|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:17 am
 |
|
|
 |
Hunter of the Dammed MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed Rise out of public, tell me how often do you leave your house and decide to do something for attention, unless you really insecure you dont. Now theyve dressed like this before many times before this event happened. So you can understand why they reporte dthe incident. It hadnt happened to them before. At least from the rports information. You'd be surprised how many people out there like to stir things up.
Considering that they dress this way so often, they should be used to the negative reactions they get. They even said they were.
I said this before many times, when you choose to live your life in an alternative manner you accept that people aren't going to be so accepting of you.
In any case, this isn't about acceptance. This is about the driver seeing something that would potentially be harmful to the other passengers. Sure, the window of that being harmful is slim, but the firm can't take any risks.
 Now your changing it to a diffrant argumet i have already stated that i agreed it wasnt safe but i disagree on the standard of it being overly sexual in anyway
You can't honestly say that if you see a person leading another human on a chain that you wouldn't initially see it as sexual. The thoughts of dominance and submission would not enter your head? You'd seriously think "oh, wow, they must really trust each other"?
Even if you did think that, the majority of people will not look at it that way. They're going to think it's sexual, and, truthfully, it is. The trust factor is an afterthought, because, yes, sexual fetishes like BDSM require a great deal of trust. But it's ultimately sexual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:04 am
|
|
|
|
XWraith_LordX Nikura Uchiha Rellik San Nikura Uchiha Rellik San Nikura Uchiha Maybe they never will "win" if thats what they want I don't ven know. But children don't have to know it's sexual until they are older, sometimes you lie to your children just alittle so they don't find out things to early. And there you go, underestimating children's abilities to put 2 and 2 together. Ok Are you talking about older children who have most likely heard about it in school, or younger as in 3+?? From the younger ages they usually don't put 2 and 2 together until about 5 or 6, then they have heard it in school r with friends. If 5 or 6 year olds where you live, are talking so casually about sex, then those most be some real bad parents. Well, they do. My 5 year old cousin talks about sex all the time. I know kids who starting having sex at 8 or 9. Anomalies...the youngest virgins I know of are 12, and how the hell do you have sex at 8/9??The organs don't work like that then, and kids don't start finding out about that stuff (noramally) until they're like 11...
Not that I have seen, and when a young child can explain to you what sex is, then you know somethings wrong. It's how many kids have it here, but also many other places. having a child at 14-15 + is common. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:08 am
|
|
|
|
MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed Rellik San Simim Rellik San If 5 or 6 year olds where you live, are talking so casually about sex, then those most be some real bad parents.
Sexual fetishes aren't wrong, either. If a kid sees something, it's up to the parent to explain it to them so they understand it, not for the person practicing the fetish to cover up their lifestyle.
This isn't about having a sexual fetish in general, this is about displaying that fetish publicly, without regard for the sensitivity of others. Lets face it, if this was someone being thrown off a bus, because they were wearing a tracksuit and baseball cap, we'd all be applauding the driver. But this, where someone has actually worn something particularly synonymous with sex, wearing it in public would be like wearing a 'Jesus is a c**t' shirt in a cathedral. Or do you consider that sort of thing acceptable behaviour too? I actualy know someone who did something similar to that. That is not the piont if you read the article from an open mind you would have noticed they said it was a sign of trust. Not sexual. They can say it's not sexual all they want. The "it's a form of trust" thing is just what they're saying to divert from the blatant sexual nature of what they displayed. Anyone with a brain knows that what they did is a large indicator of their sex life.
What Rellik is saying has nothing to do with him being close minded. It's the fact that there is a time and a place for everything. And I'm pretty sure this couple is old enough to have that common sense. It is my belief that they just did this to get a rise out of the public, which they did.
But going around wearing a d**k on you T-shirt is ok? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:12 am
|
|
|
|
Hunter of the Dammed MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed Rise out of public, tell me how often do you leave your house and decide to do something for attention, unless you really insecure you dont. Now theyve dressed like this before many times before this event happened. So you can understand why they reporte dthe incident. It hadnt happened to them before. At least from the rports information. You'd be surprised how many people out there like to stir things up.
Considering that they dress this way so often, they should be used to the negative reactions they get. They even said they were.
I said this before many times, when you choose to live your life in an alternative manner you accept that people aren't going to be so accepting of you.
In any case, this isn't about acceptance. This is about the driver seeing something that would potentially be harmful to the other passengers. Sure, the window of that being harmful is slim, but the firm can't take any risks.
Now your changing it to a diffrant argumet i have already stated that i agreed it wasnt safe but i disagree on the standard of it being overly sexual in anyway
Hold on this is bullshit about a public transportation service caring about "safety" of their riders. If they did they wouldn't be letting people ride when it was too full. have kids and adults standing becuase there's no seats left. so just drop the safty BS cause it is not true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:46 am
|
|
|
|
Nikura Uchiha MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed Rellik San Simim Rellik San If 5 or 6 year olds where you live, are talking so casually about sex, then those most be some real bad parents.
Sexual fetishes aren't wrong, either. If a kid sees something, it's up to the parent to explain it to them so they understand it, not for the person practicing the fetish to cover up their lifestyle.
This isn't about having a sexual fetish in general, this is about displaying that fetish publicly, without regard for the sensitivity of others. Lets face it, if this was someone being thrown off a bus, because they were wearing a tracksuit and baseball cap, we'd all be applauding the driver. But this, where someone has actually worn something particularly synonymous with sex, wearing it in public would be like wearing a 'Jesus is a c**t' shirt in a cathedral. Or do you consider that sort of thing acceptable behaviour too? I actualy know someone who did something similar to that. That is not the piont if you read the article from an open mind you would have noticed they said it was a sign of trust. Not sexual. They can say it's not sexual all they want. The "it's a form of trust" thing is just what they're saying to divert from the blatant sexual nature of what they displayed. Anyone with a brain knows that what they did is a large indicator of their sex life.
What Rellik is saying has nothing to do with him being close minded. It's the fact that there is a time and a place for everything. And I'm pretty sure this couple is old enough to have that common sense. It is my belief that they just did this to get a rise out of the public, which they did.
But going around wearing a d**k on you T-shirt is ok?
Did I say anything about dicks on t-shirts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:57 am
|
|
|
|
MortSanglant Nikura Uchiha MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed Rellik San This isn't about having a sexual fetish in general, this is about displaying that fetish publicly, without regard for the sensitivity of others. Lets face it, if this was someone being thrown off a bus, because they were wearing a tracksuit and baseball cap, we'd all be applauding the driver. But this, where someone has actually worn something particularly synonymous with sex, wearing it in public would be like wearing a 'Jesus is a c**t' shirt in a cathedral. Or do you consider that sort of thing acceptable behaviour too? I actualy know someone who did something similar to that. That is not the piont if you read the article from an open mind you would have noticed they said it was a sign of trust. Not sexual. They can say it's not sexual all they want. The "it's a form of trust" thing is just what they're saying to divert from the blatant sexual nature of what they displayed. Anyone with a brain knows that what they did is a large indicator of their sex life.
What Rellik is saying has nothing to do with him being close minded. It's the fact that there is a time and a place for everything. And I'm pretty sure this couple is old enough to have that common sense. It is my belief that they just did this to get a rise out of the public, which they did.
But going around wearing a d**k on you T-shirt is ok? Did I say anything about dicks on t-shirts?
No, what I'm saying is it's what happens everyday, tahts what you guys arn't getting, if it's not someone on a lead or w/e. But the most comon would be pople talking about it openly, teens, wearing T-shirts taht talk about it.
Anything you see on a normal basis thats sex based is ok becuase it, or they(the person who's promoting it), are a part of soiciety. But if it's someone diff. comming out doing the same ******** thing as everyone else in a diff. manner, then it's some huge deal. If your children arn't asking about sex already from everything ese taht is out there, then they must be pretty damn sheltered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:02 pm
|
|
|
|
MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed MortSanglant Hunter of the Dammed Rise out of public, tell me how often do you leave your house and decide to do something for attention, unless you really insecure you dont. Now theyve dressed like this before many times before this event happened. So you can understand why they reporte dthe incident. It hadnt happened to them before. At least from the rports information. You'd be surprised how many people out there like to stir things up.
Considering that they dress this way so often, they should be used to the negative reactions they get. They even said they were.
I said this before many times, when you choose to live your life in an alternative manner you accept that people aren't going to be so accepting of you.
In any case, this isn't about acceptance. This is about the driver seeing something that would potentially be harmful to the other passengers. Sure, the window of that being harmful is slim, but the firm can't take any risks.
Now your changing it to a diffrant argumet i have already stated that i agreed it wasnt safe but i disagree on the standard of it being overly sexual in anyway You can't honestly say that if you see a person leading another human on a chain that you wouldn't initially see it as sexual. The thoughts of dominance and submission would not enter your head? You'd seriously think "oh, wow, they must really trust each other"?
Even if you did think that, the majority of people will not look at it that way. They're going to think it's sexual, and, truthfully, it is. The trust factor is an afterthought, because, yes, sexual fetishes like BDSM require a great deal of trust. But it's ultimately sexual.
Being lead on a leash has not every time something to do with BDSM...
Sometimes ist only "fashion"...
I know enough people who have nothing to do with the Fetish and BDSM szene but always wearing a leash 'cause its looking great with their outfits... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Rellik San This isn't about having a sexual fetish in general, this is about displaying that fetish publicly, without regard for the sensitivity of others. Lets face it, if this was someone being thrown off a bus, because they were wearing a tracksuit and baseball cap, we'd all be applauding the driver. But this, where someone has actually worn something particularly synonymous with sex, wearing it in public would be like wearing a 'Jesus is a c**t' shirt in a cathedral. Or do you consider that sort of thing acceptable behaviour too?
The main reasons people object to public displays of fetishes are:
1. Religious
2. Kids/innocence/naivety.
Religion is a personal thing; if you can't get it through your head that others may share different beliefs than you or practice things you disagree with, isolate yourself from the world with a group of people who agree with you. People have done it before.
Kids are not innocent. They pick up on things just as easily as anyone else; but they may misunderstand it. Therefore, it is up to the parent to explain things to them, instead of shushing them up, watering it down, or avoiding the subject.
They're gonna hear about it sooner or later; better to have you explain it thoroughly than for them to come up with a completely false notion of it, ne?
And while I'm all for wearing a "Jesus is a c**t" t-shirt in a cathedral, I wouldn't. Why not? Because a cathedral is a symbol of sanctuary. Meaning a area isolated from the world where people of like minds gather to find solace and agreement with their peers.
You wouldn't wear a "John 3:16" shirt to an Atheist's convention, would you?
However, a bus is a public place, much like the mall, or the movies, the subway, etc. It's up to the individual to act however the ******** they wish to act in public, provided they do so in a lawful manner.
This was clearly within their rights, and lawful, therefore they should be able to walk around like that, alluding to a sexual fetish or not.
Like I said before, the only reason that makes sense at all to not let them on is that it would somehow be unsafe. I wouldn't let someone on a bus with a leash on their neck if there was a chance the leash could get caught on something. They could be choked.
And since that's exactly what the bus driver claims to not be letting them on for, it's plausible.
Just like most malls don't let furries in who are wearing full fursuits. It's not because they're furries, it's because their faces are covered. It's a safety procedure.
Take off that mask, and they'll let you in, no big deal. It's not the law's right to tell you that you can't walk around on a leash. As an individual, you can express your disgust towards another individual's open display of their alternative practices, but you don't have a lawful right(and that's the only way rights exist) to do anything about it short of complain.
At least, in the US and England.
Oh, and @ Nikura: From personal experience, the metro bus downtown in my city tells you to remove any major chains you have hanging on you before you enter the bus. This is on your pants, on your neck, anywhere.
I've had to remove things I had dangling through my tunnels on my ears for the same reason. Taking it personally is bullshit. I saw a man with a gold "bling" chain on be told the same thing. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:29 pm
|
|
|
|
This discussion is become way too circuitous for me to want to bother with anymore.
I'm finishing my stay in this thread with the main points that I'm holding to:
1. The bus driver should have asked them initially to remove the lead, and if they refused then make them leave.
2. These adults should have had the common sense to not parade something so blatantly sexual in areas that cater to the general public. Even though they claim it's a display of their trust, it's taken by everyone else as something sexual. It's something most people look down upon, and the couple even stated that they were used to being stared at and having comments directed at them. Regarding the blatant sex seen all over the media, these are things that can be avoided if one so chooses. When people behave in overtly sexual manners or promote overtly sexual ideas in public, those people are basically throwing it out there for everyone to see - those who want to see, don't care to see, or would much rather not see. It's more unavoidable that way.
3. Point number two being said, this isn't about whether they have the right to demonstrate their trust in the manner in question. It's about the bus driver wanting to keep the passengers safe. Public transits are equipped with handles for people to stand on, if they so choose. If there isn't enough room to sit and they don't want to stand, they can wait for the next bus or find another method of getting where they're meaning to go. It's at your own risk. It's like saying pools shouldn't have a shallow end because people have broken their necks diving in. The lead posed a plausible threat in the event that the driver needed to brake sharply. Say, for instance, the driver let them on, no questions asked about the lead. And then something caused the bus driver to need to make a sudden stop - i.e. a child running into the street, what have you - and Miss Maltby was thrown forward causing the collar to crush her voice box. Then we'd have the couple suing the company for Miss Maltby's now inability to speak. It's a valid danger that was avoided by the driver asking them to get off the bus [see point 1].
Final point, the driver did the right thing over all. The couple will get over it. And if they have a large enough problem with it, they'll learn to take the lead off or leave it at home because the bus firm and the general public aren't going to change for one couple who have a ridiculously strange relationship.
I've said all I needed to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
