|
Asherdelampyr -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/22/2008 11:17:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: Emperor1956
On the other hand, if you loudly profess that you believe ONLY in consensual kink (which I suspect all of the people reading this note do profess) then weren't the "Owner and pet" forcing their kink on everyone on the bus?
Fuck that.
No, seriously.
When some couple is holding hands on the street, they are doing the same thing. Have I consented to it? Absolutely not. Do I know of people who mind? Absolutely yes. But that's why there's a standard of "common decency" for which there is legal precedent to go by. And there are equivalents for our relationships; seeing as LGBT couples are allowed the same leeway in publiic as hetro ones are, there is no reason why one cannot use a leash instead of holding hands. Personally, I vote with my feet. My line for that is generally drawn at people frenching each other (for vanilla couples) or foot worship (for kinky couples); beyond that, I'll either watch or leave.
I don't give consent to breathing the same air as someone else. I don't need consent to be sweaty on the bus after martial arts practice in some place without a shower (although I will try to be considerate by seating myself apart from others if possible). Quite simply, this life has a lot of things we don't get a choice in, mostly things involving what other people do. Which is fair enough; the whole bit about my freedom to flail my fists about ending just short of your nose. Laws contain some further "agreed-upon" standards that may or may not go further, such as saying that my fists should stay clear of your personal space entirely, and that my genitalia remain well covered.
LGBT couples had to fight for recognition. There was a time when a gay couple kissing in public might get hauled away for obscenity. But their relationships have been recognized as valid, thanks to their willingness to take up the fight for their rights (although there is still a ways to go before they are recognized as equally valid, and deserving of equitable treatment and legal considerations).
BDSM couples will have to do the same, or accept cowering in their closets in shame.
And consent really doesn't come into this in any meaningful way.
quote:
Clearly, the bus driver didn't consent to being subject to their kink.
And he wasn't. He just saw them. If they'd been whipping each other on the bus, it would've been a different story. But they weren't. They were doing something that is roughly equivalent to holding hands. If we're going to require consent from everyone that might see someone holding another by a leash, we have two choices: (1) we can demand that the same applies to vanilla couples holding hands, or (2) we can be hypocrites about it. There is no middle ground there. This clearly wasn't sexual to the couple in question.
quote:
BUT I repeat, the kinky (and now gratifyingly public) couple has some explainin' to do -- unless of course nonconsensual D/s play is OK with you.
They weren't playing.
Hell, a couple I know tried to convince the bus driver to sell a ticket for one adult and one pet, albeit intended as a joke. The bus driver gave a laugh. A good time was had by all. And maybe the same bus driver will know, the next time he encounters such a couple, that they're not abusive loonies, but regular folks who can joke about the particulars of their relationship just like any other healthy couple. Who knows. In any case, it's harmless. If one doesn't want to be part of the world, and exposed to different people, one has no business living in a city, let alone driving a bus there. Withdrawal is working out nicely for the Amish, and our culture and society move forward without them. And by now, BDSM is rather widely acknowledged as "variant normal."
So if this counts as non-consensual D/s, then you can sign me up for some non-consensual D/s straight away.
quote:
"You gotta stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."
Funny you should say that; I think we should stand for having a single standard applied across the board for all relationship forms, such that ours become as legally and culturally valid as those taken for granted by vanilla couples. Maybe that's silly or insane, or whatever. But the same could have been said of LGBT, not too long ago. And it involves taking a stand. One that involves reexamining the all too common assumption that our relationships are "less" than others, and that society must be shielded from this "depravity." It just ain't so.
MLK said that we do not only have an obligation to obey just laws, but a moral obligation to disobey unjust ones. I would say that this extends into the realm of social mores. We have a moral obligation to defy conventions, customs and expectations that are wrong; this is one of them. And I would go one step further than you, as MLK did, in that it is not just the case that you might fall for anything when standing for nothing, but that your life is essentially apologetic of itself if you don't stand up for yourself. But he said it better:
"I say to you that if a man has not found something worth dying for, he is not fit to live."
Compared to that, pissing off a busdriver is a trivial thing.
Hiding in a closet is not standing up for oneself.
Health,
al-Aswad.
Once again I agree compleatly. As far as how do I explain this to my UM, its really simple, tell her that both people are happy doing it, and thats it! I mean come on, should we no longer allow people who wear pink on the bus, because Im color-blind and might get offended? No!, the bus driver was clearly out of line. Also, did anyone else catch this part?:
"The driver, who was off duty, was standing near the door."
He was off duty, he cant even claim that he had the right as a service provider to refuse service, the fact that he worked as a bus driver is damn near irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
