Does BDSM Need Its Own Rights Movement?

[Esquilax]

Who is silencing you? Me? Who? This isn't a free speech thing, man, this is a form of unsavory exhibitionism. If there is anything such as decency in you, you'd tell these people to keep whatever they are doing behind their own walls. They won't bother me, I won't bother them.

Why they so vehemently try to publicize their sex life in front of everyone is really baffling, whereas their exhibitonism does in fact reflect heavily on whatever "stereotypes" me and a grand portion of society might be enforcing, I'm sorry but it is not me who is to blame.

Look at this and tell me that I'm just being an asshole by not wanting these freaks to roam the streets that the kids and elderly walk.

Ahh, so it's not about harm at all: it's about you thinking what I do is icky. I'm sorry, but "I don't like it, therefore it's abnormal" is not an argument.

And I'm not sorry, actually.

Well, there is no real fantasy that these guys already don't go flaunting around.
In truth, you can only know one's sex life as much as he or she is willing to tell you, and well, these people, the "BDSM community" or whatever they are called perfectly reflect themselves as the freaks they are.
They are in for the shock value, they want people to get shocked and sickened by them, it makes them feel "important", like that they actually matter.

Good to see you've decided on our motivations without consulting us at all, that really tells us what you're bringing to the conversation, here.

And again, I must stress: not being on the Mehmet-approved list of things that exist doesn't mean we're bad. It means you're opinionated.

There is a standard for sexual norm in every society. Moreover, such norms are not too different from eachother in most countries. The most obvious sexual norm reflects on the reproductive nature of sex.
I didn't define these, nature did.

Well shit, if you want to go down that road, then nature also defined my dominant streak, didn't it? That shit didn't get injected in me from elsewhere, it's been with me my entire sexual life.

Interestingly, you also make recourse to society: are you then saying that the moment we become the majority, our preferences become normal?

Well, I did not mention God even once throughout our discussion. I think norms are defined by a variety of parameters. And as I said, I do not define normal, I simply conform to it(by default).
You can either choose to conform, or choose not to conform. If you choose not to, that is your problem not mine. Norms do not change at the whims and fancies of fringe groups such as these.

Ah, but that's the thing: so far you've failed to define normal, nor the mechanism by which it is determined and propagated in such a way as to exclude my peeps. The only thing we've managed to determine is that you don't like what I do; that's fine, but everything you do isn't normal just because you do it. Your opinions aren't social trends.

No matter how much you talk, these people will still be regarded as freaks as long as they flaunt their abnormal antics in front of normal society.
And this is how it should be.

You hear that, guys? Mehmet doesn't like it, so therefore it's wrong!

Do you understand how little your opinion means to me, to others like me, and to the world at large?

I truly don't know anything about your bedroom habits which is obviously not my concern, neither did I ask you about it, did I?
Neither did the many people that are subjected to the "X pride" movement propaganda campaigns.
But once you publicize something like they do, you deal with the consequences. Like the school slut, going around whoring, with her exploits being the subject of talk and stories, and then whining and complaining about how she is misunderstood and how people have no right to talk about her that way.

But if the stories are lies, surely you agree that they serve no purpose worth propagating?

No matter what one might have "done," malicious lies are malicious lies, and so far it just seems like you're perfectly willing to smear anyone you don't approve of. That's not the action of an upstanding, moral person; that's the action of a bully.

But I forgot, such people do not want any sort of responsibility in life! For them, life is a party, free from every burden, free from every norm, free from every form of morality, free from society, free from the past and the future.
As I said before, pathetic. Waste of good oxygen they are. If they were born as mice, they'd at least have a place in the world.

Ah, that's your mistake: you've mixed up bdsm practitioners with cartoon characters. That guy in the ponyplay outfit you posted above? Once he's out of the suit, he has a name, and a job, and responsibilities, maybe even a family. What he does on his off time doesn't change that. He's... you know, a person.

All you're doing is demonstrating how absolutely ignorant you are on this subject, and how you've mistaken clucking moral outrage for having a cogent point.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Ahh, so it's not about harm at all: it's about you thinking what I do is icky. I'm sorry, but "I don't like it, therefore it's abnormal" is not an argument.

And I'm not sorry, actually.

I don't understand why you actually try to make this about me and you.
Its not about me, its not about you.

Good to see you've decided on our motivations without consulting us at all, that really tells us what you're bringing to the conversation, here.

And again, I must stress: not being on the Mehmet-approved list of things that exist doesn't mean we're bad. It means you're opinionated.

Well, I don't think that you people can come up with any reasonable reasons for this freaky pride parades and propaganda other than what I have professed to.
If you disagree please share these noble motives and we all can feel a bit more enlightened.

Well shit, if you want to go down that road, then nature also defined my dominant streak, didn't it? That shit didn't get injected in me from elsewhere, it's been with me my entire sexual life.

Interestingly, you also make recourse to society: are you then saying that the moment we become the majority, our preferences become normal? Dodgy

No, nature did not define your dominant streak or whatever that is.
That'd probably fit in the area of psychology. Refer to the Germanosphere psychologists for more information.

And yes, if your weird practices were normal, they would have defined normal throughout the ages. Obviously, they were probably confined to a few fringe groups, and were always associated with secretive, cultish-like practices.

Ah, but that's the thing: so far you've failed to define normal, nor the mechanism by which it is determined and propagated in such a way as to exclude my peeps. The only thing we've managed to determine is that you don't like what I do; that's fine, but everything you do isn't normal just because you do it. Your opinions aren't social trends.

Its a general problem with sexual deviants that they fail to realize that there always was a uniform norm for sexuality. And as I told you, my opinions on what is normal are heavily influenced by social trends and norms, unlike yours. Your opinions are influenced by those sexual practices of yours. And you want your opinions on what you regard as normal to influence social trends.

You hear that, guys? Mehmet doesn't like it, so therefore it's wrong!

Do you understand how little your opinion means to me, to others like me, and to the world at large?

Such exhibitionism, which I think would be the correct term, is not something I can condone. I do think it is wrong that those freaks are able to roam the streets with their freakish clothes on. It really is a sight that I find rather ugly. It is a sight that I'd not want a child or an elderly person to see, really.
And I don't think that I'm alone in this. There are people out there that do not wish to be informed about the sex life of others in the form of shameless exhibitionism.

And I already know that you do not value my, or anyone else's opinion for that matter. If I did not know about your practices, I wouldn't have voiced my opinion in the first place. But you saw it fit to let me know, and then, tell me that you don't care. You really are *weird*.
Like if I asked someone what they thought about my favorite football team, and when they tell me they suck, I tell them that I don't care about what they think and how little their opinion matters to fans like me.

Wow. Just wow.

But if the stories are lies, surely you agree that they serve no purpose worth propagating? Thinking

No matter what one might have "done," malicious lies are malicious lies, and so far it just seems like you're perfectly willing to smear anyone you don't approve of. That's not the action of an upstanding, moral person; that's the action of a bully.

Did I open an old wound or something? What is this about "propagating lies behind my back" thing? No one is lying behind your back, mate.

I made this analogy to explain to you that actions beget reactions, and complaining about it simply shows nothing more than you do care about what others think of you.
I didn't know that you'd get so emotional about it, geez.

Ah, that's your mistake: you've mixed up bdsm practitioners with cartoon characters.

Well, the pictures I've provided are live photos from a "leather pride" parade.

That guy in the ponyplay outfit you posted above? Once he's out of the suit, he has a name, and a job, and responsibilities, maybe even a family.

Really, whatever. He's not there as a working family man, he's there as the freak in the leather suit drawing a chariot. That's what he is to me.

What he does on his off time doesn't change that. He's... you know, a person.

Well, if he's a freak in his off time, he should be a freak in his private space.
Nobody asked him to take his freakish off time habits onto the street.
And if he does, I'm not going to treat him as anything but the freak he is, for he obviously wishes to be identified as one, else he'd have come there with his normal clothes on.

All you're doing is demonstrating how absolutely ignorant you are on this subject, and how you've mistaken clucking moral outrage for having a cogent point.

Really, the more I read about the subject, the more I'm convinced that this scene is full with weirdos.

Next, yiffy Furry pride parades, with MLP faggots taking the rear with their MLP shirts waving their cutie marks around.
It doesn't get more normal than that.

[Esquilax]

I don't understand why you actually try to make this about me and you.
Its not about me, its not about you.

I am, however, talking to you about it.

Well, I don't think that you people can come up with any reasonable reasons for this freaky pride parades and propaganda other than what I have professed to.
If you disagree please share these noble motives and we all can feel a bit more enlightened.

Well gosh, how about that very human need to interact with people who share your interests? How about that very reasonable desire, in people who get the short shrift from others, to get together and show that we aren't ashamed of what we are, no matter how we're portrayed elsewhere? Pride, camaraderie, even just talking shop? Perhaps, just maybe, displaying that this unthinking "sex are immoral and private" attitude is mistaken?

To be clear, we get portrayed as weirdoes, immoral, abusers... is it that far fetched that we'd want to correct the record? Not everything has to be about offending people, merely because that offense is an end product.

No, nature did not define your dominant streak or whatever that is.
That'd probably fit in the area of psychology. Refer to the Germanosphere psychologists for more information.

I don't take fiat assertions to be evidence.

And yes, if your weird practices were normal, they would have defined normal throughout the ages. Obviously, they were probably confined to a few fringe groups, and were always associated with secretive, cultish-like practices.

And are all things with small followings bad? Because, you know, vegetarianism, playing pool and a whole host of other things are relatively small, in terms of practitioners. Are they all bad and weird and abnormal too?

Or is there another set of metrics that have nothing to do with the number of people performing an act, that you're using? Perhaps they're derived from your opinions about what's good and bad, and not on sociology?

Its a general problem with sexual deviants that they fail to realize that there always was a uniform norm for sexuality. And as I told you, my opinions on what is normal are heavily influenced by social trends and norms, unlike yours. Your opinions are influenced by those sexual practices of yours. And you want your opinions on what you regard as normal to influence social trends.

Who the fuck cares what the greatest number of people think? They can be wrong: if you were born a hundred years ago and applied that logic, you'd be okay with slavery. Go back further, and your idea of sexuality would involve murdering non-virgins. Social trends and norms have no impact on the truth, and what I think is really going on is you're using that as a cover for the fact that you really do just find it icky.

Such exhibitionism, which I think would be the correct term, is not something I can condone. I do think it is wrong that those freaks are able to roam the streets with their freakish clothes on. It really is a sight that I find rather ugly. It is a sight that I'd not want a child or an elderly person to see, really.

So then move your children somewhere else, and your elderly too. It's not like these demonstrations happen every day, and more importantly, we aren't responsible for keeping you from being offended. Such arrogance! Better not let people kiss or hold hands in public, such impropriety might offend someone. Best not let people of different races commingle, there are probably some older people who're against mixed relationships.

You don't have a right to control public spaces so that you don't get offended. Take responsibility for yourself.

And I don't think that I'm alone in this. There are people out there that do not wish to be informed about the sex life of others in the form of shameless exhibitionism.

Then I guess they don't have to stand there and watch. I don't want to hear people's cell phone calls when I'm out and about, but I don't demand everyone hang up immediately, either. What makes you so special?

And I already know that you do not value my, or anyone else's opinion for that matter. If I did not know about your practices, I wouldn't have voiced my opinion in the first place. But you saw it fit to let me know, and then, tell me that you don't care. You really are *weird*.
Like if I asked someone what they thought about my favorite football team, and when they tell me they suck, I tell them that I don't care about what they think and how little their opinion matters to fans like me.

Wow. Just wow.

No, it's like if you asked my opinion of a football team, and I called you a deviant, immoral weirdo for liking them. Keep your analogies straight.

Would you be offended, if I insulted you based on a single datapoint like that?

Did I open an old wound or something? What is this about "propagating lies behind my back" thing? No one is lying behind your back, mate.

You're saying we're deviants. We're not, ergo, lies. It's bigger than that, obviously, but I really shouldn't have to explain to you how my position is that your views don't reflect reality, and you've failed to show otherwise.

I made this analogy to explain to you that actions beget reactions, and complaining about it simply shows nothing more than you do care about what others think of you.
I didn't know that you'd get so emotional about it, geez.

Who's emotional? I'm just not copping your bullshit, is all.

Besides, those reactions that actions beget? People sometimes make ill informed ones, or immoral ones. A short look back at history should tell you how good the reactions made against the actions of any given Other are.

Well, the pictures I've provided are live photos from a "leather pride" parade.

Yeah, I'm talking about all the responsibility and free rides crap.

Really, whatever. He's not there as a working family man, he's there as the freak in the leather suit drawing a chariot. That's what he is to me.

Good to see you dehumanizing people so easily: definitely hasn't been any morally incorrect actions that begin with that.

Well, if he's a freak in his off time, he should be a freak in his private space.
Nobody asked him to take his freakish off time habits onto the street.
And if he does, I'm not going to treat him as anything but the freak he is, for he obviously wishes to be identified as one, else he'd have come there with his normal clothes on.

And your position is that in a society where those clothes are acceptable, he'd be normal and you'd be the freak. Certainly shows how much of your position is based on personal opinion and not facts.

Other than that, I'm not going to take your bait.

Really, the more I read about the subject, the more I'm convinced that this scene is full with weirdos.

Next, yiffy Furry pride parades, with MLP faggots taking the rear with their MLP shirts waving their cutie marks around.
It doesn't get more normal than that.

You've mistaken "what you like" for "what is normal." The world isn't as two dimensional as you want to portray it. That is all.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I am, however, talking to you about it.

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.

Well gosh, how about that very human need to interact with people who share your interests? How about that very reasonable desire, in people who get the short shrift from others, to get together and show that we aren't ashamed of what we are, no matter how we're portrayed elsewhere? Pride, camaraderie, even just talking shop? Perhaps, just maybe, displaying that this unthinking "sex are immoral and private" attitude is mistaken?

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.

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.

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.

To be clear, we get portrayed as weirdoes, immoral, abusers... is it that far fetched that we'd want to correct the record? Not everything has to be about offending people, merely because that offense is an end product.

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.

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.

I don't take fiat assertions to be evidence.

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

And are all things with small followings bad? Because, you know, vegetarianism, playing pool and a whole host of other things are relatively small, in terms of practitioners. Are they all bad and weird and abnormal too?

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.
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.

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.

Or is there another set of metrics that have nothing to do with the number of people performing an act, that you're using? Perhaps they're derived from your opinions about what's good and bad, and not on sociology?

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.

Who the fuck cares what the greatest number of people think? They can be wrong: if you were born a hundred years ago and applied that logic, you'd be okay with slavery. Go back further, and your idea of sexuality would involve murdering non-virgins. Social trends and norms have no impact on the truth, and what I think is really going on is you're using that as a cover for the fact that you really do just find it icky.

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.

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.

So then move your children somewhere else, and your elderly too. It's not like these demonstrations happen every day, and more importantly, we aren't responsible for keeping you from being offended. Such arrogance! Better not let people kiss or hold hands in public, such impropriety might offend someone. Best not let people of different races commingle, there are probably some older people who're against mixed relationships. Rolleyes

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.

You don't have a right to control public spaces so that you don't get offended. Take responsibility for yourself.

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.

Then I guess they don't have to stand there and watch. I don't want to hear people's cell phone calls when I'm out and about, but I don't demand everyone hang up immediately, either. What makes you so special?

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.

No, it's like if you asked my opinion of a football team, and I called you a deviant, immoral weirdo for liking them. Keep your analogies straight.

Would you be offended, if I insulted you based on a single datapoint like that?

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.

You're saying we're deviants. We're not, ergo, lies. It's bigger than that, obviously, but I really shouldn't have to explain to you how my position is that your views don't reflect reality, and you've failed to show otherwise.

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.

Who's emotional? I'm just not copping your bullshit, is all.

Besides, those reactions that actions beget? People sometimes make ill informed ones, or immoral ones. A short look back at history should tell you how good the reactions made against the actions of any given Other are.

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.

Good to see you dehumanizing people so easily: definitely hasn't been any morally incorrect actions that begin with that. Rolleyes

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.

And your position is that in a society where those clothes are acceptable, he'd be normal and you'd be the freak. Certainly shows how much of your position is based on personal opinion and not facts.

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

You've mistaken "what you like" for "what is normal." The world isn't as two dimensional as you want to portray it. That is all.

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.
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.

[là bạn điên]

Unless you believe sex is only about procreation then ,frankly, all things done by freely consenting capable adults is acceptable as anything else.

Any clothing that does NOT break laws -ie by showing the genitalia is as legitimate as any other.

[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?

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

No one is telling lies about you or whatever. What is with this ongoing victim mentality of yours?
If you really don't care about what is told in the public about you, then why really go on with this crap?
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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 breaking the public rule of conduct by moving in with your sexual scene into the public scene.
You're forcing everyone to see what you do in your private space, which is termed "private" for a reason.
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.

Equivocation, guilt by association, tainting the well. Rolleyes

I'm not tainting the well, you are.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Fiat assertions aren't evidence.

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

One could say the same of, say, slavery. Dodgy

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.
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.

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

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know Luckie personally, and I don't know why you chose to share the identity of your partner with me. I am not going to ask you or her any personal questions about whatever that goes on between you, or whatever personal problems you or she has.
I'm concerned with the public and the public alone.

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?

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.
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.

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."

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

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.

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.
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.

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?
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.

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

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.

[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.