nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it acceptable to wear BDSM attire in public?

GarIT

After a recent discussion on the LGBT forum which resulted in me being banned I was told it was discrimination to tell a man that it is wrong for them to walk around Dublin wearing nothing but a leather g-string or other BDSM attire.

The claim which I disagree with is that somebody can wear any attire in public they wish and to say they shouldn't be allowed is discrimination.

Personally I believe that there are some things that are just not acceptable to wear in public, and to me chains and leather which barely covers your genitals is included in that.

The mod has requested that if the matter is to be discussed in this forum. I know the post is a bit weird but a mod said to post it here so if there are any problems you can talk to them about it I suppose.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GarIT

28064212 wrote: »

Whether someone would be offended wouldn't even cross my mind. It wouldn't be low on my list of priorities, it wouldn't even be on the list

How short are these shorts? At what length does a pair of shorts start to offend someone?

If you want to prevent children from indecent exposure, then there should be a law against it. It has nothing to do with anyone being offended.

You aren't seeing what I have asked though, if you have a choice between offending or not any it wont change anything, hopefully you would choose to not offend people. If you had to say a statement, "I want to offend people" or "I don't want to offend people", you should choose that you don't.

When it gets close to underwear I think it starts offending people. I suppose they should be long enough that if you're wearing nothing underneath nothing should hang out. It's just a theory it's not a proposal for new legislation or anything.

Yes there should be a law against it, maybe offended isn't the best word to use but I don't really know what is.

GarIT

bumper234 wrote: »

So you think we should go down the road of Saudi Arabia where we have morality police telling women to cover up? Should there be a curfew on what time it is acceptable? Kids see worse on tv every day maybe you should start your morality campaign there.

It has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. It's done as local as Spain.

You are making big jumps and conclusions out of nothing here. You described these women as wearing nothing more than underwear, and then you're equating asking them to put some clothes on to making them hide themselves completely except for their eyes.

I highly doubt children see worse than adult women in their underwear daily on children's TV, if they did I'd watch a hell of a lot of children's TV.

28064212

GarIT wrote: »

You aren't seeing what I have asked though, if you have a choice between offending or not any it wont change anything, hopefully you would choose to not offend people. If you had to say a statement, "I want to offend people" or "I don't want to offend people", you should choose that you don't.

You're not seeing how I answered your question. Again, it wouldn't come into the equation at all. Not even the tiniest, tiniest bit. There is no possible situation where "what offends someone" can affect a decision I make. If it came that far down to it in a hypothetical, I'd be as likely to flip a coin as try to work out whether someone will be offended.

And that's before you get to the point that I have no idea whether my choice will offend people. Hell, my choice could offend some people one way, and others in the other direction. I have zero control over what someone is offended by.

GarIT wrote: »

When it gets close to underwear I think it starts offending people. I suppose they should be long enough that if you're wearing nothing underneath nothing should hang out. It's just a theory it's not a proposal for new legislation or anything.

Yes there should be a law against it, maybe offended isn't the best word to use but I don't really know what is.

We already have laws against indecent exposure. Do you think these laws should be tightened up? How short should shorts be allowed to be? How much cleavage is allowed? How tight is spandex allowed to be?

GarIT

28064212 wrote: »

You're not seeing how I answered your question. Again, it wouldn't come into the equation at all. Not even the tiniest, tiniest bit. There is no possible situation where "what offends someone" can affect a decision I make. If it came that far down to it in a hypothetical, I'd be as likely to flip a coin as try to work out whether someone will be offended.

And that's before you get to the point that I have no idea whether my choice will offend people. Hell, my choice could offend some people one way, and others in the other direction. I have zero control over what someone is offended by.

We already have laws against indecent exposure. Do you think these laws should be tightened up? How short should shorts be allowed to be? How much cleavage is allowed? How tight is spandex allowed to be?

I tried to explain a hypothetical situation to try to help others see my viewpoint, if you are not willing to attempt to understanding other people's reasoning there is not much point discussing things with you. There were rules set, if you stay within the rules the situation explains itself, if you insisting on trying to change my hypothetical situation to be a real world situation for you it wont work.

Well with me if I could choose between offending and not and nothing would be different I'd choose not to offend them, I rather not offend people where possible.

I wasn't aware of anything directly related to children, I think there possibly should be something protecting children from indecent nudity.

On the shorts idea I would support the American stance of if you can see an outline of the genitals it is the same as nudity. Cleavage I have no idea, it's not a big issue really, as much as you want maybe? I don't know how other people are I don't see boobs as genitals. Be decent wear a bra but after that I don't know really. I'm not suggesting that I set all these quantities, I think it should be a community decision where everybody comes to a compromise to have the event family friendly and a lot less trashy.

28064212

GarIT wrote: »

I tried to explain a hypothetical situation to try to help others see my viewpoint, if you are not willing to attempt to understanding other people's reasoning there is not much point discussing things with you. There were rules set, if you stay within the rules the situation explains itself, if you insisting on trying to change my hypothetical situation to be a real world situation for you it wont work.

Well with me if I could choose between offending and not and nothing would be different I'd choose not to offend them, I rather not offend people where possible.

I also answered the (absurd) hypothetical: I'd as happily flip a coin as attempt to figure out whether someone may or may not be offended

GarIT wrote: »

On the shorts idea I would support the American stance of if you can see an outline of the genitals it is the same as nudity. Cleavage I have no idea, it's not a big issue really, as much as you want maybe? I don't know how other people are I don't see boobs as genitals. Be decent wear a bra but after that I don't know really

And straight away we're into personal opinions. You think cleavage isn't a big issue. Lots of other people would be offended by anything from a suggestion that she has breasts to a v-neck that reaches the belly-button and everything in-between.

GarIT wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that I set all these quantities, I think it should be a community decision where everybody comes to a compromise to have the event family friendly and a lot less trashy.

We, as a society, have reached a community decision. That's why we have indecency laws. There is no special laws set aside for Pride. Anything that's illegal at Pride is illegal at 2am on Saturday night and 2pm on Sunday afternoon

GarIT

28064212 wrote: »

I also answered the (absurd) hypothetical: I'd as happily flip a coin as attempt to figure out whether someone may or may not be offended

And straight away we're into personal opinions. You think cleavage isn't a big issue. Lots of other people would be offended by anything from a suggestion that she has breasts to a v-neck that reaches the belly-button and everything in-between.

We, as a society, have reached a community decision. That's why we have indecency laws. There is no special laws set aside for Pride. Anything that's illegal at Pride is illegal at 2am on Saturday night and 2pm on Sunday afternoon

Why would you flip a coin when you already know if they will be offended or not because it is your choice if you want to offend them, I just give up on that.

I have given you my opinion and my attempt at a neutral opinion, I have accepted I can't answer for the rest of the population, what more do you want?

The boundaries of our indecency laws are being pushed to the extreme by some people at the pride parade and even though we have indecency laws they aren't stong enough to make the parade family friendly, that's why I would suggest coming up with a dress code and possibly code of conduct to make the event family friendly.

J_E

GarIT wrote: »

I don't think the BDSM community in Ireland has to hide more than anywhere else, I think they are fairly open. In any country in the world teachers and people certain professions have to keep it quiet, it's not unique to Ireland, young people in Ireland are very accepting of people participating in BDSM.

As someone who is on a committee for a related event (and consequently knows half of the gay fetish population in Ireland now!), I can tell you that someone has a good reason to hide that aspect of themselves, especially if they aren't straight. Even posting this I feel quite nervous in case someone sees and makes a deduction about my person. A lot of people would be nervous going back out on the street afterwards in case they were 'recognised' or such. There are people there who are fairly public about themselves but many prefer to keep it as a discreet aspect of their life, even if they are 100% open to people otherwise. I don't think it's as open or understood as you claim it is. Proof of this even was shown by how you described that costume as BDSM - it's hardly anything of the sort. It only alludes to fetish fashion but you'd never see it worn at any such night or real event like that. The closest thing I've seen to any sort of fetish section of Pride are the Bears and they're very well behaved on the day.

I think you're getting confused between BDSM and fetish now, although they are intertwining. That's for another thread and possibly a personal discussion instead.

Morag

GarIT wrote: »

The boundaries of our indecency laws are being pushed to the extreme by some people at the pride parade and even though we have indecency laws they aren't stong enough to make the parade family friendly, that's why I would suggest coming up with a dress code and possibly code of conduct to make the event family friendly.

Then email the organizers about it and with your suggestions.

GarIT

Morag wrote: »

Then email the organizers about it and with your suggestions.

It's a bit late now and the chances are they wont listen.

J_E

GarIT wrote: »

It's a bit late now and the chances are they wont listen.

Nobody ever got anything done with a passive attitude. If it does bother you and you present a cohesive and reasonable argument, I guarantee you it will be discussed on a serious level. I personally don't think Pride has dropped to a level where people need to be concerned (I personally think the main concern is supply of alcohol) but present it to them and see what happens.

robp

Cydoniac wrote: »

I can tell you that someone has a good reason to hide that aspect of themselves, especially if they aren't straight. Even posting this I feel quite nervous in case someone sees and makes a deduction about my person.

And rightly so. It is a completely unacceptable activity.

GarIT

robp wrote: »

And rightly so. It is a completely unacceptable activity.

What makes you think it is unacceptable?

robp

GarIT wrote: »

What makes you think it is unacceptable?

It is quasi deviant.

SeantheMan

The guy in the pic that OP refers too has more on that what you'd find someone at the beach wearing.
People should be allowed to wear whatever they like, as long as their genitals aren't exposed.

I wouldn't wear it myself, and would probably do a double take, but that's only because I'm not used to seeing it, I've nothing against it.

JuliusCaesar

To be honest I don't understand the anti-nudity sentiment. Nudity by itself isn't actually sexual; even seeing the male genitals in a state of arousal isn't actually sexual. Of course if the male in question then starts masturbating, that is sexual.

A bit more tolerance of nudity as normal would go a long way to bringing about more healthy attitudes to sexuality. As a friend of mine keeps saying, we are all naked under our clothes.

As for the picture referred to - why not? Gay Pride has always been a kind of Mardi Gras. It allows men, who generally are not allowed express sensuality or sexuality in clothing in the same way as women do, a bit of lattitude to express themselves - to 'dress up'.

robp

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

To be honest I don't understand the anti-nudity sentiment. Nudity by itself isn't actually sexual; even seeing the male genitals in a state of arousal isn't actually sexual. Of course if the male in question then starts masturbating, that is sexual.

As for the picture referred to - why not? Gay Pride has always been a kind of Mardi Gras. It allows men, who generally are not allowed express sensuality or sexuality in clothing in the same way as women do, a bit of lattitude to express themselves - to 'dress up'.

It is not about nudity. The presentation in the picture and in the 2014 GLBT parade is unquestionably highly sexualised. It is very clearly objectifying people as sexual objects, and to the extent it far exceeds anything I have ever seen in mainstream culture. This applies both to men and women attending.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

A bit more tolerance of nudity as normal would go a long way to bringing about more healthy attitudes to sexuality.

You talk about what is healthy but that culture is actually awful for the mental health of gays.

The Corinthian

SeantheMan wrote: »

The guy in the pic that OP refers too has more on that what you'd find someone at the beach wearing.

Indeed. I think people are getting sidetracked by the question of nudity. As was pointed out nudity in itself is not sexual.

However, what is being discussed is designed to be sexual. The whole point of fetish attire is sexualization - what buttons do people think such clothes are supposed to push?

Of course, one can say the same of miniskirts, or low cut blouses or numerous other kinds of socially acceptable clothing.

These were unacceptable too, once upon a time. But with increased popularity we've become desensitized to them. The same will happen to you if you go to a nudist resort; you're crossing your legs for the first few days and eventually acclimatize yourself. In mainland Europe there are adverts, during childrens' programmes, with topless women all the time - all happily ignored by everyone. Meanwhile the moment a woman has a bare ankle showing on a street in North Africa, there's practically a riot.

Thing is, should we be desensitized to sexual cues that would otherwise arouse us? This is a question that's been asked more and more as we have become more and more desensitized by available pornography, leading to more and more extreme forms being demanded. Is freedom of expression worth this? Or, conversely, is it healthy to repress sexuality - especially as it is culturally largely an outdated Abrahamic construct in the West?

I'm not coming down on either side of the fence on this one.

Torakx

I suppose the main issue people are worried about, is the results this can have on children.
I know from my own experience, having been brought up in a very strict religion, that the result of obsessing about gays and sex etc is that the children are pushed towards it more(in my case I was out of the gates in my early twenties chasing women for sex with way too much enthusiasm and abandon). Because it's apparently a really big deal. So big a deal, all the adults are whispering about it!
What is this thing they try to hide? Why can't we know about it? Can't wait till I am old enough to try it...
That's the unconscious process I see in action. In my case the religion threatened excomunication if I had sex before marriage...
So a fairly good example of that elastic band mechanism I am always talking about to friends. You force someone down one path, the more you force them the harder they will want to take the other path.

I don't see anything wrong with nude beaches for example. It is only wrong in a sense, because other beaches are not the same. This causes a conflict. Much like wearing clothing that expresses a natural part of life(sexual) but is not accepted because in that space and time, sex is not on the cards and soit is rejected wholly. To me, in that area, the people are restricted from being free.
But.. in saying that, it might come down to addiction in the end.
Those chemicals that make us feel really good, may strengthen associations and obbsessions. So sex and drugs maybe things that are very pleasurable and sought after and so a protective wall is built up in soceity to limit expression and use of the things we are attracted to.
One question to ponder, is repressing demonizing urges the best way to teach children how to function?

If our parents walked around the house naked from when we were kids, would we have the same issue with nakedness in others in public?
What if the whole nation did this?
The issue seems to arise with a conflict between repressed societies and families, with the more liberal mindset.

If animals started having sex in public shouldn't they be banned too?
Isn't that just as bad?
I think generally the answer might be no and the reason I am guessing, is because the animals would only mildly reflect our sexuality, where a human would cause more of a reflection of ourselves and our sexuality.
Personally I resent the fact that a dog can take a piss against a wall and wlak around naked, but when I am walking a long way and there is no public toilets anywhere I will be hassled or possibly arrested for exposure, just for releiving myself in a bush or in an alley somewhere. So who is more free? me or a dog?

My mindset now is to actualy rationalize my ethics and morales. Because societies are dictated by dicatators who really don't know better than me, or they do, but like to keep control.

With regards to the question on whether it's acceptable to wear sexualized outfits in public, I would say it is acceptable to me. But not to society in general. They are still catching up with accepting humans as biological beings with various functional parts and motivations.

Some more random examples relating to ethics.
Is it ok to tell children that murder exists? At what age are they ready to learn that people kill each other and how?
Is killing another humans as bad as having sex with them? How about just simulating it? What about wearing paraphanalia?
I am guessing a nazi uniform won't go down so well compared to a british military one. Because of social stigma.

Killing people is something that is simulated every day even on childrens programs. How many thousands of simulated murders has a 12 year old experienced on average I wonder.
Then compare to how many thousands of sexual acts.
Do those same children have a warped view on murder? More likely to be disturbed growing up? More likely to murder?
For example, it's kind of ok to join the army and kill or murder innocents.
So in that context it's ok to parade around in an army outfit. Even though it is a symbol to me of murder and giving up your independant thought.
But then it depends on the oufit again. What if i want to walk around town in a nazi uniform..
Maybe we need to remember and accept these things, instead of repressing them and hoping they go away.
And again I think a lot of this is an issue, becaus eof the reflection it has on our selves and our ego.
Use the naked dog example when considering my thoughts there.