Gonna go against the grain and say that’s a bit of a no-go, regardless of how much of an ass that guy is being. Get rid of that and I see nothing wrong here though.
I consider high heels, fishnet stockings, and/or exposed bra straps to be a sexual things. Does that mean no one else is allowed to wear any of those in public now?
No, I don’t think it is. Also in many conservative minds they also believe all that stuff is sexual. They believe the existence of all gay couple in a show means shoving gay sex down childrens throats, even if they only hug.
My sister got in trouble with the religion we were in because she was too curvy. The accusation of lying here might be a bit of projection if you can’t understand that some people will always make something sexual,and that even if you see it as sexual, not everyone does.
It’s common decency? I’m not going to judge someone for what they wear in public, but when it comes to sexual stuff, it’s just a matter of being mindful of others.
Not a “think of the children” or “I’m uncomfortable with queer people existing” sorta deal with what I’m saying either, making sure my words don’t get twisted, but a leash to me gives the same vibes as say, a couple having an intense makeout session on the bus. Like do you need to make this public?
This a minor nitpick here, I know, just worried something like that gives fuel to the narrative jackwad with the sign is pushing.
What I’m pointing out here is that you’re equating two things that are actually different for most people present, but you fail to explain why.
In my view, there is a distinction between having sex in public, where everyone sees you, and wearing an accessory that suggests that your sex life elsewhere is rather kinky.
If you think those are the same, where do you draw the line? What about a rainbow flag/sticker/patch? This also might imply they are having sex a bit differently from you?
Also, let’s not forget that this is a photo taken in a specific situation. Who knows if they were just wearing it there?
If I’m sitting on a busy bus for example, and two people, a couple, sit in front of me and start making out with some tongue on tongue action, I’m going to be disturbed. I’m not comfortable with that, and I didn’t consent to seeing that.
People have their kinks and sexually intimate acts that they’re into. Consent on both parties is important, but what’s important as well is the consent of people around you in seeing that. A regular kiss, hug, or other purely romantic or platonic show of affection you don’t need other people’s consent for, so a person claiming “consent” when gay people hold hands or kiss in front of them is just a bigot.
For the same reason I wouldn’t send a picture of kink art I know a friend isn’t into without their consent, I also wouldn’t indulge in my kinks in public where I know most people won’t be into it, as they didn’t consent to, for example, seeing me on a leash in this case (not my thing, hypothetical application of the pic).
I don’t want to totally derail you here, and I do understand where you’re coming from - but is it interesting to you that you say “making out” requires consent from other people to see but that a “regular kiss, hug, or other purely romantic or platonic show of affection” does not?
Genuinely, without meaning to sound hostile - why does what you are comfortable seeing dictate what other people need to get consent from the public for? What if I’m uncomfortable seeing any kind of kissing at all? What if I’m completely comfortable seeing more than you?
Why can’t I draw the line and decide what requires consent from the public instead of you? I might well draw that line in a different place entirely.
You’ve said exactly what I was trying to say, and much more elegantly than I would have!
Obviously you shouldn’t include people in your sex that don’t consent, but is simply being visible to someone including them?
In some cases, it’s a clear yes. Flashing is a good example, because without the audience, the flasher wouldn’t get sexual gratification. For other activities, like leash holding, there’s probably an element of exhibitionism, but that isn’t necessarily the whole point of it.
I reject the idea that we have a right to not be disgusted. Like you mention, everyone’s idea of what is acceptable and what isn’t can vary widely. A homophobe would be disgusted by seeing a same-sex kiss, and I might be disgusted by seeing someone wearing socks and sandals. Our disgust is not a sufficient harm to justify limiting the freedoms of others.
For what reason other than arousal would someone wear one?
This doesn’t count baby leashes btw, which are at the back and not the neck and are used to prevent a kid from getting lost or wandering off into danger (when used properly).
Is that a leash?
Gonna go against the grain and say that’s a bit of a no-go, regardless of how much of an ass that guy is being. Get rid of that and I see nothing wrong here though.
Why do you care
From my understanding leashes are a sexual thing no?
I consider high heels, fishnet stockings, and/or exposed bra straps to be a sexual things. Does that mean no one else is allowed to wear any of those in public now?
This is a false equivalence and you are lying if you say that you don’t see this as one.
No, I don’t think it is. Also in many conservative minds they also believe all that stuff is sexual. They believe the existence of all gay couple in a show means shoving gay sex down childrens throats, even if they only hug.
My sister got in trouble with the religion we were in because she was too curvy. The accusation of lying here might be a bit of projection if you can’t understand that some people will always make something sexual,and that even if you see it as sexual, not everyone does.
Nah, kink is based and trying to censor it from queer culture is sex negative.
So what if they are? Seeing someone being led around on a leash isn’t gonna hurt anyone.
It’s common decency? I’m not going to judge someone for what they wear in public, but when it comes to sexual stuff, it’s just a matter of being mindful of others.
Not a “think of the children” or “I’m uncomfortable with queer people existing” sorta deal with what I’m saying either, making sure my words don’t get twisted, but a leash to me gives the same vibes as say, a couple having an intense makeout session on the bus. Like do you need to make this public?
This a minor nitpick here, I know, just worried something like that gives fuel to the narrative jackwad with the sign is pushing.
This is a false equivalence and you are lying if you say that you don’t see this as one.
Wow, using the same words I did as some sort of cheap “gotcha”, aren’t you smart?
I’m not gonna engage with you if you’re not gonna come to the table with anything of value to add.
What I’m pointing out here is that you’re equating two things that are actually different for most people present, but you fail to explain why.
In my view, there is a distinction between having sex in public, where everyone sees you, and wearing an accessory that suggests that your sex life elsewhere is rather kinky.
If you think those are the same, where do you draw the line? What about a rainbow flag/sticker/patch? This also might imply they are having sex a bit differently from you?
Also, let’s not forget that this is a photo taken in a specific situation. Who knows if they were just wearing it there?
Oh god, I didn’t assume you’re anywhere near the dickwad in the picture. You’re all good on that front!
My point is, well, so what if two people are aggressively making out? What’s inherently wrong with that?
Thanks for that.
If I’m sitting on a busy bus for example, and two people, a couple, sit in front of me and start making out with some tongue on tongue action, I’m going to be disturbed. I’m not comfortable with that, and I didn’t consent to seeing that.
People have their kinks and sexually intimate acts that they’re into. Consent on both parties is important, but what’s important as well is the consent of people around you in seeing that. A regular kiss, hug, or other purely romantic or platonic show of affection you don’t need other people’s consent for, so a person claiming “consent” when gay people hold hands or kiss in front of them is just a bigot.
For the same reason I wouldn’t send a picture of kink art I know a friend isn’t into without their consent, I also wouldn’t indulge in my kinks in public where I know most people won’t be into it, as they didn’t consent to, for example, seeing me on a leash in this case (not my thing, hypothetical application of the pic).
I don’t want to totally derail you here, and I do understand where you’re coming from - but is it interesting to you that you say “making out” requires consent from other people to see but that a “regular kiss, hug, or other purely romantic or platonic show of affection” does not?
Genuinely, without meaning to sound hostile - why does what you are comfortable seeing dictate what other people need to get consent from the public for? What if I’m uncomfortable seeing any kind of kissing at all? What if I’m completely comfortable seeing more than you?
Why can’t I draw the line and decide what requires consent from the public instead of you? I might well draw that line in a different place entirely.
You’ve said exactly what I was trying to say, and much more elegantly than I would have!
Obviously you shouldn’t include people in your sex that don’t consent, but is simply being visible to someone including them?
In some cases, it’s a clear yes. Flashing is a good example, because without the audience, the flasher wouldn’t get sexual gratification. For other activities, like leash holding, there’s probably an element of exhibitionism, but that isn’t necessarily the whole point of it.
I reject the idea that we have a right to not be disgusted. Like you mention, everyone’s idea of what is acceptable and what isn’t can vary widely. A homophobe would be disgusted by seeing a same-sex kiss, and I might be disgusted by seeing someone wearing socks and sandals. Our disgust is not a sufficient harm to justify limiting the freedoms of others.
That’s the only sexual thing you see in that picture?
Can you explain why you think leashes are a sexual thing?
For what reason other than arousal would someone wear one?
This doesn’t count baby leashes btw, which are at the back and not the neck and are used to prevent a kid from getting lost or wandering off into danger (when used properly).
You think they’re aroused in that photo?
What?
What’s wrong with a little public BDSM to piss off conservatives?