Does BDSM Need Its Own Rights Movement?

[Esquilax]

Your position fits into a certain mentality that I come across whenever I deal with subjects relating to things such as these.
"I have the right to do whatever I want and you don't."
In your mind, it is unthinkable how I would even dare to oppose the freak invasion of public streets.

I've never so much as intimated that you don't have the right to oppose us. I just think you're wrong. Can't a guy have a debate anymore without the subtext being that he wants to rob his opponent of the ability to hold to his view? I'm trying to change your mind, not silence you; I don't even know where you got the idea that I was doing otherwise, given that what you quoted literally said that I wanted to change your mind.

Perhaps it is time that the public took the fight to wherever you people hang out in.

Is that an intimation of violence I hear? I think that rather shows the weakness of your position, not to mention which of us is trying to force the other to be silent.

Well, no. Regardless of whatever you do, going on about to inform people about it is the immorality. However I have said nothing about abuse and immorality of your doings. I merely pointed out their abnormal character.
Regardless of whether the deed is normal or abnormal, it is not moral to inform strangers about it just so you can feel proud.

Better tell of the makers of Sex and the City then.

No one is telling lies about you or whatever. What is with this ongoing victim mentality of yours?

This whole thread was started on the basis of the misinformation the public possesses about BDSM. It's there, and it starts with the othering that you're doing right here.

If you really don't care about what is told in the public about you, then why really go on with this crap?

I care in the sense that I dislike being mischaracterized.

Our side began with nothing. We didn't even give a damn, at least until you began publicly flaunting your abnormal antics. So keep your antics where they belong, and we can all live in harmony.If you don't, I'm sure you'll be facing an equal force in the direction you applied force into.
In public, in the forms of men and women who are fed up with this freak fest that is infesting their streets.

So as long as we do our best not to put a toe over the imaginary line you've put in the sand, we're okay? Gee, how fucking magnanimous of you to give us permission to exist, so long as we do it quietly.

Seriously, who the fuck put you in charge of the world? More importantly, the fact that you keep threatening us indirectly speaks volumes.

Well, I find it unsavory because the public does. Its not like I made this all up in my own mind.

And where can I find this mysterious "public" that you keep referring to? Or is it just your confirmation bias, where you pick out those who agree with you, and they're "the people," and anyone who doesn't is "abnormal?"

Seriously this system of yours...

Well, we call such cases "perversion" and the participants, "perverts".

You might.

Well they actually do. I use my right by not visiting those lovely clubs of yours where you get together to do whatever.
Similarly I also reserve the right not to see you in public with your freak clothes on.

You're doing it right with the former, but you do not have a right to the latter. Or, if you think you do, please do point it out to me.

You're breaking the public rule of conduct by moving in with your sexual scene into the public scene.

Is this "public rule," one of those ones that only exists inside your head, and not within the actual law system?

You're forcing everyone to see what you do in your private space, which is termed "private" for a reason.

Forcing? No, you have the right to walk away. We aren't chaining you up, unless you'd like that.

If you were a public association, I'd not have opposed it, like for example, people who march against racism or who hold political rallies or whatever. They are open to public, and appeal to everyone, not just the members of a single scene. You on the other hand see yourselves above the public.

That's why you're against christmas parades too, since they only appeal to christians and not Jews? And you're against book clubs, since they don't appeal to the illiterate? You can't just call something bad because it's a specialist gathering; how would the public know about it enough to like it if they don't know anything about it?

I'm not tainting the well, you are.

Ah yes, "No, you are," the high intellectual watermark in debate.

Does it matter if its your deal or not? Its a part of your scene, is it?

No, it isn't, which speaks to how much you knew about our scene before you decided it's wrong.

You have to take the good with the bad if you associate with a certain group of individuals.
So take it. Here they are, being normal as ever.

Considering that I said it's not my deal, but I wasn't going to call them bad for it, I rather think letting them be was what I was doing from the outset.

And I am going to keep on using them because that's what they are. Weird and abnormal.

Circular reasoning.

There are things that appeal to everyone, which are termed "normal" and things that are slightly out of the norm. You are beyond the term "out of the norm", and go into the extremes of weirdness and abnormality.
It doesn't just apply to you, so don't think that you're special or something.
If I ate only live bugs for diet, and out in the open for everyone to see, people would think that I'm weird, and abnormal. They would not treat me as they would treat a normal person. And similarly, you're not doing something that is considered normal by the public. This is why your practices are confined to a small marjinalized portion of society. But knowingly flaunting your abnormal differences only makes me think that you're crawing for attention.

Is the public always right on every issue, throughout history? Is everything you do rigorously focus tested so that you never go beyond the boundaries of what the average population thinks is okay?

Well, my position on normality has something to do with reality.
Reading comic books is not abnormal. Reading novels isn't abnormal. But reading tentacle hentai is. Similarly, watching action movies is not abnormal. But watching snuff movies is.
You got my point, I hope?

Yes, I get that you take your cues based upon arbitrary lines drawn by people today, under the assumption that we'll never learn anything or develop beyond today to a point where we amend what we think of as normal. If you were living a few decades ago, you'd be using the same logic in defense of segregation. That's my point.

Looking back at my posts, I have not termed anything "moral" or "immoral".

But you do think being abnormal is bad, right? I mean, I believe you called us "degenerate" in your first post, so... what's the deal with the sudden flip?

I used those terms only when they had something to do with overall society.
Vegetarians by choice, given that their numbers are less than average, are people that act out of the norm. However, their position is nowhere in the extremes. On the other hand, frutarianists, who only tend to eat fruits, are in my opinion, abnormal people, they are weird and tend to not fit in with the public wherever they are due to their extreme eating habits limiting their forms of association.
Vegetarians on the other hand are not so.

What is the metric you use for determining these things?

Similarly, whenever you are out there in the public with your alter-egos, and I think it would be correct to apply this word to it, people see you as the extreme, abnormal freaks you are. What exactly do you expect?
The immorality here is that you do this and then expect that they ignore you, you take away their rights to be offended by the sight you force upon them.
You are extremely self-righteous as you step on the most basic public forms of conduct.

Alright, since Mehmet doesn't seem to want to answer this, would anyone else care to show me the law that gives people the right not to be offended? Anyone at all?

Really, I'm sure that people like you existed in the antiquity, but as I also previously mentioned, they were most probably limited to certain cults and other assorted fraternities with religious undertones.

Actually, given the traditionally religious "women submit to your husbands" style of marriage, one could argue that dominant/submissive sexual relationships were the norm for quite a while in the past.

Given their extreme nature, I do not expect them to have ever found widespread following in any society on earth.

You seem to be after some weird "Planet of the Hats," style civilization, where that's all they do. Given that reality operates in shades of grey, I think you'd more likely find that people incorporate bdsm practices into their sex lives without technically using that label. Hell, even spanking is a mild form of the stuff.

If calling reality "assertion" will make you feel better about yourself, go ahead.

Just calling it reality doesn't make it so: another assertion doesn't clear your first set of assertions.

I don't think so. IF I and a few people today were to advocate slavery, I'm sure we'd be under a lot of pressure. IF we were to stage a protest praising slavery, we'd be at best booed, and worst, lynched.
Just so you know.

But if you're basing your entire perspective on what's normal and abnormal based on social opinions, you have to accept that at several times in the past this would lead you to endorse immoral positions, because they were publicly accepted.

Well, I don't think that you and your kind experience any kind of inequality anywhere, other than that you cannot talk a normal person into participating in whatever weird and abnormal stuff that gives you pleasure.

Which is beside the point, because I'm addressing how flawed the method by which you're determining these things is.

Well, it is you who cannot tell the difference between public and private space, as evidenced by your freak shows out on the streets.
That was the point of the discussion.

I wasn't aware the streets, aka "being out in public," counted as a private space.

Well, it rather depends on the laws of the countries where public displays of sexuality and sexually explicit material is legal or illegal, but in almost every country, public displays of sex and sexually explicit material(the stuff you people are wearing) are considered to be immoral and against public decency.

Never where those demonstrations actually take place, and generally speaking, clothing that covers is fine, regardless of the sexual connotation you wish to put on it. I can go outside wearing my kinky collar, for example; the fact that it's a sexual device doesn't preclude it from being worn in public.

I'd really like to see you going out on the streets with your freak suit on and trying to interact with say, a kid. There you will experience the full force of the said public decency rules, and not in Mehmet land, but in your own country.

Why would we do that? That really would be crossing a boundary. Simply existing in a shared space is not.

That was my point. Public and private space. Your freak shows belong to your private space.

Oh, and when did you become the arbiter of what other people are allowed to do?

I don't know what details are hidden in your position other than "fuck you I do whatever I want" and "I don't care about the public".

Strawmen: the sign of who, exactly, has a cogent position, and who doesn't. If the best you can do is warping and deliberately simplifying my position, then... well, that's just sad, isn't it?

Well, it really matters little to me my friend. If you consider yourself a part of the scene, you take the good with the bad, and as it seems that those weird costumes are part of your scene, and so is the scat and watersports, along with the lot of the other weird and extreme stuff that I have read on the topic.

I didn't once say I was against leatherwear, did I?

Nor scat or watersports, really. They aren't my fetish, I would never do that, but I don't begrudge those who want to. I also don't lump them in with my deal either, in the same way you're connected with your family without being responsible for all their actions. There are different genres under the big "fetish" umbrella.

Really, I have read into the whole BDSM thing and watched a couple of videos even before we had this discussion.
Besides, I do accept you as humans, its just that you do not wish to be seen by others as normal people, you wish to be seen as the abnormal freaks you are, having abnormal kinks and freakish fetishes.
You describe yourself with these kinks and fetishes, they form the basis of your identity as a "sexual minority". So when you appear before me as part of that scene, why would you expect me to treat you any different?
Same goes for me and anyone that defines itself as a member of a group, movement or scene.
Same goes for me. I am not being targeted by my enemies simply because they don't like me, I'm targeted because I'm a member of a group of individuals that have a politcal stance that is in opposition to theirs. I have accepted this while joining the group, and I deal with the consequences in my own way, without whining to others about it.

It's acceptance we want, not special treatment. You don't gotta ignore that the kinks are there, just recognize that we aren't bad people for having them.

Well, I call you leather clad freaks because this is how you represent yourself. I don't think that I can be any more clearer about this. It is the most visible part of your scene so I think it is only natural for me to define you with whatever you make yourself known.
Better yet, if you had not make yourself known to others, we wouldn't even bother with you!
You deem yourself part of that scene. You either accept the leather wearers, or you don't count yourself in the fucking scene.

Of course I accept the leather wearers, I've never said otherwise. What I'm saying is that we're not one huge monolithic bloc that always does the same things; we are more than just the leather folk. Turning us into one generic group denies the fact that we're a collection of people with diverse interests, that aren't defined by the parts that happen to stick in your mind the most.

Well, there is the abnormality. Bi-polar relationship.

Or we're play acting together for enjoyment, and when it's over I go back to the loving partner. Do you remember what it's like to have an imagination, Mehmet?

Incidentally, I'm being extremely charitable by passing that up as a poor choice of words on your part. The next disparaging comment you make about me and Luckie won't go over so well. I'd thank you not to make any more.

Well, I didn't dismiss them as a human, they dismissed themselves when wearing those clothes. I don't need to treat others as anything else than how they treat themselves.

They give permission to others to treat them poorly. They haven't extended that to you, so now look who's breaking public niceties.

In a hypothetical society in which everyone wore that dress, yes, obviously I'd be in the same position that I advocate here. Public forms of conduct and public decency(in which scenario you produced, it is defined by wearing BDSM suits) come before anything else. I'd not go out in the public, publicly advocating something that people might find unsavory and indecent. I do not view myself above the public under any circumstances. You cannot get me to deny my own position with a reverse scenario, and one that is so hilarious such as this.

Wow, that's just really bizarre, then.

The public is a collective consciousness, it is the collective gestalt that is formed by the majority of the people that are in agreement over certain topics that are vital to its workings, and fringe groups do not have the power nor the right to change them at their whims and fancies.
This would cause nothing more than collapse and chaos. Society must have a base set of values and norms for it to function properly.

But you must recognize that those opinions aren't necessarily based upon a factual case, and that in fact they've been responsible for horrible mishandlings of justice in the past, yes? Why give them as much power as you have?

Besides, fringe groups do have the right to attempt to change things: without that, we wouldn't have the civil rights movement, for one. I'm not putting my thing on the same level of importance as that, but you must admit that at one time, the former was a fringe group too, and your argument applies equally well to it as the latter.

Society is the people, and the will of the people is realized whether you think it is right or wrong.

And that's how we had decades of segregation and lynching. Appeals to tradition or opinion aren't going to play, here.

If you think that you are in a position to change things(though with your limited vision that is completely irreleavant to real social issues, and more concerned with individual issues, I think its rather unlikely) please do so.
Idealists and visionaries often times have done so, but by winning the hearts and minds of the public.

What does popularity have to do with what's right?

Well you are, since you vehemently denied that your position in relation to society was abnormal throughout the discussion which must mean that you have another view of what is normal and what is not.

I'm saying what's actually normal, and what society portrays as normal, are two different things. One only has to look at Kinsey's research, as opposed to the time it was performed in, to see that.

And given the fact that your norms are not based on what society thinks, but rather on what would suit your purposes, I'd say that you're doing exactly what I said in the post you quoted in response.

The mutability of norms makes them irrelevant to this conversation.

And well, I am using facts, the fact is that the public does not approve of public displays of sexual nature. The reason why the public does not approve of this is due to the immoral nature of these displays. You're publicizing whatever you do in your private moments to people that might not wish to see them. Is that so hard to understand?

Yeah, it kind of is, because you're opening yourself up to a position that's not based on facts at all, and is liable to change completely based on something as innocuous as location.

Besides, I don't think that the opinion on public display of sexuality is anything but local.
It is in stark contrast with values that actually determine the workings of society.
Privacy, for example, meaning, not fit for the eyes of the public.

Go to certain places in Amsterdam and say that.

Well, Nazi Germany, in my opinion, had a rather clean, and well working society, based on idealism, tradition and culture. However, it maintained this by the use of force. I would like people to see the advantages of such a society themselves, and regulate themselves accordingly. Meaning, laws would be there to enforce order, while social order would be conserved by strong morals and public vigilance rather than government involvement. The State would only be concerned with indoctrinating the newer generations with the set of moral and cultural values in schools to create clean and well-adjusted members of society.
That's all I have to say about this.

That's a little bit terrifying.