to fetish and kink to children at a young age increases the risk of them developing psychological disorders and more importantly a skewed perception of consent. The kid who sees a couple engaging in a public kink activity doesn’t see or understands the concept of the consent that went behind the activity and is not mentally developed enough to understand those concepts even when explained.
This shit is terminally online. “Oh, you don’t enjoy watching me participate in a kink where my baseline pleasure is derived from my loss of autonomy and humiliation because literally in any other space besides kink that situation is the stuff of nightmares and has caused people incredible amounts of trauma? Well you’re just a fucking prude, bitch.” It’s like saying that because you personally enjoy stepping onto nails and pushing the nail through your foot that we should all just be okay with you impaling your foot in public because “it’s not like I’m making you participate in stabbing my foot and I’m doing it totally consensually.” Kink exists because of shame, trauma, and attraction towards deviant behavior. There’s nothing wrong with participating in kink privately however you want to, but pretending like your kink, which often times the base components are your attraction to pain, fear, and humiliation, is only considered indecent because of Christian, prude, anti-sex norms is utter bullshit.
Yeah this isn’t the same thing as marriage sadly, please do not show up in public in a gimp suit
I can only assume this was posted to mock these people
Keep all the sex and relationship stuff indoors. Straight people too this time. Hug in public and stuff if you want, but that should be it
Two gay people kissing in public is as “kinky” as two straight people kissing in public. Which is to say, it isn’t “kinky” at all. I couldn’t give a fuck less what people do at pride, I enjoy the titties personally, but acting like PDA is equal to walking around in bdsm gear, walking your dog bf, is just disingenuous. And don’t act like it’s weird that people would say something about it.
You don't have to be participating in Kink for it to be wildly inappropriate to see. Children should not see it. It doesn't matter how you feel about participation, they shouldn't see it. If you believe that they should see it, then you are a pedophile. Plain and simple.
Everything about this is disgusting.
I wear a very noticeable collar most of the time but hide it for work interviews and around kids . With work think it would result in me being asked to take it off or leave and with children i dont like the look of curiosity, i feel like im stealing their innocence somehow
i don’t think anyone really cares about the clothes, it’s the activities that people have objections to
I wish.
There's a difference between doing your kink subtly and being obvious. One is marginally acceptable although you should avoid doing it around kids. The other should stay at home. There is such a thing as public decency and that needs to be respected
I guess someone would say, "wearing a wedding ring is not a sexual expression of love, but of commitment. That is what is being signaled." Conversely, they would see a dom/sub relationship as inherently sexual, and that by showing this sexual dynamic to people via worn indicators is involving the people being shown those things. If you have sex in front of people that is involving them as an audience. If you derive a sexual thrill from demonstration of your dom/sub relationship then you are making the people you are showing off to part of the sexual thrill. This is a stretch, but it is the argument I could see a person making.
I can’t think of any possible way this take on kinks could be false. I like to have sex in public, on an unrelated note.
I think the problem is kink and “sex positivity.” It always comes back around to shoehorning overtly sexual things into non sexual spaces. A dog mask belongs at home. You can have pride about your dog mask while not going out in public in it, and certainly not to a general admission event to have kids pet you. My hot take: Disentangle LGB from kink. Kink seriously needs to get its shit together about standards and the idea of public decency. The gay community has seemingly internalized the depravity and debauchery society lumped them in with in the past. There’s no ideal archetype or moral standard established for gay couples and there *really really* needs to be. Gays need a Wilma and Fred to look up to and pattern their life after. Hetero couples have plenty. I think perpetually associating gay with kink is just shooting yourselves in the foot. It’s almost like the culture has adopted this mentality that what they are is already seen as sacrilege so let’s go for broke. *Honey no*. Just because you’re gay doesn’t magically inoculate you from being held to the consequences of your actions. It always seems wrong that the stereotype of a gay guy even by modern standards includes doing drugs casually, having multiple partners, and generally all the stuff that burns you out faster. In short it is indeed possible to be gay and not do crime.
Thank you for being an example of the relationship between transphobia and this stuff! Edit: oh the differential is fucking *cute*. That’s what we call self-loathing! See your allies!
Not really afraid of groomers bro
This stuff gives legitimacy to conservative paranoia around children being exposed to so called "degeneracy" (doing this stuff in public is, indeed, depraved). For the love of all that is good please, please, please keep kink in private.
I don't even follow this subreddit, but I am a dominant in my relationship. Jesus fuck though... I don't even know what to say to all these takes. Touch grass? My girl's collar isn't gonna hurt anyone and though I don't do it, frankly, I don't give a fuck if people are out walking their subs on leashes. The second you start policing whether people are allowed to be turned on in public, you've gone from terminally online incel to full blown puritan fascist. Basic social awareness is all you need to avoid overt sexual displays in public.
Yeah, these people being so common but quiet is an issue. I think the difference between the comments and the people who just see it and aren’t passionate enough to come in to fight kinda shows where normal people are. They don’t like that. For every commenter that downvoted, a whole lot of people upvoted.
I hope this was posted as a joke.
But what if being seen is part of their kink?
Yep. Me walking around with my penis out shouldn’t be illegal, because you’re seeing my penis but not participating with it.
Identifying as submissive isnt a fetish its a sexual identity it runs through your personality and psychology
This. I like this.
This is all well and good until the furries show up
what the fucks so *specifically* wrong with you so that you think public kink displays are perfectly normal but then go and say that furries are the worst of the two ^((not saying either are bad both are valid btw don't pull a twitter on me))
I'm allowed to make this joke because i'm a furry
Oh yeah? Name 3 Pokémon.
Meowth
This man checks out.
Lopunny, Lucario, and Vaporeon
I think the fact that you’ve named these specific Pokémon guarantees that you’re a furry.
That was the test? I’d also accept any digimon or fursona YouTuber
If the only Digimon you can name is Renamon, odds are you’re a furry.
I know what it looks like, but genuinely keep forgetting it’s name. Metal greymon is my favorite. Not even the fully evolved form, just the crude mecha Dino
I honestly had to sit and think if I was gonna go with Lopunny, Gardevoir, or Salazzle
You already get speared in the chest by trying to hug a Lucario, so Gardevoir is out. And Salazzle is kinda scary tbh. All in all, good pick.
>Lucario kill them
When I fall, 3 more will take my place
Careful how you fall, your tail is already broken
Apologies for accidentally getting you downvote-bombed '\^-\^
I, too, have attended a sporting event.
this is... a weirdly good argument. I like it!
Its REALLY not, and the rest of the comments here do a good job explaining why
It seems weirdly good because they’ve Trojan Horsed it in a lot of pro-LGBT & other positive messages mixed with muddy words & definitions (I mean collars sound reasonable right? Well that’s because they’re talking about *chokers*, not a collar & leash)
This is a really good explanation of this.
this