So is walking your girlfriend on a leash degrading them?

cybercoma · February 12, 2013

Word of the day is consent.

Canuckistani · February 12, 2013

Yep. Of course the assumption is that it's consensual. Dog collars and chains at Abu Ghraib is a whole different story.

Punks wore dog collars. Nobody freaked out.

I think people into dom/sub stuff are sick. I'd love to offer them help if they wanted it. But I sure wouldn't force them into anything. People are sick in all sorts of ways that we consider normal.

sharkman · February 12, 2013

I think those saggy pants the young guys wear are just as offensive as the collar and chain. And women wearing tights with camel toes can be pretty gross too. Or piercings. I don't like any of them, but I'd never ban any of them either. If you don't like it, just look away, live and let live.

And some think it's fine to have sex in the mall. So what.

Bonam · February 12, 2013

The fact that it's "sexual" in nature is enough of a reason to keep it in private.

How sexual is too sexual for public? What about a kiss? A hug? Why is wearing a particular piece of apparel such as a collar, leash, or handcuffs considered to be too sexual, while two people actually engaging in a physical act such as kissing not too sexual?

I don't recall any mention of being humiliated by seeing it; I find it offensive, and I think it very well could affect others. Furthermore, how would I know if the person being 'dominated' consented to it or not? How do we know it's not abuse when we see such behavior?

Same way you know a kiss between two people out in the public isn't a sexual assault but is consensual: you don't with certainty, but if it's not consensual, you assume the non-consenting party would make their lack of consent known.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bonam

Sleipnir · February 12, 2013

Two consensual partners in which one wants to be led on a leash, I don't see anything wrong with that. Different people have different sort of lifestyle that they subscribed to.

Canuckistani · February 12, 2013

Being led around by a leash isn't a sexual act. It's part of the dom/sub role play they engage in, that doubtless also involves sex. It's really no more sexual than an engagement and wedding ring that some women like to wear. Can also show a form of dominance and ownership.

Bonam · February 12, 2013

Being led around by a leash isn't a sexual act. It's part of the dom/sub role play they engage in, that doubtless also involves sex. It's really no more sexual than an engagement and wedding ring that some women like to wear.

Agreed.

February 12, 2013

Two consensual partners in which one wants to be led on a leash, I don't see anything wrong with that. Different people have different sort of lifestyle that they subscribed to.

So if they want to be slapped, spanked, and whipped in public, are you ok with that, too? After all, they "want it." It's simply a "different sort of lifestyle that they subscribe to."*

Being led around by a leash isn't a sexual act. It's part of the dom/sub role play they engage in, that doubtless also involves sex. It's really no more sexual than an engagement and wedding ring that some women like to wear. Can also show a form of dominance and ownership.

Dom/sub role playing is sexual in nature. It's not comparable to wearing a wedding ring or engagement ring since there are no strings attached to the rings - literally - with someone pulling the woman around by the rings. Wedding and engagement rings would be comparable to someone wearing a dog collar without a leash attached with someone pulling them around by it, at best.

How sexual is too sexual for public? What about a kiss? A hug? Why is wearing a particular piece of apparel such as a collar, leash, or handcuffs considered to be too sexual, while two people actually engaging in a physical act such as kissing not too sexual?

For one thing, kisses are not synonymous with "sexual." We kiss our parents and our children; we hug our friends, siblings, any number of people. They are considered acts of love and affection.

Same way you know a kiss between two people out in the public isn't a sexual assault but is consensual: you don't with certainty, but if it's not consensual, you assume the non-consenting party would make their lack of consent known.

A kiss doesn't require dominance. If someone is in a relationship with a dominant person, that person might be too submissive to protest at times, even if it isn't really consensual. Seems to me a man could smack a woman and say she likes it, and if she feels too threatened to protest, then it would be ok, right? Why would we assume a meek woman being smacked in public, not fighting back, isn't consenting to it? We should just look the other way if it makes us uncomfortable, right?

Yep. Of course the assumption is that it's consensual. Dog collars and chains at Abu Ghraib is a whole different story.

This right here is actually a good point, as it demonstrates that the difference between a kiss and a hug and being led around by collars and chains is the intent. A kiss and a hug are meant to show love. Being led around by a dog collar and chain is meant to be demeaning and controlling.

Punks wore dog collars. Nobody freaked out.

No one was leading them around by said collars. They were, as I said previously, a fashion statement. Wearing a dog collar and being led around by it are two different things.

I think people into dom/sub stuff are sick. I'd love to offer them help if they wanted it. But I sure wouldn't force them into anything. People are sick in all sorts of ways that we consider normal.

I have no problem with it when done in the privacy of their home.

I think that this approach is problematic as barring certain behaviours in public is common. Public intoxication is barred. Public sex is barred. Nudity is barred. We also bar certain kinds of protests. Saying certain things on an airliner, like "bomb" is barred. So we have a track record of what is acceptable by society. Now it seems some want to allow behavior just because it's controversial. Why? Why should this very small group have a right to public acts degrading women? Just because they want to? Women's rights have come a long long way, from not even being allowed to vote. This is a step backwards.

Agreed. We don't allow a lot of things just because someone consents to it. "Consent" isn't synonymous with "acceptable/ok."

*For the record, I object to women treating men this way in public, too. It's not just a matter of males dominating females.

WIP · February 12, 2013

I believe that masochists actually outnumber sadists by a wide margin. It's more likely that the person on on the end of the leash is getting off on it than the person holding the leash.

Maybe! But I can't figure out how this works! Is she actually enjoying being treated like a dog and walked on a leash? Part of my uneasiness comes from a feeling that a lot of young women are likely doing this stuff just because of pressure from their boyfriends. This sort of thing seems to have happened with the sudden growth in popularity of alternative sexual practices like anal intercourse. Until porn made anal sex conventional, it was just something that gay men did to each other. But thanks to all of the guys seeing it in mainstream porn, they want to do it to their wives and girlfriends.

Are there really that many women who are masochists? Or is this another example of guys wanting to do stuff that they see in porn videos? I know that the sides can be reversed, and there are guys who are masochists and maybe some early childhood issues cause them to want to be whipped or spanked by a dominatrix. But, off hand, it seems like they usually have to pay for it, whereas any woman who is a masochist would have no trouble finding guys who want to domineering and at least somewhat sadistic.

While there are no doubt examples of BDSM/S&M/dom-sub relationships that ended up in horrible ways, the same can be said of "vanilla" relationships as well.

Power-exchange sex games are nothing new, and I see no reason for alarm over it.

-k

Maybe, but I am still left wondering about people who just can't get off on regular sexual relationships, and have to add all kinds of crazy role-playing, whips and ropes games to keep things interesting.

Michael Hardner · February 12, 2013

I seriously doubt if nudity will ever be permitted everywhere. For one thing, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is for health reasons. But comparing nudity, which is natural for everyone, to being trotted around on a dog collar really isn't a fitting comparison. Furthermore, what if the behavior isn't consensual? As I said previously, when we see this kind of behavior, how do we know whether or not it is consensual? And as someone else pointed out - what if the desire to be treated this way is the result of an underlying emotional problem?

What people choose to do in the privacy of their home is one thing. Bringing it out in public is another.

I'm not sure if you picked up the fact that I agree with your approach, but anyway... yes I think that it will be legal in public to be nude though. There's nothing to argue about there as it's just my guess vs. yours. I offer evidence that nudity and so-called lewd behavior is accepted more and more as the Victorian era fades into the distant past.

I attend a festival called BurningMan, which is a kind of city of total permissiveness. There is a lot of nudity, but none at all if safety and hygiene is required. Public sex happens on rare occasions, but is regarded as very very rude, and people are asked (politely) to cut it out.

cybercoma · February 12, 2013

So if they want to be slapped, spanked, and whipped in public, are you ok with that, too? After all, they "want it." It's simply a "different sort of lifestyle that they subscribe to."*

This is a red-herring as the discussion was about their particular apparel.

For one thing, kisses are not synonymous with "sexual." We kiss our parents and our children; we hug our friends, siblings, any number of people. They are considered acts of love and affection.

This is about as pedantic as you can get. Intentionally misinterpreting what is meant by "kissing" as though you can conflate kissing a child or parent to kissing a sexual partner. This is an intellectually dishonest detour that is also a red-herring.

Seems to me a man could smack a woman and say she likes it, and if she feels too threatened to protest, then it would be ok, right? Why would we assume a meek woman being smacked in public, not fighting back, isn't consenting to it? We should just look the other way if it makes us uncomfortable, right?

While I'm pointing out the logical fallacies in your post, this is a strawman and also a red-herring. You're taking this particular situation and exaggerating it far beyond what it is. You've turned someone being led around on a leash into full on physical assault and violence. Moreover, your first sentence is utter nonsense: "Seems to me a man could smack a woman and say she likes it." What on earth would make you think that is the definition of consent? It isn't and as such is totally irrelevant.

This right here is actually a good point, as it demonstrates that the difference between a kiss and a hug and being led around by collars and chains is the intent. A kiss and a hug are meant to show love. Being led around by a dog collar and chain is meant to be demeaning and controlling.

Some couples show love through bondage. You like to throw tantrums on this forum telling people not to tell you what your intentions are or what your arguments mean, but here you are defining the intentions of others. Those who get involved in bondage relationships show their love through submission and domination. It's consensual and the intent is to show your affection for your partner. But here you are telling them that their intentions are otherwise, something you would fly off the handle about here if it were done to you. Think about that.

I have no problem with it when done in the privacy of their home.

And you've yet to articulate a reasonable argument for why it's not appropriate outside of their home.

Agreed. We don't allow a lot of things just because someone consents to it. "Consent" isn't synonymous with "acceptable/ok."

You're right. It isn't, but again you've yet to demonstrate reasonably why it is unacceptable or not ok, especially if they are consenting parties.

kimmy · February 12, 2013

I ought to mention that I think that if it were a man leading a woman on a leash, the public reaction would much less sympathetic. I think that the "they're just having fun" faction would be much smaller, and there would be a larger faction saying that it's unacceptable.

I also agree that a public street isn't the right venue. I get that a big part of the excitement for something like this comes from having other people see it, but possibly an age-restricted venue like a night club would be a better place for it.

Maybe! But I can't figure out how this works! Is she actually enjoying being treated like a dog and walked on a leash?

Yes. Some people find this sort of thing extremely arousing. Some people are turned on by exhibitionism. Some people are turned on by playing slave or maid. Some people are extremely turned on by situations that most people would find embarrassing or degrading. I don't know why, but I'm sure many research papers have been written on the subject.

Part of my uneasiness comes from a feeling that a lot of young women are likely doing this stuff just because of pressure from their boyfriends. This sort of thing seems to have happened with the sudden growth in popularity of alternative sexual practices like anal intercourse. Until porn made anal sex conventional, it was just something that gay men did to each other.

But thanks to all of the guys seeing it in mainstream porn, they want to do it to their wives and girlfriends.

It was (and still is) also practiced by people who for religious or cultural reasons believe that vaginal penetration must wait until marriage. It's also done by people who are interested in experimenting with different sensations. Some people are also excited by it for psychological reasons rather than physical.

I think that you may be trying to examine sexual practices by looking at a present-day mainstream as the norm and attempting to rationalize what might cause deviations from the norm using pop-psychology. But there's nothing very rational about sex.

Are there really that many women who are masochists? Or is this another example of guys wanting to do stuff that they see in porn videos? I know that the sides can be reversed, and there are guys who are masochists and maybe some early childhood issues cause them to want to be whipped or spanked by a dominatrix. But, off hand, it seems like they usually have to pay for it, whereas any woman who is a masochist would have no trouble finding guys who want to domineering and at least somewhat sadistic.

Maybe. I think that people have ways of finding each other. They did, even before the internet.

Maybe, but I am still left wondering about people who just can't get off on regular sexual relationships, and have to add all kinds of crazy role-playing, whips and ropes games to keep things interesting.

I wouldn't wonder about it; I would just accept that human sexuality is a weird and mysterious topic. I don't think people whose sexual interests are outside the mainstream should be looked at as defective, and I don't think they need to be protected or policed.

-k

sharkman · February 12, 2013

While I'm pointing out the logical fallacies in your post, this is a strawman and also a red-herring. You're taking this particular situation and exaggerating it far beyond what it is. You've turned someone being led around on a leash into full on physical assault and violence. Moreover, your first sentence is utter nonsense: "Seems to me a man could smack a woman and say she likes it." What on earth would make you think that is the definition of consent? It isn't and as such is totally irrelevant.

Some couples show love through bondage. You like to throw tantrums on this forum telling people not to tell you what your intentions are or what your arguments mean, but here you are defining the intentions of others. Those who get involved in bondage relationships show their love through submission and domination. It's consensual and the intent is to show your affection for your partner. But here you are telling them that their intentions are otherwise, something you would fly off the handle about here if it were done to you. Think about that.

I'm surprised at your response. Instead of once again attacking AW, I'd thought you'd be right in there once again defending women's rights. So it's okay for the public degradation of women in this case? Why?

cybercoma · February 12, 2013

I'll let you figure it out. You're smart. For the record, I didn't say "the public degradation of women" is generally acceptable.

Edited February 12, 2013 by cybercoma

Canuckistani · February 12, 2013

Maybe! But I can't figure out how this works! Is she actually enjoying being treated like a dog and walked on a leash? Part of my uneasiness comes from a feeling that a lot of young women are likely doing this stuff just because of pressure from their boyfriends. This sort of thing seems to have happened with the sudden growth in popularity of alternative sexual practices like anal intercourse. Until porn made anal sex conventional, it was just something that gay men did to each other. But thanks to all of the guys seeing it in mainstream porn, they want to do it to their wives and girlfriends.

Are there really that many women who are masochists? Or is this another example of guys wanting to do stuff that they see in porn videos? I know that the sides can be reversed, and there are guys who are masochists and maybe some early childhood issues cause them to want to be whipped or spanked by a dominatrix. But, off hand, it seems like they usually have to pay for it, whereas any woman who is a masochist would have no trouble finding guys who want to domineering and at least somewhat sadistic.

Maybe, but I am still left wondering about people who just can't get off on regular sexual relationships, and have to add all kinds of crazy role-playing, whips and ropes games to keep things interesting.

She's being led around by her girlfriend.

50 shades of grey shows the interest many women have in female submission. Most will probably just read about it, but a few will find someone who wants to dominate them and agree. I think it's sad, but if freely chosen what are we going to do about it?

Actually if you look at who got busted for using whips etc, it was women selling their services to men - presumably lots of men are into being dominated as well.

Canuckistani · February 12, 2013

When I first read about this in Savage Love I was shocked, and like the woman writing the letter felt it should be kept in private. Dan Savage put a more positive spin on it, and next week had a follow up where the woman complaining took a bottle of wine to the couple and made peace.

Of course then Savage went on to explain the etiquette of dealing with dom/sub couples. Apparently you never address the sub directly, but ask permission first or only thru the dom. Made me roll my eyes all over again.

cybercoma · February 12, 2013

I've never heard of such a thing. If you do that, then you're being submissive to the Dom(me) and why would you do that if you're not a sub?

sharkman · February 12, 2013

I'll let you figure it out. You're smart. For the record, I didn't say "the public degradation of women" is generally acceptable.

When a woman is being led or walked around on a leash in public, then it's public degradation of women.

Edited February 12, 2013 by sharkman

Canuckistani · February 12, 2013

I've never heard of such a thing. If you do that, then you're being submissive to the Dom(me) and why would you do that if you're not a sub?

No, you're being polite to the couple, and understanding of their pov. If you don't do it, they'll probably just refuse to talk to you or otherwise feel insulted. Or they may be more relaxed about the whole deal. My guess is that these two want to shock people to some degree, that's why they parade around in public. So they're likely to be difficult to deal with, and I wouldn't bother. But they may be real nice people, happy to explain what they're up to and willing to cut people who find them shocking some slack. Who knows.

February 12, 2013

I'm not sure if you picked up the fact that I agree with your approach,

I wasn't sure; to me, you seemed to be straddling both sides of the fence.

but anyway... yes I think that it will be legal in public to be nude though. There's nothing to argue about there as it's just my guess vs. yours. I offer evidence that nudity and so-called lewd behavior is accepted more and more as the Victorian era fades into the distant past.

While there may be nothing to "argue," there is something to discuss. I stand by my reasoning that nudity will not be allowed because it's unsanitary. Would you want to sit your naked butt down on a park bench were someone else just had their naked butt parked? I wouldn't even want to put my hands on said bench. People aren't all clean and some do have diseases.

I attend a festival called BurningMan, which is a kind of city of total permissiveness. There is a lot of nudity, but none at all if safety and hygiene is required. Public sex happens on rare occasions, but is regarded as very very rude, and people are asked (politely) to cut it out.

I don't get what you're saying here. What do you mean by "there is a lot of nudity, but none at all if safety and hygiene is required?"

cybercoma · February 12, 2013

When a woman is being led or walked around on a leash in public, then it's public degradation of women.

It's public degradation of a woman. Yes it is.

guyser · February 12, 2013

It's public degradation of a woman. Yes it is.

And she may got off on it.

Now what?

February 12, 2013

50 shades of grey shows the interest many women have in female submission.

Why do you keep referring to a book that you obviously haven't read, even after you've admitted that you didn't read it?

Most will probably just read about it, but a few will find someone who wants to dominate them and agree. I think it's sad, but if freely chosen what are we going to do about it?

Have them keep it in private? I don't understand why some think degrading women (or men, in the case where the dom is a woman) in public is acceptable, as they would never (I hope) stand for the sub being phsysically abused - even with the sub's "consent." The fact is, "consent" does not automatically make something ok. Degradation is abuse, so I don't care to be subjected to seeing it in public, and as I've said, I would not want my young, impressionable children seeing it. Should young kids be allowed to engage in this type of behavior, too? Should it be acceptable for 13, 14, and 15 year olds to engage in this sort of behavior? In public?

Actually if you look at who got busted for using whips etc, it was women selling their services to men - presumably lots of men are into being dominated as well.

Yes, lots of men are into being dominated, too. And speaking of whips - should a dom be allowed to whip the sub in public, too? As long as it's consensual, is that ok? If not, why not?

Edited February 12, 2013 by American Woman

Argus · February 13, 2013

I think people into dom/sub stuff are sick. I'd love to offer them help if they wanted it. But I sure wouldn't force them into anything. People are sick in all sorts of ways that we consider normal.

I think bdsm fantasies and play arise out of a sense of rebellion to society's requirements as to how men and women should interact in a relationship. We're bombarded with those messages every day, related to equality and respect, and some find it exciting to flout common conventions.

If you are a woman today, in our culture, you are supposed to be a 'good girl' which means restricting your sexual experiments considerably (or else you're a slut), as well as insisting on a measure of independence, equality and respect from your lovers and from society around you. That means dressing, for the most part, in a way which does not emphasize your sexuality or make you out to be a a sex object.

Becoming a 'slave' rejects all of that and, doing it as openly as this one basically is throwing it all back in society's face by saying "I'm a sex object and I'll do just about anything my mistress/master wants me to do!" It's the excitement of the forbidden as far as sex is concerned, and the excitement of being outrageous in front of society, and of course, the people doing it openly are enjoying the status of being 'sluts' ,of exciting peoples imaginations to what kind of wild, kinky stuff they get up to in private.

And let's not forget, the mind is the most important sexual organ.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Argus

Argus · February 13, 2013

[/size]

Yes, lots of men are into being dominated, too. And speaking of whips - should a dom be allowed to whip the sub in public, too? As long as it's consensual, is that ok? If not, why not?

Doubt it. It's assault, and you can't give permission to be assaulted. There was a case in the UK a year or two back where a number of people in a bdsm club were sent to prison after videos got out, and the judges there said the same. An individual does not have the right, under the law, to allow another individual to assault them.