So is walking your girlfriend on a leash degrading them?

[Argus]

And she may got off on it.

Now what?

There's no law against public degradation, however it might well be illegal to show videos of it on the internet.

[Argus]

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.

Porn does have its influences. Just witness the disappearance of pubic hair on men and women, and chest hair on men. :-P

But young women (and men) have been doing whatever was culturally exciting forever. How many young straight women experiment with same sex relationships now simply because it's culturally popular? How many have or wish they could try threesomes (according to the globe and mail lots). I think virtually all couples below a certain age have at least played around with bondage by now, even if it's only an occasional thing. Making a lifestyle choice of it is something different, of course. But there are always people who take things farther than most.

[Michael Hardner]

Would you want to sit your naked butt down on a park bench were someone else just had their naked butt parked?

No - but I wear a raincoat in the shower.

I think we're in agreement here too - probably it has something to do with the practical reasons to wear clothing, i.e. protection.

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?"

You can't be nude if you're serving food or drinks, of course, or preparing food. Like that.

You can sit on something if you're buck naked, but you're putting yourself at far more risk than other people, I think. Especially because the event happens in a desert with dust clouds swirling around, and that dust is salty and corrosive to skin. If, for example, you got on a teeter totter without any undies on you would pay the price.

Nudity, however, is disarming in the best sense of the word and it makes you realize that clothing serves as a kind of social armor and protection too. My conservative and middle-aged American friends at this festival seem to be the first ones to embrace and discover nudity.

[WIP]

[/size]

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?

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?

I came across this story in the UK Sun yesterday in the right hand margin while looking up a different story. This is not the story I referred to that was local, where a man eventually killed his common-law wife through increasingly extreme games that became fatal....and she was branded with a tatoo of his name. Since this is in the SUN story, how common is this practice of sadistic or domineering men literally putting their stamp on their women? Anyway, here's some of the details:

THE mum savagely beaten by her boyfriend in a sex slave game told last night how the fantasy was a “desperate attempt” to save their failing relationship.

The woman, in her 40s, was left sobbing and with horrific six-inch bruises after Steven Lock whipped her 14 times with a knotted rope in a romp inspired by best-selling novel Fifty Shades Of Grey.

Lock, 43, was last week

cleared of causing actual bodily harm

.

But The Sun has discovered he has racked up

SIX

convictions against women including two for assault, one for assault occasioning ABH, harassment and twice breaching a restraining order. One led to six months in jail.

Lock, a jeweller, escaped punishment after Ipswich Crown Court heard his now ex-partner had signed a contract to say she was his slave.

She also had a tattoo above her genitalia that reads: “This is the property of Steven Lock”.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4766077/Fifty-Shades-sex-slave-game-mum-savagely-beaten.html#ixzz2KoTNG8M8

In the followup story that informs us that Lock was cleared of all charges we learn:

During the trial, Lock was asked by defence counsel Roger Thomson if he and the alleged victim had read Fifty Shades Of Grey.

He replied: “That’s where we got the idea from.”

Outside court, jeweller Mr Lock said he was relieved that the jury “had seen sense”.

He said: “It’s the right verdict. This case should never have reached court.

“As far as I’m concerned, it was a consensual activity between adults.”

The court heard the couple took part in group sex and bondage together and the woman had the words “Property of Steven Lock” tattooed around her genitals.

The woman also signed a contract promising Mr Lock free use of her body and entitling him to lash her if she did not follow his rules.

Lock told the court the woman consented to the activity and the couple agreed on the code word “Red”, which was to be used if either of them began to feel uncomfortable.

The woman, who told the court she broke down in tears and screamed as she was beaten 14 times with the rope, never used this word.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4757579/Man-cleared-of-assault-after-bondage-sex-session.html#ixzz2KoU0RZ00

In the least, it should be a warning to women who've bought this Fifty Shades of Grey bullshit, to be careful what you agree to! Once it gets taken to extreme ends, it's your word against his, and a jury in this case agrees with the accused that she agreed to this extreme beating, rather than agree with her that he went way further than she had signed on for. I would have assumed that the extent of physical injury would have been all the proof needed, but that was not the case here, nor in the comment string, if you care to skim through some of the comments from SUN readers. Considering the source, I wouldn't expect alot from this crowd, but I would expected that even here you would find more on the victims's side than bitching because his name got published while her's was not. And it's not so much that most of them are complaining about his name being released prior to trial, they want the name of the victim published as some sort of public humiliation I suppose. If you have any wonders why I see civilization unwinding and regressing, a lot of it is right in these sorts of stories. Why is there such a fascination with these s&m games in the first place? Is modern life so bad that this is the only way people can get a rush - by pushing everything to further extremes? That's where the problem starts I would argue!

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?

[Argus]

Well, can't almost anything be taken to extremes? And it sounds like this guy was a violent jerk to begin with, hardly the sort of guy any woman ought to be engaging in any sort of relationship with, let alone one of such trust as this.

[Guest American Woman]

In the least, it should be a warning to women who've bought this Fifty Shades of Grey bullshit,

Again, you didn't read the series, you don't understand what it's about. *Spoiler alert* here, but the woman refused to sign any contract. She wasn't looking for a dom/sub relationship - she was looking for love and romance. He didn't love any of the subs that he'd been in that type of relationship with; it wasn't about love - that is made very clear - and he sought that type of relationship because of abuse he had suffered. He was in therapy.

[...] be careful what you agree to!

I agree totally. And like I said, why would we just assume that such degrading behavior is consensual? Plenty of women (and men) are in relationships with domineering and abusive partners and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they were engaging in degrading behavior in public. Emotional abuse is abuse

[TheNewTeddy]

To answer the title, yes

The question actually should be is degrading someone who wants to be degraded a bad thing?

The answer to that is no.

[kimmy]

I came across this story in the UK Sun yesterday ...

It's a British trash tabloid. It's an example of how just because something is British doesn't mean it's classy.

How many other stories about domestic violence did you see while you were browsing The Sun? How many incidents of domestic violence do you think might have occurred in that nation of 62 million people during the same time frame that The Sun didn't find newsworthy enough to report?

Some time ago Michael H and I had a discussion about what makes an unremarkable story (parking-lot fight) into a News Item (parking-lot fight caught on video while participants shout racial epithets, in the example we were discussing back then.) I proposed a list of factors that make an uninteresting story into a News Item. I can't recall the exact list, but your news story contains two obvious examples of such factors:

-lurid details (kinky sex; woman has dude's name tattooed on her privates.)

-chance to link story to a trending topic (story will attract interest of people interested in 50 Shades.)

In short, you're not reading about this because S&M-related domestic violence is suddenly sweeping the land. You're reading about this because The Sun knew you'd click on the link.

If you have any wonders why I see civilization unwinding and regressing, a lot of it is right in these sorts of stories. Why is there such a fascination with these s&m games in the first place? Is modern life so bad that this is the only way people can get a rush - by pushing everything to further extremes? That's where the problem starts I would argue!

Fascination with kinky sex didn't start with 50 Shades. It didn't start with the internet era. Look up Betty Page some time. Freud was trying to figure out why some people are excited by S&M a century ago.

-k

[WIP]

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.

That might have been an accurate point 50 years ago, but exactly what rigid social conventions are there to rebel against today? At least here in the west, where most of modern pop culture is based on hedonism today.

I know there are exceptions, but I'm still betting most of this master/slave b.s. is guys who want or need control and women going along with it to keep them happy. In a world where women are often earning more than men, they need this sort of power to dominate and inflict pain on women to make themselves feel masculine.

Edited February 14, 2013 by WIP

[WIP]

It's a British trash tabloid. It's an example of how just because something is British doesn't mean it's classy.

Who said anything about classy? It's Murdoch Press, and it's not much different than the Toronto Sun, except the page 3 girls are topless!

How many other stories about domestic violence did you see while you were browsing The Sun? How many incidents of domestic violence do you think might have occurred in that nation of 62 million people during the same time frame that The Sun didn't find newsworthy enough to report?

I wasn't browsing the SUN in the first place. The Sun came up in my search, and I noticed that sordid story on the sidebar.

In short, you're not reading about this because S&M-related domestic violence is suddenly sweeping the land. You're reading about this because The Sun knew you'd click on the link.

Yes, I know, it's the same with Daily Beast or Huffingtonpost. The problem boils down to the fact that most print and broadcast "journalism" is for profit - not to inform the public. But, I wasn't just talking about this S&M scene; there does seem to be an increase in extreme sex that is not always put in that category, but can cause injury nevertheless.

Fascination with kinky sex didn't start with 50 Shades. It didn't start with the internet era. Look up Betty Page some time.

Umm, did you ever see the old "under the counter" magazines that featured Betty Page? Calling that S&M is really stretching the definition of the term. I saw some of the pictures that my older brothers and some of their friends passed around.....compared to today, it hardly even qualifies as porn! It's more a matter of the 1950's being a time of extreme paranoia and social repression.

Freud was trying to figure out why some people are excited by S&M a century ago.

Freud had an answer for everything....but that's because his psycho-analytic theories were unfalsifiable. Do women really suffer from penis-envy? Can't say I've talked to many women who wished they had one! On the other hand, an alternative freudian theory would be that men suffer from vagina-envy, and are fascinated and horrified by the whole birthing process. That theory might at least explain the rise of patriarchy, and the need to set rigid controls that included the death penalty, for when women can have sex, who they can have sex with, and how long they will keep procreating! I guess I'm not a fan!

[Argus]

That might have been an accurate point 50 years ago, but exactly what rigid social conventions are there to rebel against today?

Are you kidding? There are tons of social conventions, and always will be in any society, regardless of how 'open' that society is. It's true that deciphering them is more complicated now than it was in the 1950s, when society and roles were more stratified, and well-defined, but they are certainly there still. And as Rush said "be cool or be cast out".

I know there are exceptions, but I'm still betting most of this master/slave b.s. is guys who want or need control and women going along with it to keep them happy

Well, the relationship which was the subject of the op featured two women. How does that fit with your theory? And reading on it, apparently it was the sub who wants to act like that, not the dom. As I said, there is a certain excitement in doing the outrageous sexually, especially for women, who are, despite this being the 'era of hedonism' still far more socially confined and restricted in their sexual roles and behavior than men are.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Argus

[kimmy]

Yes, I know, it's the same with Daily Beast or Huffingtonpost. The problem boils down to the fact that most print and broadcast "journalism" is for profit - not to inform the public. But, I wasn't just talking about this S&M scene; there does seem to be an increase in extreme sex that is not always put in that category, but can cause injury nevertheless.

What do you base this observation on, aside from the appearance of a few lurid news items?

There does "seem to be" an increase in homosexuals lately. Use to be that we hardly ever heard about them; now they're all over the place. Must be that Ellen on TV, turning everybody gay!

Umm, did you ever see the old "under the counter" magazines that featured Betty Page? Calling that S&M is really stretching the definition of the term.

The point isn't whether Betty Page's lesbian bondage and spanking photos were tame by today's standards, it's that this isn't a new topic.

Freud had an answer for everything....but that's because his psycho-analytic theories were unfalsifiable.

The point isn't whether Freud was right or wrong, it's that this isn't a new topic.

-k

[Argus]

Umm, did you ever see the old "under the counter" magazines that featured Betty Page? Calling that S&M is really stretching the definition of the term. I saw some of the pictures that my older brothers and some of their friends passed around.....compared to today, it hardly even qualifies as porn! It's more a matter of the 1950's being a time of extreme paranoia and social repression.

And de sade? Have you ever read much of him? There's nothing new under the sun, WIP.

[WIP]

Are you kidding? There are tons of social conventions, and always will be in any society, regardless of how 'open' that society is. It's true that deciphering them is more complicated now than it was in the 1950s, when society and roles were more stratified, and well-defined, but they are certainly there still. And as Rush said "be cool or be cast out".

I still can't buy this line about the bdsm crowd being cast as some glorious rebels against society's rules. I'm more inclined to believe they (especially the doms and the sadists) are jaded, twisted misfits, who may mostly not causing real harm, but can't get off in normal ways, and have to keep creating more bizarre games to play.

Well, the relationship which was the subject of the op featured two women. How does that fit with your theory? And reading on it, apparently it was the sub who wants to act like that, not the dom. As I said, there is a certain excitement in doing the outrageous sexually, especially for women, who are, despite this being the 'era of hedonism' still far more socially confined and restricted in their sexual roles and behavior than men are.

That one doesn't exactly fit some of the discussions that followed, but even with those two I have to wonder "what the hell!" And I'm not completely sure why, but I would still object to this sort of display going on in public. It's okay in the privacy of their own homes or in some bdsm club, but spare the rest of us unless the sub starts growing a tail.

And de sade? Have you ever read much of him? There's nothing new under the sun, WIP.

talk about your sick, twisted misfits in society! really! The Marquis de Sade is where we get the term - sadism from. The difference back then, was that it was only a small minority of idle rich who had the time to engage in this sort of thing.....but, since we are going back to a world where a handful of people control all the money, maybe his example suits the times after all! But, the rest of us will be too busy and too exhausted from overwork to keep up with the rising cost of living to be that bored that we can't get turned on unless we can come up with new ways to inflict pain on our victims.

[Bonam]

I still can't buy this line about the bdsm crowd being cast as some glorious rebels against society's rules. I'm more inclined to believe they (especially the doms and the sadists) are jaded, twisted misfits, who may mostly not causing real harm, but can't get off in normal ways, and have to keep creating more bizarre games to play.

Why is it ok to call people that like to spice up their sex life in certain ways twisted misfits but not ok to use that label on people with non-standard sexual orientation? Sorry but you're statement here is no less bigoted than someone ranting about gays or blacks. Why can't those gays just get off in normal ways?

That one doesn't exactly fit some of the discussions that followed, but even with those two I have to wonder "what the hell!" And I'm not completely sure why, but I would still object to this sort of display going on in public. It's okay in the privacy of their own homes or in some bdsm club, but spare the rest of us unless the sub starts growing a tail.

Why is it ok to kiss in public but not to wear a leash?

talk about your sick, twisted misfits in society! really! The Marquis de Sade is where we get the term - sadism from. The difference back then, was that it was only a small minority of idle rich who had the time to engage in this sort of thing.....

And now everyone can. That's progress right there.

But, the rest of us will be too busy and too exhausted from overwork to keep up with the rising cost of living to be that bored that we can't get turned on unless we can come up with new ways to inflict pain on our victims.

It's the "victims" that are the ones that tend to get the most turned on by such activities. If you've never had a hot girl dom you, you should give it a shot and find out what you're missing out on! And yes, I'm sure everyone is just dying of exhaustion after their day of sitting around the office chatting with coworkers and checking email.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Bonam

[WIP]

Why is it ok to call people that like to spice up their sex life in certain ways twisted misfits but not ok to use that label on people with non-standard sexual orientation? Sorry but you're statement here is no less bigoted than someone ranting about gays or blacks. Why can't those gays just get off in normal ways?

Do you know anyone who chose to be black? Or any man who chose to be gay? And are there specific lifestyles to being black or being gay equivalent to the need to perform a public display such as in the OP?

Why is it ok to kiss in public but not to wear a leash?

I don't know.....because wearing a leash is degrading, while kissing is not! There is such a thing as overdoing it with kissing in public, and we are more tolerant with some more than others when it comes to this....we tend to give teenagers a lot more slack with kissing in public than older folks.

And now everyone can. That's progress right there.

It's the "victims" that are the ones that tend to get the most turned on by such activities. If you've never had a hot girl dom you, you should give it a shot and find out what you're missing out on!

No thanks! And I don't think my wife of 25 years would allow it even if I was so inclined. On this subject though, I mentioned before that it seems that most doms are male, while most subs are female, but they both call it role-playing and decline to delve a little further into what it says about male/female relationships in general.

Yesterday, I did a little searching around for some further information to see if there are any actual studies of the people in this bdsm subculture, but I couldn't find much of any value, but I did find in Wikipedia article a citation of one study...although it's from 1985....might be nice to have something a little more recent:

A 1985 study suggests that only about 30% of participants in BDSM activities are females.

^[2]

^[3]

A 1995 study indicates that 89% of

heterosexual

females who are active in BDSM expressed a preference for a submissive-recipient role in

sexual bondage

, suggesting also a preference for a

dominant male

, and 71% of heterosexual males preferred a dominant-initiator role.

^[4]

This would coincide with my suspicions that it mostly about something that men do to women....excepting the gay community of course! If 90% of the women play the sub role, that leaves only 10% of that already smaller group than men who are interested in being the femdoms you describe. That would explain to me why it seems that most men who want to get whipped or abused by a woman have to pay for it.

And yes, I'm sure everyone is just dying of exhaustion after their day of sitting around the office chatting with coworkers and checking email.

Ever occur to you that not everyone is an office worker?

Edited February 15, 2013 by WIP

[Bonam]

No thanks! And I don't think my wife of 25 years would allow it even if I was so inclined. ... That would explain to me why it seems that most men who want to get whipped or abused by a woman have to pay for it.

Just refuse to take out the garbage when she asks and I'm sure you'll be able to get some abuse for free!

[Guest American Woman]

Why is it ok to kiss in public but not to wear a leash?

Because kissing someone isn't degrading them while leading them around on a collar and leash is.

I can see it now - Mom and Dad and the kids out for a Sunday stroll - Dad leading Mom around on a collar and leash. Or vice versa.

Why is it ok to call people that like to spice up their sex life in certain ways twisted misfits but not ok to use that label on people with non-standard sexual orientation? Sorry but you're statement here is no less bigoted than someone ranting about gays or blacks. Why can't those gays just get off in normal ways?

"Blacks??" Why would you include race with people's sexual orientations? Blacks don't get off in "normal ways?" And sexual orientation is one thing - sexual preferences are another.

Edited February 15, 2013 by American Woman

[WIP]

Rather than ask my wife if she will agree to me walking her on a dog leash to spice up our sex life, I thought....maybe a better approach would be to see if some handy factual information on female sexuality will be more helpful:

9 Interesting Things You May Not Know About the Clitoris

It's Exquisitely Sensitive

I kinda figured that one already!

It's Bigger Than You Think

Tell me more!

Only one quarter of the clitoris is visible. The rest of it is inside the body, which means this organ can't really be picked up and moved. The clitoris is made up of many different parts, including the clitoral head, the hood the clitoral shaft, the urethral sponge, erectile tissue, glands, vestibular bulbs and the crura (or the clitoral legs). Only the clitoral head and the hood are located outside the body. (If you want to read more about Marie Bonaparte - along with an array of other amazing sex studies and facts - check out "

Bonk

." You will laugh, you will cringe and, boy, will you will learn a lot of fun and unexpected facts about human couplings.)

It's a Lot Like a Penis

Yeah, there's the whole "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" camp, but in reality, men and women are a lot more alike than most of us realize.

It Grows

The clitoris actually grows during a woman's lifetime. No, it isn't getting stretched out from too much sexy fun. The growth occurs as a result of hormonal changes in the body. When a girl’s puberty begins, the clitoris will start increasing in size. By the time puberty ends, the clitoris will be about 1.8 times larger. By the time a woman is 32 years old, the clitoris will be almost four times as big as it was at the onset of puberty. It doesn’t end there. After menopause, the clitoris will be about seven times larger than it was at birth! Don't freak out - this is still a very small area, so the change in size won't be very noticeable. And hey, it might help to explain why

older women often report such hot sex!

I'm hoping I can keep it up without having to resort to the viagra or cialis method!

It's Only There for the Sex

A woman's body includes a number of super-hot erogenous zones, but you might say many of those are sort of, well, incidental. Not the clit. It's there for fun. Yup, that’s right. The clitoris is the only part of the body designed solely for pleasure. So, while other body parts used for sexual pleasure have at least one other purpose to them, your clit is just there to get you off.

Every Female Has One

Birds do it. Bees do it. OK, maybe not bees, but every female mammal has a clitoris. However, we humans are one of the few species that has evolved to actually use the clitoris for sexual pleasure.

It's Only There for the Sex

A woman's body includes a number of super-hot erogenous zones, but you might say many of those are sort of, well, incidental. Not the clit. It's there for fun. Yup, that’s right. The clitoris is the only part of the body designed solely for pleasure. So, while other body parts used for sexual pleasure have at least one other purpose to them, your clit is just there to get you off.

Every Female Has One

Birds do it. Bees do it. OK, maybe not bees, but every female mammal has a clitoris. However, we humans are one of the few species that has evolved to actually use the clitoris for sexual pleasure.

They're All Different

Some are small, some are big, some are hidden and some protrude rather a lot. Some increase in size when aroused, and others hide under the hood. Some require a lot of pressure, others prefer a very gentle touch. Each little love bud is as unique as the woman attached to it.

Now that's a little deflating, because after a bit of fumbling around trying to find it with previous girlfriends, I thought I had turned into a great lover! And it turns out I was just lucky to have a woman with a clit that's easy to find and easy to arouse!

[Peanutbutter]

I think adults can make up their own minds as to what is degrading and what isn't. If the women in question likes to be treated in this fashion then who are we to judge them? It seems degrading to me but perhaps it isn't to them so if they aren't hurting anyone we should mind our own business and let them live as they see fit.

[kimmy]

One of the premises in this thread is that this kind of activity should not be done in public because it might be confusing or disturbing to children. How do you explain it to your young daughter when she sees an adult woman being treated in this degrading way?

And... I'm just wondering whether that argument scales. For example, for the sake of argument, suppose adherents of some religion believe that women must be completely covered in a bag-like garment when they venture outside. A lot of people might find that to be degrading as well. Would they again feel uncomfortable with their young daughter seeing something like this?

-k

[kimmy]

I still can't buy this line about the bdsm crowd being cast as some glorious rebels against society's rules. I'm more inclined to believe they (especially the doms and the sadists) are jaded, twisted misfits, who may mostly not causing real harm, but can't get off in normal ways, and have to keep creating more bizarre games to play.

What makes them twisted? Why the belief that they are jaded? Why be so judgmental? I disagree with the premise that people whose tastes differ from the mainstream are defective or damaged in some way.

To me it appears that your objection to this might be because you're uncomfortable with the gender politics aspect of it-- the idea that some women are aroused by sexual submission is scary and threatening to our cherished values of gender equality.

I disagree, and I can't get behind that anyway. To me, saying "this is wrong because it's not politically correct and it's gross" isn't much different from "this is wrong because our god condemns it and it's gross."

-k

[Peanutbutter]

You make good points kimmy and some valid questions as well. I'm not sure a "right" answer is clear. Would it be any different then explaining to a child a gay couple embracing, holding hands or kissing in public? I'm not sure.

[Argus]

I still can't buy this line about the bdsm crowd being cast as some glorious rebels against society's rules. I'm more inclined to believe they (especially the doms and the sadists) are jaded, twisted misfits, who may mostly not causing real harm, but can't get off in normal ways, and have to keep creating more bizarre games to play.]

Might be some of that, but you seem to have it set in your mind this is all about pain and it's not. For the most part, it's about social roles. It's about dominance and submission, and in many cases the most punishment that takes place is a spanking or something along those lines. I didn't suggest there was any 'glorious rebellion' involved. However, a lot of people do find it exciting to get around social conventions. For men, I can certainly see the attraction in having all the power, in making all the decisions, in 'being the man'. I think that, rather than whipping someone all the time, is what is the true heart of those who really go in for this stuff. Likewise, there have always been a certain number of people who want to be taken care of... completely. A sub in these kinds of relationships doesn't have to make any decisions, and doesn't have to worry about anything other than pleasing her/his master. Life is simple. On top of that, of course, there is a psychological excitement in bondage which I'm sure most who have been tied up during sex, or have tied up their partners (and that's a LOT of people) will acknowledge.

That one doesn't exactly fit some of the discussions that followed, but even with those two I have to wonder "what the hell!" And I'm not completely sure why, but I would still object to this sort of display going on in public. It's okay in the privacy of their own homes or in some bdsm club, but spare the rest of us unless the sub starts growing a tail.

I'm not sure seeing someone walking along leashed is any more weird or offensive than some of the other getups people wear to shock or deliberately offend.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Argus

[cybercoma]

One of the premises in this thread is that this kind of activity should not be done in public because it might be confusing or disturbing to children. How do you explain it to your young daughter when she sees an adult woman being treated in this degrading way?

-k

Would someone please think of the children!