So is walking your girlfriend on a leash degrading them?

[Canuckistani]

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.

In many areas still, a gay or lesbian couple kissing would be seen as scandalous and what do we tell the children. But it's slowly changing. Probably leash holding will follow the same path.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

How can you compare someone demeaning another person to clothing? They are two very different things. But if it's ok to walk someone on a leash, is it also ok for dad to handcuff mom to the park bench while he plays with their children? How about handcuffing her and tying her leash to a light pole while he goes into a store? If that's not ok, why not? It's consensual and part of the sub/dom sex games, too.

In many areas still, a gay or lesbian couple kissing would be seen as scandalous and what do we tell the children. But it's slowly changing. Probably leash holding will follow the same path.

The comparisons to homosexuality aren't even slightly apropos. Again. There is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual preferences. They are two different things. I'm not judging people who are into sub/dom - S/M, but I don't need to be subjected to it. Why should the public have to be subjected to what is considered abuse by the non-consenting population?

Degradation is abuse. And again, we do not know if a partner is willing or has been coerced. Furthermore, it's not something to subject children to. It's confusing for children to see society accept degradation, and I'll repeat again that kissing and hugging are acts of love. When kids ask "why is he kissing that man?" we say "because he loves him." Simple.

[cybercoma]

How can you compare someone demeaning another person to clothing? They are two very different things. But if it's ok to walk someone on a leash, is it also ok for dad to handcuff mom to the park bench while he plays with their children? How about handcuffing her and tying her leash to a light pole while he goes into a store? If that's not ok, why not? It's consensual and part of the sub/dom sex games, too.

Oh brother. Let's dream up a bunch of examples of things that didn't happen, imply serious abuse, and then claim it's consensual. Give me a break.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh brother. Let's dream up a bunch of examples of things that didn't happen, imply serious abuse, and then claim it's consensual. Give me a break.

How are handcuffs different from a leash? Why is that more "serious abuse" than leading someone around by a leash attached to a collar on their neck? If we're to allow their idiosyncrasies in public, why wouldn't handcuffs be allowed? As I said, it's "consensual and part of the sub/dom sex games" too. Why would it only be a "claim" of consent in the scenarios I provided, while it would be assumed to be consensual when leading someone around by a leash attached to a dog collar around their neck? So give me a break - and actually address the issues I brought up.

[cybercoma]

The examples you gave are not what the situation was in the OP. They're not an actual situation anywhere. I don't know any sub/Doms that "play" infront of their kids. You intentionally gave examples that imply straight up abuse without consent and added children to it. This isn't even remotely close to what the OP was about.

I take your point though that public displays of affection, like making out or groping in public, are immature and I would rather not see it. However, they weren't making out in public any more than two people walking hand-in-hand are making out in public. I highly doubt she was literally dragging the sub by her leash abusively. She was probably just holding the leash and they were walking together.

[Guest American Woman]

The examples you gave are not what the situation was in the OP. They're not an actual situation anywhere. I don't know any sub/Doms that "play" infront of their kids.

Walking around with a collar and leash is "playing."

You intentionally gave examples that imply straight up abuse without consent and added children to it.

Children see what goes on in public, and this thread is about allowing dom/sub behavior in public, so I didn't "add children," children are already a part of it. I see see no difference between the level of degradation or abuse in any of the situations, so if one is to be allowed, why not the others? To have someone leading another person around by a leash attached to a collar on their neck is just as abusive as handcuffs. I have to wonder about the judgement of those who would think otherwise, but really, if dom/sub behavior is to be allowed in public, then who gets to decide what we should or shouldn't be subjected to? You can't seem to tell me why one is more abusive than the other. Wasn't it you who said "the word of the day is 'consent?'"

This isn't even remotely close to what the OP was about.

It sure is, and it's exactly what the thread is about.

I take your point though that public displays of affection, like making out or groping in public, are immature and I would rather not see it. However, they weren't making out in public any more than two people walking hand-in-hand are making out in public.

Leading someone around on a leash is hardly comparable to "walking hand-in-hand."

I highly doubt she was literally dragging the sub by her leash abusively. She was probably just holding the leash and they were walking together.

The act is abusive as degradation is abuse. But I doubt the woman would have to be forcibly handcuffed, either; she would "just" be sitting on a park bench, handcuffed, watching her children play.

[Argus]

How can you compare someone demeaning another person to clothing? They are two very different things.

People demean themselves in public often enough. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have others demean them?

But if it's ok to walk someone on a leash, is it also ok for dad to handcuff mom to the park bench while he plays with their children? How about handcuffing her and tying her leash to a light pole while he goes into a store? If that's not ok, why not? It's consensual and part of the sub/dom sex games, too.

Long as it's consensual I really don't have a lot of issues with it.

As for children, it exists, it's part of life, so it's up to parents to explain it and move on. Young kids would be easily satisfied with 'they're playing a game' anyway.

[Argus]

The act is abusive as degradation is abuse.

Degradation is not abuse if it's consensual.

[Guest American Woman]

People demean themselves in public often enough. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have others demean them?

People kill themselves too, but they aren't allowed to have others do it. In other words, it's quite different doing something to someone else than it is to do it to yourself,

Long as it's consensual I really don't have a lot of issues with it.

At least you're consistent.

As for children, it exists, it's part of life, so it's up to parents to explain it and move on. Young kids would be easily satisfied with 'they're playing a game' anyway.

So if kids simply think they are "playing a game," what's to stop them from "playing that game" themselves? Furthermore, a lot of things exist as part of life that we don't subject kids to - and there's a reason for that.

[Guest American Woman]

Degradation is not abuse if it's consensual.

Of course it is. Violence doesn't become non-violence just because it's consensual. It's still abuse, but they like it. Liking abuse doesn't change what it is.

[DogOnPorch]

Degradation is not abuse if it's consensual.

Wasn't it in the Happy Hooker that this place was described...complete with sloping floor?

http://www.colorsofleather.com/lthr%20bars/Bars%202nd%20page/HIJ/hellfire_club%20ny.htm

[Argus]

Of course it is. Violence doesn't become non-violence just because it's consensual. It's still abuse, but they like it. Liking abuse doesn't change what it is.

Yes, it does.

Consider the actions of sexual intercourse. Consider two cases where it happens in precisely the same way, physically speaking. But one is rape, and the other is lovemaking. How are they different when the physical actions are the same? Why, the consent of the parties involved, of course.

[Argus]

People kill themselves too, but they aren't allowed to have others do it. In other words, it's quite different doing something to someone else than it is to do it to yourself,

People aren't allowed to kill themselves either. And you're stretching a point to silliness. There is no harm in this, as opposed to death.

So if kids simply think they are "playing a game," what's to stop them from "playing that game" themselves? Furthermore, a lot of things exist as part of life that we don't subject kids to - and there's a reason for that.

Kids won't play it because, lacking a sexual element, it's not going to be fun. This is something they won't understand and won't care about, so it's not going to have any influence on them. We don't subject kids to things which will traumatize or harm them. I don't see this doing that.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, it does.

Consider the actions of sexual intercourse. Consider two cases where it happens in precisely the same way, physically speaking. But one is rape, and the other is lovemaking. How are they different when the physical actions are the same? Why, the consent of the parties involved, of course.

Sex isn't abuse unless it's forced on someone. Degradation, on the other hand, is abuse. In other words, sex is not abuse; degradation is abuse. So no, it doesn't.

[Guest American Woman]

People aren't allowed to kill themselves either.

They most certainly are allowed to kill themselves.

And you're stretching a point to silliness.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that "consent" doesn't equal "acceptable," since that seems to be the main argument for allowing this behavior in public . Again, if that's what they want to do in the privacy of their home, that's fine. The public, however, should not have to be subjected to degradation of one person by another. And yes, it is degradation - that's why they get off on it.

There is no harm in this, as opposed to death.

Whether or not it could lead to harm is debatable.

Kids won't play it because, lacking a sexual element, it's not going to be fun.

Then you don't know kids very well. Kids play games all the time - they role play, they pretend their kittens and dogs and all sorts of things, and harm most definitely could come to them if they played this game. It's not a "game" - anything that requires consent is pretty serious.

This is something they won't understand and won't care about, so it's not going to have any influence on them. We don't subject kids to things which will traumatize or harm them. I don't see this doing that.

Of course they'll care about it - to the extent that they will notice it, and if it's brushed off as simply a game, that's giving approval to the behavior and that in itself is harmful, as kids need to know that going along with such behavior is not something that should be expected of them.

[Canuckistani]

So if kids simply think they are "playing a game," what's to stop them from "playing that game" themselves? Furthermore, a lot of things exist as part of life that we don't subject kids to - and there's a reason for that.

I certainly played games as a kid that were way more sexual than these two - like doctor. And I doubt no kids have ever thought to play doggie before and who knows what else. Kids will see all sorts of things in their travels - way worse are the power games they see and copy between adults that have nothing to do with BDSM. Or consent.

What's next, freaking out because you have to explain an interracial couple to children? Many people have trouble with that concept too. Or parents taking their kids ot pride parades and what they see there. Children aren't hothouse flowers, that need to be protected. They need to be nurtured and supported in growth.

Again, the woman who wrote the complaint changed her ways and took a bottle of wine to the two women and got to know them and said they were very nice people. She managed to get over it, once she understood it better.

[cybercoma]

Of course it is. Violence doesn't become non-violence just because it's consensual. It's still abuse, but they like it. Liking abuse doesn't change what it is.

I see you've decided to be completely reasonable about this.

[Guest American Woman]

I certainly played games as a kid that were way more sexual than these two - like doctor. And I doubt no kids have ever thought to play doggie before and who knows what else.

The sexual aspect of it isn't my concern - it's the degradation. I would think I've made that quite clear at this point. Furthermore, while kids made have thought of the idea of putting a collar on their little friend or sibling and attaching a leash and dragging them around, I'm guessing most parents wouldn't tell them that doing so is a game. I'm guessing most parents would tell their kids not to do it, and that it's not a game to "play" this way - but rather, quite dangerous. It's also, IMO, a bad idea to tell kids that something that is considered wrong is 'ok' of the other person agrees to it. Who knows what kids would do with that idea.

What's next, freaking out because you have to explain an interracial couple to children?

Again, an interracial couple is not abuse, degradation, or anything negative by nature. To compare sexual preferences/acts to an interracial couple is just bizarre.

Many people have trouble with that concept too. Or parents taking their kids ot pride parades and what they see there. Children aren't hothouse flowers, that need to be protected. They need to be nurtured and supported in growth.

And part of that growth is doing the right thing and not subjecting them to things that they cannot understand. Parents who bring their kids to Pride parades are choosing to do that; pride parades are one time events - they don't occur anywhere at any time.

Again, the woman who wrote the complaint changed her ways and took a bottle of wine to the two women and got to know them and said they were very nice people. She managed to get over it, once she understood it better.

I don't doubt that they are nice people. How "nice" they are has nothing to do with it. I don't care to see degradation in public and I don't think kids should have to be subjected to it if their parents aren't ok with it. I think it sends a confusing message.

[DogOnPorch]

Psssst...hey you. Yeah, YOU! I've got yer stuff right here...the good stuff.

http://www.blastingvolume.com/2011/12/120-days-of-sodom-pdf-download.html

[Argus]

Sex isn't abuse unless it's forced on someone. Degradation, on the other hand, is abuse. In other words, sex is not abuse; degradation is abuse. So no, it doesn't.

That seemed awfully confused. Tell me this. Is a black man in shackles and a collar being called 'boy' being degraded?

But what if he's an actor in a play or movie? Then it's something else again, right?

If a couple are playing a role they don't feel about it the way you would expect them to. In a sub/dom relationship, in most cases, my understanding it is the sub who ultimately holds all the keys (pun intended) and gets to say what happens. And in the case used as an example it was the sub who enjoyed the walking on a leash business.

[Guest American Woman]

Good Lord. Now you're comparing real life to being cast in - and watching - a movie? Not much one can say in response to that ....

Edited February 17, 2013 by American Woman

[Argus]

They most certainly are allowed to kill themselves.

Nope.

And yes, it is degradation - that's why they get off on it.

Yet degradation is supposed to be unpleasant...

Then you don't know kids very well. Kids play games all the time - they role play, they pretend their kittens and dogs and all sorts of things, and harm most definitely could come to them if they played this game.

Yes, but it has to be fun. Or at least, you have to get cookies from it.

When I was younger, I made great sport of having my little sister beg for cookies on occasion. And I do mean beg, on her knees, holding her hands up like a dog, and barking. She didn't care. She was probably, oh, six or so. And I certainly didn't think of it as sexual, given I was probably nine. No harm came to either of us, though I did get wacked in the side of the head when my mom saw me do it once. Anyway, neither of us was traumatized for life, and my sister turned out to be something less than submissive, I assure you.

[Argus]

Good Lord. Now you're comparing real life to being cast in a movie? Not much one can say in response to that ....

Playing a role is playing a role. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[cybercoma]

Degradation? Abuse? Sexual deviance? Call the authorities?

[Canuckistani]

Degradation? Abuse? Sexual deviance? Call the authorities?

I bet those kids don't even have a safe word to tell mom they want her to stop.