AAkasha
Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jasmyn
quote:
ORIGINAL: Boondoggle
I think our difference in opinion lies in the fact that you consider the motivation behind the act relevent, whereas I don't. I don't think of this kind of humiliation play as rude or selfish because I don't view it in the context of a sexual relationship, rather, I take the action simply at face value and compare it to accepted societal standards. Whether anyone is getting their rocks off or not is a moot point, IMO.
Going back to the trampling example, a woman walking on a man in a shoe store is weird, very weird, even, but when simply taken at face value and not trying to imply or extrapolate some sort of relationship, a woman walking on a man isn't rude or selfish, just unusual.
Well said Boondoggle.
In the scenario I gave of my partner wearing a pink shirt. Now that could simply be his own fashion sense...or it could be because I insisted he wear it because I know he considers himself a masculine man and wouldn't dare wear pink of his own accord....hence it's humiliating for him. We go out in public, him in pink, wahlah 'public humiliation'...to anyone else...it's a man wearing pink.
quote:
ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
To me, that's different than walking on someone in a shoe store. ~shrug~ Maybe it's a fine line, but for me, dressing as one chooses within the decency laws doesn't really bother me, but engaging in -overtly- sexual or "scene related" behavior does.
For example, I have no problem with people in clothing or adorment or makeup that isn't stereotypically associated with their gender. Nor with casual displays of affection between partners of any gender and number. (Well, to be more correct, I am an active advocate of all sexual orientations and configurations getting the same priviledges heterosexual couples have.) I -do- have a problem with someone urinating in their pants in public (intentionally) or, hell, giving one's partner a blowjob on a public bus. Kink or no kink I prefer overt sexual acts stay in venues that are more appropriate. (Including clubs and screenings of the ROcky Horror Picture Show)
I dont' know that I could codify it into a set of rules that work for me, but there's a difference, for me, between those sets of behaviors.
And above I posted that for public humiliation I draw the line at sex, nudism/exhibitionism, and masturbation. Everything listed in my ideas for public humiliation can be done, and have been done under my guidance, and not caused offence.
A sub, a sissy, wishing to whisk me away for a night was given three lists of items he needed to get. He had instructions to go to three different supermarkets and for at least one item on each list he had to ask for help to find them. Your usual array of feminine products, condoms, phallic vegetables and lube included. As far as anyone knew he was a man in a supermarket...not much of a rarity these days...buying feminine hygenie products...even less of a rarity these days. The fact he was wearing diapers underneath his jeans...interesting... but not anything that couldn't be explained away as 'inconteninence' or 'recovering from surgery' if anyone was to ask.
Also, in everyone's haste to disparage an accomplished professional's techniques...let's not forget we weren't there in the shoe store with her...we don't know that she didn't ascertain the environment before embarking on a mini-shoe scene in a shoe store...we don't know if she had the store owner's full permission to do so.
I've often taken guys lingerie shopping...a quick discussion with the manager or owner if this guy could try on some outfits seems to suffice. I remember one day, out of 12 shops we went to only one said no they wouldn't feel comfortable if he did so....the rest seemed to fall over themselves in their haste to be of assistance.
Boondoggle is right, looking at the motivation behind the act from your own personal experiences is in part the problem. Scene related or not, is only a person's interpretation of what they themselves are seeing that causes them offense.
There is a huge difference between subtle acts that could be seen in an every day situation and acts that are NOT seen in an every day situation -- like a man being trampled in a shoe store.
These humiliation threads always go this route -- people backpaddle into justifying the "subtle" humiliation play in public and pretend they never used the kinds of examples like the trampling. Boondoggle continued to try to lump it into "ok":
quote:
Going back to the trampling example, a woman walking on a man in a shoe store is weird, very weird, even, but when simply taken at face value and not trying to imply or extrapolate some sort of relationship, a woman walking on a man isn't rude or selfish, just unusual.
You don't think walking on a man in a shoe store (in public, for the humiliation factor) isn't rude or selfish? The two people in this scenario *have* to do it IN a shoe store? Why? Does it have to do with the fact that other women will look at them, some with disgust? Did these women consent? Did the store clerk consent? The people trying to conduct business, who see customers walk half way in, and then turn around and walk out?
Making a man buy embarrassing items at a grocery store is one thing. So is making him wear lingerie under clothing that might be noticable if someone looked close enough and had a clue about such things. Or, asking *permission* to have a man try on things in a dressing room. But the shoe store example is ridiculous.
Akasha
_____________________________
Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]
|
Humiliation play - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread