Does BDSM Need Its Own Rights Movement?

[Esquilax]

You represent a mentality, I represent a mentality, which is exactly the reason why I find it appropriate to discuss this topic under a collective context.

But I can't change the mind of a mentality. I can't argue my position in such a way that a mentality understands it and modulates its own position to reflect new information. Mentalities don't have minds: you do.

Well, according to your reasoning, if you go on about dressing like freaks and display your kink props out on the streets for everyone to see, you're going to break all barriers.
But in truth, what you're doing is very much like someone going around telling the people, kids, and the elderly on the streets in which positions and how long he screwed his wife the other night. He's also rather proud of his performance. Its essentially the same thing. Now how do you suppose that the people on the streets ought to react to this man?
Of course most are going to tell him to fuck off.

And you know what, you might have a point there, if there was a subset of the community demanding that just having sex made you immoral and abusive freaks, no matte the context. Since there isn't, your analogy falls flat yet again.

There's a difference between "Here's the details of my sex life," and "You're telling pernicious lies about me and mine based upon your ignorance of these practices. I feel no need to be ashamed of them merely because you want me to." Robbing your side of the power to make us feel bad isn't a bad thing. The really sad part is that if your side had just... not began these lies in the first place, we'd probably have no desire to be quite as out about all this as we are.

Really man. What you're doing is little more than unsavory exhibitionism that goes against all forms of human decency, by violating the borders of private life and public life, and public morals, while claiming "pride" as the motivation.

You can repeat this as often as you want: repetition does not make it true. All you can really say is that you find it unsavory; I submit to you that the world need not bow to the things you dislike.

No, this attitude is not mistaken, obviously, else people would have sex in front of their parents, children, collegues, and in public places.
Obviously sex is a private thing that needs to be private.
We are not mindless animals, no matter how much you'd like us to be.

You actually have no idea how widespread some of those examples are, and hence have no basis for saying they never happen.

Well, aren't you weirdos? I really do not wish to get into the whole details of your weirdom, some aspects are rather innocent, while some aspects are so disgusting and beyond all comprehension that
As for immorality, and abuse, you have already forfeited morality when you saw yourselves above the public with your weird antics and abused your rights (of expression)when you decided to infringe other people's rights not to be subjected to things that they might find unsavory and bestial. Public places are not your playgrounds.

People don't actually have the right not to be around things they dislike, Mehmet. I believe I've said this before; please don't bring imaginary rights into the discussion again.

The whole world has gone crazy as it seems. Fringe groups claiming the streets, the borders between public and private life diminishing....
Really, it won't be too long until the horse and dog fuckers go on about their own pride parades praising inter-species love.

Equivocation, guilt by association, tainting the well.

Well, I guess it was nature who told these guys to let others piss and shit on themselves...
What sick fucks, really.

And again, your opinions aren't somehow reality. You don't like that, I get it. Coprophilia isn't my deal either: the difference is that I'm not going out onto this limb where everything I find distasteful must be bad by definition. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think that.

Well, if there is something with only a marginal following, it means that it is usually not appealing to the majority of the public. In your case, it is due to the abnormal and weird practices it includes in itself. If your practices were normal and appealing to everyone, that obviously wouldn't be the case.

Why do you keep doing that? Why do you keep using "weird" and "abnormal" as if they're inherent qualities that one can reliably detect in things? Those are subjective labels; they don't suddenly become fact because you decide they are.

So why you still want to argue about the normality aspect is beyond me.
The fact that you're a marjinal group says a lot about how well you fit in with the norm, i.e. you are a marjinal group because you don't fit in with the normal people.

My position is that normality has nothing to do with right or wrong: as demonstrated by the fact that you're not going around talking about how disgusting reading comic books is, despite the fact that it's not mainstream either.

As for your example, I'd say that diet is nowhere near comparable to this.
Vegetarians in western countries such as yourself view food no longer as "you eat what you get", but "you eat what you want". Obviously, they have the means of altering their diet to fit their choice. But people in India, who have little choice in what they get as their food, being a full-time meat eater is not a choice my friend.
Same for the people in Mongolia, where meat is staple on the table.
Its a matter of survival for them, not preference.

Transparent dodge: let's limit ourselves to vegetarians by choice, then. Are they immoral, because there's less of them than average?

Well, if we are to get into the sociological aspects...I'd say that society is not keen to "normalize" fringe pleasures and useless antics.
Usually, "normal" is what is most beneficial to society. A healthy sexuality based on the natural ways is and was always seen as the norm.
Anything else was usually reserved for those who walked the back alleys and disreputable neighborhoods, might I be telling you.

How do you know? Our ability to track fetishes statistically is in its relative infancy; you have absolutely no way of knowing how widespread these things are beyond maybe the sixties or fifties, so you aren't in a position to be saying that at all.

What truth? There is only one truth in this thread and that is that these people are considered freaks by the standards of both today and by the standards of 100 or even 1000 years ago.
Sorry to break it down to you.

Fiat assertions aren't evidence.

Social trends and norms change if society, meaning, the majority wants it to.
And throughout the eons of human history, norms have never been truly in your favor, and as humanity progressed, they became more in your disfavor, as people began to establish certain standards and certain ideals regarding human relationships.

One could say the same of, say, slavery.

See, that's my point: it's demonstrably true that what the norms are sometimes produce terrible, immoral inequality, that gets corrected over time. You're looking at the way things are now, and saying that because of the way norms are now, this clearly represents some move toward the correct position. But you have no way to say that, because we know for a fact that the norms don't only move toward moral positions!

Anything for you darling.
Anything for you and your leathery friends.
I'll also turn a blind eye when you later come to ejaculate on my door and throw crap at my windows, its all for the sake of liberation and equality.
Really, this madness of yours has no end.

Oh, slippery slope fallacy now? Can't tell the difference between public and private spaces, or are you just being dishonest?

I do have the right to expect people to act in accord with public decency rules. You on the other hand break that social conduct.

The public decency rules that allow us to legally be in public like that, or Mehmet-land rules, that don't?

Well, you can on the other hand, request that they silence their phones in a meeting, or in class. Obviously there is a rule of conduct for every place.
But for you, there are no rules, and you just make them up as you go. Obviously the only thing that would keep you in line is punishment by law, as you exploit and misuse liberty to the full.

Public spaces and private spaces again. Context is important, and there's no social cue for that in public.

Well, my analogies are straight, you simply do not understand them.
The point was not what they called you, they can call you a facking manc if you're in England.
My point was that you first let yourself known to me, although I have voiced my opinion on the "scene" before, so you already knew my answer, then told me that you don't care. Yeah.
It is the marjinal mentality.

Bare assertions.

Bigger than what? There is nothing bigger in this. You expect me to see and find a deep philosophy, an instense meaning behind your already bestial and weird looking scene?
Don't make me laugh mate. Like, perverts rather would like to philosophise about their perversion rather than face the fact that they are perverts and live with it or not, I really tend to think that you tend to give too much thought about these humble words of mine than you would let me know.

It's not a matter of philosophy, I was just observing that my position is more detailed than what I espoused in your quote. I just didn't have time to sit here and work through every last detail of it.

Well, alright, but I don't think that there is anything to be misinformed about this scene...Like, it speaks pretty much for itself. The material is out there for everyone to read. Its not like you're so secretive anymore. You walk the streets in those weird costumes of yours. There is not much for me to misconceive.

How about the fact that those weird costumes don't speak to the totality of the scene? Leather is a separate fetish, connected to, but not exclusive to, bdsm.

That's the thing: how deeply into this did you go before you decided what we are? You don't seem particularly interested in getting to know us, to the point that you won't even accept us as human, so I don't have a lot of confidence that you really have a full understanding- or anything close- in order to be making an informed determination.

For example, you call us all leather clad freaks, despite the fact that you're talking to one who has never worn more leather than a watch strap, and who hasn't met a single leather wearer despite being in the community for several years. You've proven yourself happy to cherry pick the most extreme end of the spectrum of our behavior and treat that as the totality of the community, but that's not true; you're discounting the happily married couples who just happen to like wearing collars and spanking, or anyone else who doesn't fit into... well, the cartoon representations of the extreme end of all this, because anything else doesn't confirm beliefs that you already have.

Oh I'm sorry, I'm dehumanizing people? Isn't that part of YOUR scene?
Dehumanization? Humiliation? Domination? Your hypocrisy stinks to the high heavens that Chingiss Khan has to cover his nose right now.

The other things yes, dehumanization, no. See, this speaks to the profound ignorance under which you're operating; no matter what I do to my partner- and she can confirm this if you like- the understanding we both have is that I completely adore her. I worship the ground Luckie walks on, and when the play is over, she knows that.

You, on the other hand, just dismissed a person as human because he's wearing clothes you don't like. So tell me, Mehmet: when's the point at which that'll end, and you'll do even half the things I'd do for Luckie to bring her back up to normal? I mean, that's the only way I could be classified as hypocritical, is if the situations were the same.

But they aren't though, are they?

There is no such society. They are acceptable in the only place where they can be worn. Amongst weirdos and freaks.

Dodge, again. It's interesting how dishonest you're being, here.

So let me ask again: in a hypothetical society where leatherwear is commonplace and bdsm is normal to the point of being blase, would that make guys like the ones in your photos normal, and you the freak?

Or will you insist that they would still be freaks, putting the lie to every claim you've made about social norms?

Well, I think its the other way. I don't define normal in accordance to what I like. I define normal in accordance with society.

Answer my question above, and we'll see about that. More importantly, as I've reminded you multiple times, "what society thinks," is not the same as, and has in many cases been the exact opposite of, "what is right."

You on the other hand want to define normal in accordance with what you like, which is why we're having this discussion.
I inform you about what is normal according to society, and you are informing me that you do not accept these norms, and you want them to be re-defined to suit your tastes. This is all there is to say about this.

I'm not the one using norms to justify my position at all, Mehmet. What I'm saying is that using social norms here to determine the moral nature of a group of people means you aren't using facts to make your judgment at all. As I've said to you multiple times, if you're going to base what you think is right and wrong on social norms, then depending on where you are you're going to be supporting things that are outright immoral; geography does not determine morality.

I hate having to Godwin, but, Nazi Germany, anyone?