Poll: Young adults grow uneasier with LGBTQ

[loomer]

If someone is crossdressing or wearing a speedo for the express purpose of sexual gratification in a public arena that isn't a sexual space? Yes, I'd have the same reaction.

How would you be able to tell? Why is one type of fetish wear special and icky while other types are fine?

Whether I can tell is unimportant - the important part is that yes, consistently, I object to people engaging in sex acts in inappropriate public venues. If someone is a transvestite because they simply feel more comfortable that way, good for them. If they're doing it because they get a sexual thrill out of being observed cross-dressing, then they should find a suitable outlet for that desire or leave it in the realm of fantasy.

Why is that?

Kink is no more of a 'choice' than orientation. Unless you deliberately picked what turns you on it's the same combination of lived experience and natural brain chemistry as every other aspect of your sexuality. So why do you feel that orientation is somehow special?

Kinks are involuntary, certainly. But unlike sexual orientation, the practice of them does not impact on the rest of life unless they're outright paraphilias. This is a vital distinction - saying 'please keep your kinks to consenting audiences' does not deny kinky people the right to participate in the public sphere as full partners, while saying 'I don't want to see The Gay' does.

In spaces where it would be inappropriate, sure. I don't think men should be topless in a church any more than women, for instance.

I don't think anybody should be in a church, but what does it matter if you're topless? Does God dislike praying while shirtless or something?

God may not, but the other believers usually do - and beyond this, in most churches it is a standard piece of religious doctrine that one should exhibit modesty of dress, which is why I picked it as an example. It's about, again, the coding of spaces. If you enter a place that is coded in a certain way in an inappropriate way, this is, shockingly, inappropriate. If this causes offence and you've done it without good reason - necessity, to make a statement, art, etc - then that isn't a good thing.

But again, why is it that you wish to equate simple body freedom and the desexualization of the bare breast with what is an inherently sexual act?

Some people consider breasts to be inherently sexual and given that they are secondary sexual characteristics made permanently engorged to attract mates it's hard to argue that there is no sexual aspect to women's breasts. So may I ask you why clothing is more sexual in your eyes than literal sex characteristics?

You're right that the breast is a sex characteristic, though its exact role in sexual attraction above and beyond hair, lips, hips, etc is culturally encoded rather than universal - the theory that they are permanently engorged solely to attract mates is a popular one, but not a concrete and absolute fact. Breastfeeding, however, is not a sexual act - it is feeding a baby, and doing so publicly is simply body freedom. So while I concede there is a sexual element to a bare breast, I do not concede that this makes breastfeeding the equivalent of engaging in a sexual act in public.

This is why the clothing is more sexual: Kink is innately, inalienably, sexual while it remains kink. It is thus, inherently, of a sexual nature - and if it ceases to be of a sexual nature, it ceases to be kink.

Certainly, swearing can have health benefits. However, someone swearing at the top of their lungs is also disruptive and infringes on people's freedom to be left to enjoy the space in peace, to browse without disruption, etc. As for why the toy store is worse, that's pretty simple: Any time we involve children, we have an additional obligation to give them positive inputs that help them navigate life and social boundaries later on. This is the distinction between teaching them swearing as as an expressive form of language that can help manage stress, and just swearing however and whenever we like in front of them, regardless of the impact it has.

Prove that sporadic exposure to such behavior, as in your toy store example, has any negative impact on a child's development. I'll patiently await your evidence.

My position is not that 'sporadic exposure' to swearing will cause a negative impact on childhood development. My position is that children are learning to navigate and negotiate social boundaries, and that there is a distinction between someone behaving inappropriately - swearing at the top of their lungs in a toy store - and appropriately - swearing when they stub their toe, for instance. Do you still want me to find you evidence of this position's validity, or are you content to recognize not all swearing is the same and that children are learning how to behave?

I note that you have not responded to the proposition that swearing and other disruptive conduct can infringe on people's freedom to enjoy arenas in peace and without disruption.

Expecting people to understand boundaries and to not push their kink on others - and yes, exhibitionism does push it on others - is not prudery. It is a matter of respect. If you cannot understand this, kindly refrain from entering public arenas from now on.

Public nudity is accepted in some places as are public displays of sexuality that the west doesn't condone. Why do you consider exhibitionism harmful when it's practiced in other places without causing harm? Why do you consider sexuality different than any other human behavior that we consider acceptable?

And if you are in a space where public nudity is acceptable, then by all means: Strip off! I've certainly enjoyed nude beaches in my time. And if you happen to be in one of those places where public sexuality is acceptable, then by all means: have at it! Likewise, I've certainly enjoyed some public sexual experiences in appropriate venues - there's a fantastic party around here once a year where there are designated areas for public sex acts, and it's a wonderful experience. But those aren't the spaces we're discussing. In fact, they bolster my argument, which is that the time, place, and context decide the appropriateness of conduct. Let's use those two examples again, quickly. Nudity is fine in both, but sexual acts on a nude beach are frowned on - the context matters. If I jerk off at an orgy, that's great - if I jerk off on a nude beach and make others feel uncomfortable, that's not great!

Exhibitionism is harmful if it involves non-consenting parties - they didn't ask to be involved, they don't want to be involved, and they have the right not to be involved, and violating that right is harm. If no one is harmed? Great - shag on and make sure to turn side to the audience!

As for why sexuality is different? The odd thing is that I haven't claimed it has some kind of exceptional status - just that some arenas are not suitable places for sexual expression, in the same way that some arenas are not suitable for other kinds of expression and behaviour.

[Jub]

Whether I can tell is unimportant - the important part is that yes, consistently, I object to people engaging in sex acts in inappropriate public venues. If someone is a transvestite because they simply feel more comfortable that way, good for them. If they're doing it because they get a sexual thrill out of being observed cross-dressing, then they should find a suitable outlet for that desire or leave it in the realm of fantasy.

So please, explain why that would be wrong? Why is somebody experiencing a mild sexual thrill in public because they wore an outfit that is sexually arousing to them a bad thing? Are you also against people who wear sexy underwear and that little black dress they save for special occasions to a date because they get a thrill out of looking good?

Also, why is this sort of sexual thrill less acceptable than making out or playing footsies at a restaurant?

Kinks are involuntary, certainly. But unlike sexual orientation, the practice of them does not impact on the rest of life unless they're outright paraphilias. This is a vital distinction - saying 'please keep your kinks to consenting audiences' does not deny kinky people the right to participate in the public sphere as full partners, while saying 'I don't want to see The Gay' does.

Why shouldn't one practice kink in public? What's wrong with being leashed and collared in a public space, or kneeling/expecting one to kneel as part of a DS relationship? Is that any less appropriate than other public displays of affection?

God may not, but the other believers usually do - and beyond this, in most churches it is a standard piece of religious doctrine that one should exhibit modesty of dress, which is why I picked it as an example. It's about, again, the coding of spaces. If you enter a place that is coded in a certain way in an inappropriate way, this is, shockingly, inappropriate. If this causes offence and you've done it without good reason - necessity, to make a statement, art, etc - then that isn't a good thing.

Why should we respect a status quo that doesn't accept us? If I were a churchgoer, and fuck ever being that, I'd show up in whatever I'd normally wear out. The idea I need some Sunday best to talk to God seems absurd to me no matter how that rest of the church is dressed.

This is why the clothing is more sexual: Kink is innately, inalienably, sexual while it remains kink. It is thus, inherently, of a sexual nature - and if it ceases to be of a sexual nature, it ceases to be kink.

So we should ban any kiss longer than a few seconds in public as well then? After all, that's more inherently sexual than any clothing could ever be and yet you've not spoken out against that particular act being performed in public.

My position is not that 'sporadic exposure' to swearing will cause a negative impact on childhood development. My position is that children are learning to navigate and negotiate social boundaries, and that there is a distinction between someone behaving inappropriately - swearing at the top of their lungs in a toy store - and appropriately - swearing when they stub their toe, for instance. Do you still want me to find you evidence of this position's validity, or are you content to recognize not all swearing is the same and that children are learning how to behave?

Swearing, even loudly and for little to no reason, is just sound waves. If it bothers somebody overly much I suggest they reevaluate why simple use of a couple of choice words is causing them such distress.

As for it teaching children the wrong lessons, it's more of a teaching moment IMO. You see somebody acting out and you can explain to your child a better way to handle things or that sometimes people have mental illness/addiction issues that make them act in a certain way sometimes. Problem solved.

I note that you have not responded to the proposition that swearing and other disruptive conduct can infringe on people's freedom to enjoy arenas in peace and without disruption.

You always have the freedom to leave an area or situation you don't find peaceful or find to be overly disruptive just the same as people have the freedom to wear what they wish to wear.

And if you are in a space where public nudity is acceptable, then by all means: Strip off! I've certainly enjoyed nude beaches in my time. And if you happen to be in one of those places where public sexuality is acceptable, then by all means: have at it! Likewise, I've certainly enjoyed some public sexual experiences in appropriate venues - there's a fantastic party around here once a year where there are designated areas for public sex acts, and it's a wonderful experience. But those aren't the spaces we're discussing. In fact, they bolster my argument, which is that the time, place, and context decide the appropriateness of conduct. Let's use those two examples again, quickly. Nudity is fine in both, but sexual acts on a nude beach are frowned on - the context matters. If I jerk off at an orgy, that's great - if I jerk off on a nude beach and make others feel uncomfortable, that's not great!

There's really no need for a distinction between the two types of place. Why do we need a designated place for nudity when nude is the natural state of the human body? Likewise, does somebody pleasuring themselves actually harm anybody else so long as they aren't harming anybody and clean up after themselves? I'd argue that neither is harmful and that society needs to get the fuck over this idea that sexuality is taboo and belongs behind closed doors. It's a pretty fucked state of affairs when brutal violence will get you a less harsh parental guidance/ESBR rating than nudity or sexual content when one can be enjoyed consensual and the other is almost never consensual.

Exhibitionism is harmful if it involves non-consenting parties - they didn't ask to be involved, they don't want to be involved, and they have the right not to be involved, and violating that right is harm. If no one is harmed? Great - shag on and make sure to turn side to the audience!

There are people who claim to be harmed by expressions of homosexual love or breastfeeding in public, there are places where going out less than fully covered down to your hair is a crime, we'd find these sorts of restrictions regressive and restrictive in most of the modern western world. So why not push to make more options for public expression of love and self normal?

As for why sexuality is different? The odd thing is that I haven't claimed it has some kind of exceptional status - just that some arenas are not suitable places for sexual expression, in the same way that some arenas are not suitable for other kinds of expression and behaviour.

You certainly seem to think sexuality is different than other acts given how you judge an act based on if it's sexually gratifying or not to the person involved. You specifically call out wearing certain otherwise acceptable clothing for a sexual thrill even if you aren't able to observe an outwards difference. Why would you seek to deny a person a little extra joy especially when it harms no one?

[Jub]

I'm going to simplify things for you loomer.

Why should we accept the notion that enjoying certain kinks/fetishes in public is harmful when as a society we've continually normalized things which society used to find repulsive and harmful? Public LGBT displays of affection, the unclothed female breast, t-shirts, bikinis all things that used to be considered gauche at best and harmful at worst and are now either accepted or rapidly gaining acceptance. If we can change society such that these have become acceptable why is it wrong to desire the same for displays of fetish wear outside of designated spaces?

I'd also like you to define exactly why making out in public is acceptable while wearing fetish gear isn't? Or, if you think neither is acceptable, defining exactly what harm is caused by them and why the harm outweighs the joy experienced by the people participating in such activities.

Thus far your argument is basically that you just don't do certain things in certain places because some number of people will be offended by it. I don't find that argument at all satisfactory given the sheer number of things that used to cause a strong negative response that no longer do so.

[loomer]

Whether I can tell is unimportant - the important part is that yes, consistently, I object to people engaging in sex acts in inappropriate public venues. If someone is a transvestite because they simply feel more comfortable that way, good for them. If they're doing it because they get a sexual thrill out of being observed cross-dressing, then they should find a suitable outlet for that desire or leave it in the realm of fantasy.

So please, explain why that would be wrong? Why is somebody experiencing a mild sexual thrill in public because they wore an outfit that is sexually arousing to them a bad thing? Are you also against people who wear sexy underwear and that little black dress they save for special occasions to a date because they get a thrill out of looking good?

This is quite a mess, but let's try and sort it out. First, why is it a bad thing: Because they are engaging in a sex act in an area where this is not acceptable behaviour. Now, we can certainly draw a line of demarcation between the person whose thrill is purely minor and unobservable and those whose thrills require them to engage in blatantly sexual conduct, but the central point is that if they are getting a sexual thrill out of exhibitionism in an area where this is not acceptable, then this is a problem.

Second, wearing sexy underwear and the little black dress to a date is a different culturally coded phenomena than going clothes shopping, unless you're going shopping for lingerie and little black dresses. You seem to have a real blindspot for the idea that what matters is the context, and 'a venue for a date' is a very different context than 'a (mostly) children's clothing store'.

Third, there is a distinction to be made between the pleasure of looking good and sexual pleasure, though this is a minor quibble.

Also, why is this sort of sexual thrill less acceptable than making out or playing footsies at a restaurant?

Let's consider footsie. Is the footsie just feet? Then it's not really that sexual, unless you have a thing for feet. It's certainly an enjoyable bit of flirting, but it's not a sex act, nor does it impose that sex act on others. If, however, by footsie you mean 'my foot is on your dick, how hot is that', then it's no more acceptable.

As for making out, I don't believe I've ever actually called it acceptable in the contexts I'm describing fetish wear as unacceptable. But let's entertain it for a moment: It would also be inappropriate to make out in many public venues.

Kinks are involuntary, certainly. But unlike sexual orientation, the practice of them does not impact on the rest of life unless they're outright paraphilias. This is a vital distinction - saying 'please keep your kinks to consenting audiences' does not deny kinky people the right to participate in the public sphere as full partners, while saying 'I don't want to see The Gay' does.

Why shouldn't one practice kink in public? What's wrong with being leashed and collared in a public space, or kneeling/expecting one to kneel as part of a DS relationship? Is that any less appropriate than other public displays of affection? [/quote]

Because it is, again, inherently a sexual act. If we accept that sex acts should be limited to appropriate areas, then we should keep them there. Don't freak out the normies is a matter of basic respect for their sexual autonomy and respect: We get off to leashes and collars, they might not.

God may not, but the other believers usually do - and beyond this, in most churches it is a standard piece of religious doctrine that one should exhibit modesty of dress, which is why I picked it as an example. It's about, again, the coding of spaces. If you enter a place that is coded in a certain way in an inappropriate way, this is, shockingly, inappropriate. If this causes offence and you've done it without good reason - necessity, to make a statement, art, etc - then that isn't a good thing.

Why should we respect a status quo that doesn't accept us? If I were a churchgoer, and fuck ever being that, I'd show up in whatever I'd normally wear out. The idea I need some Sunday best to talk to God seems absurd to me no matter how that rest of the church is dressed.[/quote]

You seem confused. My point in using the church is not about 'respecting a status quo', but about respecting others cultural and religious practices where there isn't a good reason not to. You also seem to have confused 'modesty of dress' for requiring Sunday best, which is not what I said - just that on the whole, religious sites are a common and accepted arena where we dress conservatively out of respect for others.

This is why the clothing is more sexual: Kink is innately, inalienably, sexual while it remains kink. It is thus, inherently, of a sexual nature - and if it ceases to be of a sexual nature, it ceases to be kink.

So we should ban any kiss longer than a few seconds in public as well then? After all, that's more inherently sexual than any clothing could ever be and yet you've not spoken out against that particular act being performed in public.[/quote]

Again, you seem to have a real problem with the idea of context. If someone is having long, sloppy kisses in the middle of a toy store, they might want to leave for somewhere more appropriate - not all acts are appropriate in all contexts.

My position is not that 'sporadic exposure' to swearing will cause a negative impact on childhood development. My position is that children are learning to navigate and negotiate social boundaries, and that there is a distinction between someone behaving inappropriately - swearing at the top of their lungs in a toy store - and appropriately - swearing when they stub their toe, for instance. Do you still want me to find you evidence of this position's validity, or are you content to recognize not all swearing is the same and that children are learning how to behave?

Swearing, even loudly and for little to no reason, is just sound waves. If it bothers somebody overly much I suggest they reevaluate why simple use of a couple of choice words is causing them such distress. [/quote]

So is hate speech. Would you suggest that someone upset by hate speech should just reevaluate why sound waves upset them? Should a person not be upset by death threats because they are 'just sound waves'? To dismiss words as 'just sound waves' is an utter absurdity given that they are the primary means of human communication.

As for it teaching children the wrong lessons, it's more of a teaching moment IMO. You see somebody acting out and you can explain to your child a better way to handle things or that sometimes people have mental illness/addiction issues that make them act in a certain way sometimes. Problem solved.

Certainly. But why does the opportunity it creates for a teaching moment outweigh its imposition on the freedoms of those affected? This is, of course, without considering those with good reason to be triggered by such conduct.

I note that you have not responded to the proposition that swearing and other disruptive conduct can infringe on people's freedom to enjoy arenas in peace and without disruption.

You always have the freedom to leave an area or situation you don't find peaceful or find to be overly disruptive just the same as people have the freedom to wear what they wish to wear.[/quote]

Certainly, but if I am left no choice but to leave a venue because of an inappropriate disruption - and we can agree, right, that a person swearing like a sailor at the top of their lungs in a toy store is an inappropriate disruption - then I have nonetheless had my freedom to enjoy the place in question in peace and without disruption disrupted.

This ties in with the flip side of every right and freedom, which is a responsibility - why should the freedom of the person to swear as they wish outweigh their obligation not to disturb others unduly?

And if you are in a space where public nudity is acceptable, then by all means: Strip off! I've certainly enjoyed nude beaches in my time. And if you happen to be in one of those places where public sexuality is acceptable, then by all means: have at it! Likewise, I've certainly enjoyed some public sexual experiences in appropriate venues - there's a fantastic party around here once a year where there are designated areas for public sex acts, and it's a wonderful experience. But those aren't the spaces we're discussing. In fact, they bolster my argument, which is that the time, place, and context decide the appropriateness of conduct. Let's use those two examples again, quickly. Nudity is fine in both, but sexual acts on a nude beach are frowned on - the context matters. If I jerk off at an orgy, that's great - if I jerk off on a nude beach and make others feel uncomfortable, that's not great!

There's really no need for a distinction between the two types of place. Why do we need a designated place for nudity when nude is the natural state of the human body? Likewise, does somebody pleasuring themselves actually harm anybody else so long as they aren't harming anybody and clean up after themselves? I'd argue that neither is harmful and that society needs to get the fuck over this idea that sexuality is taboo and belongs behind closed doors. It's a pretty fucked state of affairs when brutal violence will get you a less harsh parental guidance/ESBR rating than nudity or sexual content when one can be enjoyed consensual and the other is almost never consensual. [/quote]

This is another mess. Let's try and work through it. First, the idea that we don't need designated nude spaces:

Nudity may be the natural state of the human body, but we have nonetheless constructed a culture that requires wearing clothing and sexualizes nudity. We can disagree whether this is good or not - personally, I quite like my clothes, but I am of course a product of my environment conditioned to think they are - but it is the way it is. While this is the case, then spaces set aside for non-sexual nudity should be respected accordingly to avoid causing discomfort for others.

It's okay to jerk off on a nudist beach so long as you clean up after and don't harm anyone:

No, not really. If the space is set aside for non-sexual nudity, and you sexualize it, then you violate the shared purpose of the space. Further, if by doing so you make people uncomfortable, this is in fact a harm. You should refrain from doing so on that basis, and if you don't, then you are acting unethically and immorally. Many of the people who attend nudist beaches are, in fact, made uncomfortable by such conduct - so please, don't do it. Let them enjoy body freedom without someone non-consensually masturbating to their image.

Third, society should get over sexual taboos:

I agree, it would be nice if we had less hangups. But at the moment, many of those hangups exist, and forcing kink and public sex acts - like, say, jerking off on a nude beach - on people is still a non-consensual sex act and thus, wrong. By all means, work to change it - but not like that.

Fourth, it's fucked that violence is treated more leniently than sexual content:

Absolutely agreed, but this has nothing at all to do with the issue of non-consensual kink and exhibitionism.

Exhibitionism is harmful if it involves non-consenting parties - they didn't ask to be involved, they don't want to be involved, and they have the right not to be involved, and violating that right is harm. If no one is harmed? Great - shag on and make sure to turn side to the audience!

There are people who claim to be harmed by expressions of homosexual love or breastfeeding in public, there are places where going out less than fully covered down to your hair is a crime, we'd find these sorts of restrictions regressive and restrictive in most of the modern western world. So why not push to make more options for public expression of love and self normal?[/quote]

Another mess.

First: You keep conflating sexual orientation and breastfeeding with public sex acts. They are not.
Second: Those harmed by these things may be entirely genuine, which is unfortunate for them, but what they propose should be hidden away are, respectively, fundamental traits that would render a person less than equal in a very fundamental way, and the basic means by which new humans are fed. It is unfortunate for them, but there is good reason that their right to freedom of peaceful enjoyment of public spaces should be overriden. This is not the case for public sex acts.
Third: Yes, other cultures have other cultural norms. We may debate whether they are good or bad - but they are irrelevant to the present discussion.
Fourth: By all means, push for it! But there is a difference between pushing for it ethically and forcing people to engage in sex acts that they have not consented to.

As for why sexuality is different? The odd thing is that I haven't claimed it has some kind of exceptional status - just that some arenas are not suitable places for sexual expression, in the same way that some arenas are not suitable for other kinds of expression and behaviour.

You certainly seem to think sexuality is different than other acts given how you judge an act based on if it's sexually gratifying or not to the person involved. You specifically call out wearing certain otherwise acceptable clothing for a sexual thrill even if you aren't able to observe an outwards difference. Why would you seek to deny a person a little extra joy especially when it harms no one?
[/quote]

You seem confused by me. Sexuality is not different than other things - but the terms in which we engage with it are distinct on cultural grounds, and thus, it has more potential to disrupt people's peaceful enjoyment. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for me to take a shit on the floor in the library, even if I clean it up afterwards, regardless of how much pleasure it gives me or how convenient it might be, because it would interfere with other people's peaceful enjoyment of the same space.

I also 'call it out' only in response to your specific hypothetical of a person crossdressing or wearing revealing clothing in public for a sexual thrill. If their thrill comes from the involvement of an unknowing or unwilling public, why on earth should I be expected to condone it when it hinges, fundamentally, on the sexual use of the gaze of the other without their consent?

[Jub]

This is quite a mess, but let's try and sort it out. First, why is it a bad thing: Because they are engaging in a sex act in an area where this is not acceptable behaviour. Now, we can certainly draw a line of demarcation between the person whose thrill is purely minor and unobservable and those whose thrills require them to engage in blatantly sexual conduct, but the central point is that if they are getting a sexual thrill out of exhibitionism in an area where this is not acceptable, then this is a problem.

If somebody has a sexual thrill in public and nobody else notices why is it an issue?

You seem to have a real blindspot for the idea that what matters is the context

Context changes over time so why should be all be slaves to such mutable 'rules'?

Let's consider footsie. Is the footsie just feet? Then it's not really that sexual, unless you have a thing for feet.

So what if you do have that particular fetish, does the same act then become unacceptable?

If we accept that sex acts should be limited to appropriate areas, then we should keep them there.

I don't accept that which is the crux of my argument and something which you've completely failed to rebut.

You seem confused. My point in using the church is not about 'respecting a status quo', but about respecting others cultural and religious practices

Also known as the status quo...

You also seem to have confused 'modesty of dress' for requiring Sunday best, which is not what I said - just that on the whole, religious sites are a common and accepted arena where we dress conservatively out of respect for others.

I question why that needs to be the case and think that we should value freedom over making sure the most conservative members of our societies are comfortable in public.

Again, you seem to have a real problem with the idea of context. If someone is having long, sloppy kisses in the middle of a toy store, they might want to leave for somewhere more appropriate - not all acts are appropriate in all contexts.

My argument is fuck the context. There's no actual harm being done and the sooner people get over their worthless hang-ups the better off we'll all be.

So is hate speech. Would you suggest that someone upset by hate speech should just reevaluate why sound waves upset them?

In some cases yes. It depends on if the use of the words will cause harm greater than simply upsetting somebody because you called them a particularly hurtful name. This is the same for threats if the threat is credible take appropriate steps not because the threat was uttered but because the threat represents probable cause for future violence.

Certainly, but if I am left no choice but to leave a venue because of an inappropriate disruption - and we can agree, right, that a person swearing like a sailor at the top of their lungs in a toy store is an inappropriate disruption - then I have nonetheless had my freedom to enjoy the place in question in peace and without disruption disrupted.

Why is your freedom worth more than their freedom? Why not simply suck it up for the period you're in the store and get on with your day?

Nudity may be the natural state of the human body, but we have nonetheless constructed a culture that requires wearing clothing and sexualizes nudity. We can disagree whether this is good or not - personally, I quite like my clothes, but I am of course a product of my environment conditioned to think they are - but it is the way it is. While this is the case, then spaces set aside for non-sexual nudity should be respected accordingly to avoid causing discomfort for others.

My argument is that society's rules are often overly conservative and should be challenged whenever it is practical to do so. So I'm all for public nudity, kink and fetish gear in public, and other such taboos.

No, not really. If the space is set aside for non-sexual nudity, and you sexualize it, then you violate the shared purpose of the space. Further, if by doing so you make people uncomfortable, this is in fact a harm. You should refrain from doing so on that basis, and if you don't, then you are acting unethically and immorally. Many of the people who attend nudist beaches are, in fact, made uncomfortable by such conduct - so please, don't do it. Let them enjoy body freedom without someone non-consensually masturbating to their image.

Those people are harming themselves. The person enjoying themselves is harming nobody.

I agree, it would be nice if we had less hangups. But at the moment, many of those hangups exist, and forcing kink and public sex acts - like, say, jerking off on a nude beach - on people is still a non-consensual sex act and thus, wrong. By all means, work to change it - but not like that.

I think that confrontation often pushes issues into the public eye and forces a frank discussion about why society thinks the way it does. As such I support disruptive actions and the discussions they create.

Fourth, it's fucked that violence is treated more leniently than sexual content:

Absolutely agreed, but this has nothing at all to do with the issue of non-consensual kink and exhibitionism.

It does though.

A bar fight, is more harmful than say peeing in public, yet, outside of extreme circumstances, only one of those acts can follow you around for life as a sex offender tag. If you're arguing that we should follow society's rules you must accept that those rules often make zero sense.

First: You keep conflating sexual orientation and breastfeeding with public sex acts. They are not.

I'm conflating the outrage caused by the acts. The acts themselves are irrelevant.

Second: Those harmed by these things may be entirely genuine, which is unfortunate for them, but what they propose should be hidden away are, respectively, fundamental traits that would render a person less than equal in a very fundamental way, and the basic means by which new humans are fed. It is unfortunate for them, but there is good reason that their right to freedom of peaceful enjoyment of public spaces should be overriden. This is not the case for public sex acts.

Sexuality is also inherent to one's wellbeing and many people feel ashamed of their sexual desires. I'd argue that this shame causes greater harm than a greater variety of public sex acts/fetishwear/etc. would.

Third: Yes, other cultures have other cultural norms. We may debate whether they are good or bad - but they are irrelevant to the present discussion.

They are extremely relevant if one doesn't view one's own culture as inherently valuable.

Fourth: By all means, push for it! But there is a difference between pushing for it ethically and forcing people to engage in sex acts that they have not consented to.

Simply viewing an act does not constitute a forced engagement with it.

You seem confused by me. Sexuality is not different than other things - but the terms in which we engage with it are distinct on cultural grounds, and thus, it has more potential to disrupt people's peaceful enjoyment. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for me to take a shit on the floor in the library, even if I clean it up afterwards, regardless of how much pleasure it gives me or how convenient it might be, because it would interfere with other people's peaceful enjoyment of the same space.

I would argue that as long as you cause no damage you should be free to act as you will.

I also 'call it out' only in response to your specific hypothetical of a person crossdressing or wearing revealing clothing in public for a sexual thrill. If their thrill comes from the involvement of an unknowing or unwilling public, why on earth should I be expected to condone it when it hinges, fundamentally, on the sexual use of the gaze of the other without their consent?

If that isn't the source of their thrill does it then become okay?

[loomer]

I'm going to simplify things for you loomer.

I'll endeavour to do the same for you. Let's start here: If your kink involves non-consenting third parties, you shouldn't practice it, and if you do, you are a bad person. In a nutshell: do not force others to engage with your kink on a non-consensual basis. If you do, you are a bad person.

Why should we accept the notion that enjoying certain kinks/fetishes in public is harmful when as a society we've continually normalized things which society used to find repulsive and harmful? Public LGBT displays of affection, the unclothed female breast, t-shirts, bikinis all things that used to be considered gauche at best and harmful at worst and are now either accepted or rapidly gaining acceptance. If we can change society such that these have become acceptable why is it wrong to desire the same for displays of fetish wear outside of designated spaces?

By all means, change society. But do not force others to engage with your kink on a non-consensual basis. If you do, you are a bad person.

I'd also like you to define exactly why making out in public is acceptable while wearing fetish gear isn't? Or, if you think neither is acceptable, defining exactly what harm is caused by them and why the harm outweighs the joy experienced by the people participating in such activities.

You're very hung up on the making out in public. See my post above.

No one is telling you you cannot wear fetish gear or make out. What I am saying is that you should do so in appropriate places out of consideration for others. Do not force others to engage with your kink on a non-consensual basis. If you do, you are a bad person.

Thus far your argument is basically that you just don't do certain things in certain places because some number of people will be offended by it. I don't find that argument at all satisfactory given the sheer number of things that used to cause a strong negative response that no longer do so.

Are you then in favour of, say, sexual intercourse on a park bench in full view of others? Taking a shit in the middle of a church service? Talking on the phone in a movie theater? Eating a bucket of fried chicken in front of a ward of heart disease patients? Displaying hate speech in front of the groups it's targeted against? Masturbating during a funeral? Telling rape jokes to rape survivors? Making fun of disabled children? Slaughtering animals in front of vegetarians?

We regularly refrain from conduct out of consideration for others and to avoid causing offence to others. This is part of living in a society - indeed, a vital part of living in a caring society. If you cannot understand this, please refrain from entering the public sphere from now on. If you wish to change what is acceptable, by all means, engage in activism and try and do so - but recognize the distinction.

Oh, and one more time: do not force others to engage with your kink on a non-consensual basis. If you do, you are a bad person.

[loomer]

This is quite a mess, but let's try and sort it out. First, why is it a bad thing: Because they are engaging in a sex act in an area where this is not acceptable behaviour. Now, we can certainly draw a line of demarcation between the person whose thrill is purely minor and unobservable and those whose thrills require them to engage in blatantly sexual conduct, but the central point is that if they are getting a sexual thrill out of exhibitionism in an area where this is not acceptable, then this is a problem.

If somebody has a sexual thrill in public and nobody else notices why is it an issue?

It is a relatively minor issue, but if their sexual act requires exhibitionism without the consent of those involved it necessarily requires a non-consensual element. This is a bad thing.

You seem to have a real blindspot for the idea that what matters is the context

Context changes over time so why should be all be slaves to such mutable 'rules'?

Because the context, while it may yet change and we may desire to change it, still exists. This is also why it is inappropriate to, to reuse an example, take a shit in the middle of the library. It would also be inappropriate to yell swear words and insults at children because of the context - should we do so, simply because we shouldn't be 'slaves to mutable rules'?

Let's consider footsie. Is the footsie just feet? Then it's not really that sexual, unless you have a thing for feet.

So what if you do have that particular fetish, does the same act then become unacceptable?

If it's a sex act in a public space where sex is not acceptable, then yes.

If we accept that sex acts should be limited to appropriate areas, then we should keep them there.

I don't accept that which is the crux of my argument and something which you've completely failed to rebut.

I cannot rebut a sincerely held personal belief. Allow me to ask you a question, though: Would you be alright with me masturbating on the bus in front of you?

You seem confused. My point in using the church is not about 'respecting a status quo', but about respecting others cultural and religious practices

Also known as the status quo...

No. Respecting the status quo would require us to accept society as it is. There is a distinction between respecting the cultural and religious practices of others when visiting their spaces and simply accepting society as it is.

You also seem to have confused 'modesty of dress' for requiring Sunday best, which is not what I said - just that on the whole, religious sites are a common and accepted arena where we dress conservatively out of respect for others.

I question why that needs to be the case and think that we should value freedom over making sure the most conservative members of our societies are comfortable in public.

Who said anything about the most conservative? Many otherwise liberal - even libertine - people prefer conservative dress in holy sites.

Again, you seem to have a real problem with the idea of context. If someone is having long, sloppy kisses in the middle of a toy store, they might want to leave for somewhere more appropriate - not all acts are appropriate in all contexts.

My argument is fuck the context. There's no actual harm being done and the sooner people get over their worthless hang-ups the better off we'll all be.

Your argument is you are allowed to engage in inappropriate conduct so long as you like it. If my preferred conduct involves shouting homophobic slurs at you, should you get over your 'worthless hang-ups' in the name of my freedom?

So is hate speech. Would you suggest that someone upset by hate speech should just reevaluate why sound waves upset them?

In some cases yes. It depends on if the use of the words will cause harm greater than simply upsetting somebody because you called them a particularly hurtful name. This is the same for threats if the threat is credible take appropriate steps not because the threat was uttered but because the threat represents probable cause for future violence.

Ah. So, if it just 'upsets somebody', then it is acceptable? So again - I should be free to use hate speech as I please, directed at those it will hurt, simply because it only constitutes 'upset'? I take it you don't believe in emotional and social violence?

Certainly, but if I am left no choice but to leave a venue because of an inappropriate disruption - and we can agree, right, that a person swearing like a sailor at the top of their lungs in a toy store is an inappropriate disruption - then I have nonetheless had my freedom to enjoy the place in question in peace and without disruption disrupted.

Why is your freedom worth more than their freedom? Why not simply suck it up for the period you're in the store and get on with your day?

Because the store is a designated space for peaceful enjoyment and commerce. So is a park, for another example.

Nudity may be the natural state of the human body, but we have nonetheless constructed a culture that requires wearing clothing and sexualizes nudity. We can disagree whether this is good or not - personally, I quite like my clothes, but I am of course a product of my environment conditioned to think they are - but it is the way it is. While this is the case, then spaces set aside for non-sexual nudity should be respected accordingly to avoid causing discomfort for others.

My argument is that society's rules are often overly conservative and should be challenged whenever it is practical to do so. So I'm all for public nudity, kink and fetish gear in public, and other such taboos.

Challenge the taboos as you please. Do not involve others in your kink non-consensually, and respect people's right to self-autonomy and to not having their non-sexual spaces violated by sexual conduct.

No, not really. If the space is set aside for non-sexual nudity, and you sexualize it, then you violate the shared purpose of the space. Further, if by doing so you make people uncomfortable, this is in fact a harm. You should refrain from doing so on that basis, and if you don't, then you are acting unethically and immorally. Many of the people who attend nudist beaches are, in fact, made uncomfortable by such conduct - so please, don't do it. Let them enjoy body freedom without someone non-consensually masturbating to their image.

Those people are harming themselves. The person enjoying themselves is harming nobody.

The person enjoying themselves is forcing others to witness them masturbating, while breaking the societal rules of a space that involves safety from sexual conduct. Did Louis CK do nothing wrong when he forced women to do so? All he did was enjoy himself, afterall.

I agree, it would be nice if we had less hangups. But at the moment, many of those hangups exist, and forcing kink and public sex acts - like, say, jerking off on a nude beach - on people is still a non-consensual sex act and thus, wrong. By all means, work to change it - but not like that.

I think that confrontation often pushes issues into the public eye and forces a frank discussion about why society thinks the way it does. As such I support disruptive actions and the discussions they create.

And if you wish to engage in disruptive actions, sure - but just wearing fetish gear into a store is not a good disruptive action.

Fourth, it's fucked that violence is treated more leniently than sexual content:

Absolutely agreed, but this has nothing at all to do with the issue of non-consensual kink and exhibitionism.

It does though.

Not really, except insofar as non-consensual kink is innately violent.

A bar fight, is more harmful than say peeing in public, yet, outside of extreme circumstances, only one of those acts can follow you around for life as a sex offender tag. If you're arguing that we should follow society's rules you must accept that those rules often make zero sense.

No - I'm saying you should respect other people's freedoms and sexual autonomy, and part of that is understanding the social context. You are, again, free to work to change laws that you think are unjust. I might even join you as a fellow deviant and libertine!

First: You keep conflating sexual orientation and breastfeeding with public sex acts. They are not.

I'm conflating the outrage caused by the acts. The acts themselves are irrelevant.

Not really. The source of the outrage is inherently linked to the acts.

Second: Those harmed by these things may be entirely genuine, which is unfortunate for them, but what they propose should be hidden away are, respectively, fundamental traits that would render a person less than equal in a very fundamental way, and the basic means by which new humans are fed. It is unfortunate for them, but there is good reason that their right to freedom of peaceful enjoyment of public spaces should be overriden. This is not the case for public sex acts.

Sexuality is also inherent to one's wellbeing and many people feel ashamed of their sexual desires. I'd argue that this shame causes greater harm than a greater variety of public sex acts/fetishwear/etc. would.

And feel free to pursue a world in which every freak flag will fly free, but don't involve non-consenting people in your kink.

Third: Yes, other cultures have other cultural norms. We may debate whether they are good or bad - but they are irrelevant to the present discussion.

They are extremely relevant if one doesn't view one's own culture as inherently valuable.

Not really - we are discussing the culture that is, not a hypothetical culture we would build.

Fourth: By all means, push for it! But there is a difference between pushing for it ethically and forcing people to engage in sex acts that they have not consented to.

Simply viewing an act does not constitute a forced engagement with it.

If I masturbate in front of you on the bus, making eye contact with you the entire time, have I not forced you to be part of something? If I spraypaint a hatespeech manifesto on a large sign on my property - that way there's no damage to someone else for you to be upset by - facing a bus stop, am I not attempting to force people to engage with it?

You seem confused by me. Sexuality is not different than other things - but the terms in which we engage with it are distinct on cultural grounds, and thus, it has more potential to disrupt people's peaceful enjoyment. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for me to take a shit on the floor in the library, even if I clean it up afterwards, regardless of how much pleasure it gives me or how convenient it might be, because it would interfere with other people's peaceful enjoyment of the same space.

I would argue that as long as you cause no damage you should be free to act as you will.

The violation of others rights and freedoms is a damage in itself. But, to be clear, you're totally fine with taking a shit in the middle of a public library?

I also 'call it out' only in response to your specific hypothetical of a person crossdressing or wearing revealing clothing in public for a sexual thrill. If their thrill comes from the involvement of an unknowing or unwilling public, why on earth should I be expected to condone it when it hinges, fundamentally, on the sexual use of the gaze of the other without their consent?

If that isn't the source of their thrill does it then become okay?

It becomes more okay than if it isn't, yes. Sex acts in non-sexual spaces are still not okay, but it at least ceases to rely on the non-consensual involvement of others.

Frankly, Jub, I'm going to come out and say it: If you justify involving non-consenting people in your sex acts because 'hey, in an ideal world, no one would have hang-ups at all', you are a bad person using the desire for sexual liberation as an excuse for causing people harm and discomfort for your own pleasure.

[Jub]

Are you then in favour of, say, sexual intercourse on a park bench in full view of others?

Yeah.

Taking a shit in the middle of a church service?

If you clean up the mess.

Talking on the phone in a movie theater?

Annoying but no more so than other theater chatter that happens.

Eating a bucket of fried chicken in front of a ward of heart disease patients?

Tasteless but ultimately not causing undue harm.

Displaying hate speech in front of the groups it's targeted against?

Tasteless and likely to cause violence. The latter being of greater concern than the former.

Masturbating during a funeral?

Tasteless but if you clean up your mess also fairly harmless.

The rest of the list is also tasteless but also not usually likely to cause harm.

I feel that most of the above are in fairly poor taste but if I personally witnessed any of them I'd probably just go about business as normal. The only case where I wouldn't do so is to try to deescalate a confrontation or console somebody having an exceptionally poor reaction to these acts. That's what I feel the correct course of action ought to be.

Oh, and one more time: do not force others to engage with your kink on a non-consensual basis. If you do, you are a bad person.

You seem awfully sure that I've done this for how often you've repeated it.

It is a relatively minor issue, but if their sexual act requires exhibitionism without the consent of those involved it necessarily requires a non-consensual element. This is a bad thing.

Does the act which sparked this whole debate require such? How about my example of cross-dressing for a sexual thrill, nowhere did I mention that they specifically did or didn't enjoy public attention due to their clothing choice. They could simply enjoy feeling sexy and wearing clothing of the opposite gender.

Because the context, while it may yet change and we may desire to change it, still exists. This is also why it is inappropriate to, to reuse an example, take a shit in the middle of the library. It would also be inappropriate to yell swear words and insults at children because of the context - should we do so, simply because we shouldn't be 'slaves to mutable rules'?

I wouldn't consider either of those acts to cross the line so long as any mess made is cleaned up. They may be tasteless in certain contexts but tasteless means very little.

I cannot rebut a sincerely held personal belief. Allow me to ask you a question, though: Would you be alright with me masturbating on the bus in front of you?

Have fun. I can't say I'll stay to watch the entire show but it would certainly be something to talk about with friends later.

No. Respecting the status quo would require us to accept society as it is. There is a distinction between respecting the cultural and religious practices of others when visiting their spaces and simply accepting society as it is.

Not enough of a difference for my tastes.

Your argument is you are allowed to engage in inappropriate conduct so long as you like it. If my preferred conduct involves shouting homophobic slurs at you, should you get over your 'worthless hang-ups' in the name of my freedom?

You do you. It wouldn't be that fun for me but you'd tire of it eventually and I'd move on with my day.

Ah. So, if it just 'upsets somebody', then it is acceptable? So again - I should be free to use hate speech as I please, directed at those it will hurt, simply because it only constitutes 'upset'? I take it you don't believe in emotional and social violence?

Those things clearly exist and some people suffer because of them but I also feel that most people should get over themselves. Not a single one of us is special or particularly significant in the grand scheme of things. There's also the fact that assholes who do dumb stuff in public, such as shouting hate slurs, generate discussion and that discussion doesn't always favor them. That discussion can then lead to sympathy for the oppressed class and lead to real change, suppressing that speech may mean that such sympathy is never generated and change comes more slowly.

As an example, do you feel LGBT rights would be where they have now had police actions not lead to Stonewall?

Challenge the taboos as you please. Do not involve others in your kink non-consensually, and respect people's right to self-autonomy and to not having their non-sexual spaces violated by sexual conduct.

So long as I don't egregiously break the law I'll do as I please and those who object can pound sand.

The person enjoying themselves is forcing others to witness them masturbating, while breaking the societal rules of a space that involves safety from sexual conduct. Did Louis CK do nothing wrong when he forced women to do so? All he did was enjoy himself, afterall.

It's different if people feel obligated to watch the act. That form of coercion is separate from the act itself.

And if you wish to engage in disruptive actions, sure - but just wearing fetish gear into a store is not a good disruptive action.

Nor should it be considered disruptive at all. To my view, it's a normal action that others view abnormally.

Not really, except insofar as non-consensual kink is innately violent.

I disagree in the case of the example that started this debate.

No - I'm saying you should respect other people's freedoms and sexual autonomy, and part of that is understanding the social context. You are, again, free to work to change laws that you think are unjust. I might even join you as a fellow deviant and libertine!

I don't really care what other people think. Change is good, but even if things don't change people should be free to act as they will so long as it causes minimal harm.

Not really. The source of the outrage is inherently linked to the acts.

That same outrage has been attached to other acts, some of which we now consider very differently which is the point I was making.

And feel free to pursue a world in which every freak flag will fly free, but don't involve non-consenting people in your kink.

Whilst specific articles of clothing aren't my type of kink I will practice kink when and where me and my partner both feel comfortable with it.

Not really - we are discussing the culture that is, not a hypothetical culture we would build.

If there was a hypothetical toy store - the children's kind - on Folsom street would fetish gear be appropriate?

If I masturbate in front of you on the bus, making eye contact with you the entire time, have I not forced you to be part of something?

You've forced nothing on me, I'm free to look away, close my eyes, or leave.

If I spraypaint a hatespeech manifesto on a large sign on my property - that way there's no damage to someone else for you to be upset by - facing a bus stop, am I not attempting to force people to engage with it?

That's a bit tasteless but I wouldn't object.

The violation of others rights and freedoms is a damage in itself. But, to be clear, you're totally fine with taking a shit in the middle of a public library?

It'd gross me out a bit, but if they shit into a bag and cleaned up after themselves it would be a fairly momentary oddity soon forgotten.

Frankly, Jub, I'm going to come out and say it: If you justify involving non-consenting people in your sex acts because 'hey, in an ideal world, no one would have hang-ups at all', you are a bad person using the desire for sexual liberation as an excuse for causing people harm and discomfort for your own pleasure.

You'd have to prove that I've ever actually done so. Support for an idea doesn't mean actively acting in accordance with that belief.

As such, I haven't crossed the line in engaging in sexual acts in public to the degree we've discussed in this thread. I've probably done things that would make somebody uncomfortable but not outside of what is legal in my area.

[loomer]

I think that'll about do me. I cannot debate with someone who feels that it is acceptable to force others to witness sex acts non-consensually to this extent.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that'll about do me. I cannot debate with someone who feels that it is acceptable to force others to witness sex acts non-consensually to this extent.

Yeah, there's a term for people who do stuff like that:

Sex offender.

[Jub]

I think that'll about do me. I cannot debate with someone who feels that it is acceptable to force others to witness sex acts non-consensually to this extent.

Yeah, there's a term for people who do stuff like that:

Sex offender.

That's only the case if you actually follow through. It also doesn't doesn't include acts like wearing fetish gear in public, engaging in certain BDSM acts in public (such as flogging), and other such 'sexual' acts which which loomer seems to think is the equivalent of shitting in the middle of a library or masturbating on a public bus.

[Solauren]

Actually Jub, the forcing a non-consenting individual to watch a sex act is considered a form of sexual assault.

That's why people get charged with it when it happens. (i.e people masterbating in public).

And just about everything you said was okay, falls under that umbrella. (Well, the sex acts do. The Fried Chicken in front of heart patients is just rude, even if I laughed when they did it on the Simpsons).

That's why a lot of sexual activity is confined to certain areas of larger cities. (i.e red light districts). By going into that area, you have implied a certain level of consent. You have consented to see it. Just like if you walk into my house, and you me naked (no matter how tramatized you become from seeing that), the fault is on you, not me.

So, with that in mind, let me run things a different way.
If you go into a church, and the Pastor tells you are you are going to Hell because of your sexual orientation, by going into the church, you consented to whatever happens, as part of normal religious activities. (Providied it doesn't turn into physical violence).

HOWEVER, that same Pastor, going into the ValuVillage, and screaming at people that they are going to hell, that's not allowed. The Pastor is FORCING people to hear his beliefs and see his actions. And can be charged.

Now, what's the difference between a Pastor going into someplace and screaming at people, or two S/D participants parading around in their sex outfits, in a way that is deliberately eye-catching?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup. The only non-evil standard for sexual acts is "Anything is permitted, as long as all persons present are fully, knowingly, and voluntarily consenting".

[Jub]

Actually Jub, the forcing a non-consenting individual to watch a sex act is considered a form of sexual assault.

Yes, I'm aware that that is currently the law. Lots of sex crimes that remain on the books such as nudity, horny teens sexting, and having sex outside of certain positions make little sense and often cause more harm than good. Nor would that include something like crossdressing or wearing fetish gear in public for a sexual thrill which was the original example that started this line of debate.

And just about everything you said was okay, falls under that umbrella. (Well, the sex acts do. The Fried Chicken in front of heart patients is just rude, even if I laughed when they did it on the Simpsons).

Morally okay isn't the same as legally okay. Unless being LGBT in public, having a consenting relationship with somebody of the same sex, women going topless in public, etc. were all morally wrong until those laws were officially changed.

So, with that in mind, let me run things a different way.
If you go into a church, and the Pastor tells you are you are going to Hell because of your sexual orientation, by going into the church, you consented to whatever happens, as part of normal religious activities. (Providied it doesn't turn into physical violence).

HOWEVER, that same Pastor, going into the ValuVillage, and screaming at people that they are going to hell, that's not allowed. The Pastor is FORCING people to hear his beliefs and see his actions. And can be charged.

In practice maybe, but in reality, religious protestors get a lot of freedom to protest and can sometimes even enjoy police support as they do so. Usually, they prefer to set up outside of the place they object to the behavior of or at a place with lots of foot traffic like a major transit hub. So your example falls apart when you consider public acts that take place of public property versus public acts that take place on somebody else's private property.

Even then if a Jehova's witness can go door to door spreading the 'good' word a D/s couple should be equally able to wear their full gear, provided it covers the areas proscribed by law, and go door to door without being charged as a sexual offender. I'd even argue the coverage part of that needn't exist because there's nothing wrong with nudity of sexuality. There shouldn't be a different standard for accidentally showing a child a graphic murder scene in a movie or accidentally showing them porn, and yet there is.

Do you feel that one of those two scenes is more harmful to a child than the other?

Now, what's the difference between a Pastor going into someplace and screaming at people, or two S/D participants parading around in their sex outfits, in a way that is deliberately eye-catching?

There's nothing especially wrong with either act.

[Jub]

I suppose I should clarify my stance a little. I'm not saying that every rule of decorum should be thrown out the window or that nothing is sacred. Nor even that the most extreme of behaviors like masturbating on a bus or defecating in the middle of a public space like a library or church. I'm saying that these acts aren't necessarily harmful to those observing them and that we ought to reevaluate what behaviors constitute real harm and those that are merely unpleasant.

I don't think that wearing even the craziest of fetish gear in public, or even engaging in certain forms of play, counts as forcing your kink on others any more than a woman going topless or a couple, of any mix of orientations and genders, making out in public does. Nor do I feel sexuality should always be classed as worse than violence in how we rate which groups it is appropriate to show a work of fiction to. Nor should something like teens sexting among themselves or somebody taking a piss in public be something that can potentially ruin somebody's life as a sex offender.

[Starglider]

The logic going on here is the same kind of reductive extremism that libertarians/voluntaryists use to cast all government intervention in the economy as immoral, taxation as theft etc: elevation of a particular abstract right to undeserved supremacy over every other consideration. Of course since this board is now far left (mostly lib-left / minority retro-left) the libertarians are immediately slammed, but someone has to pretty much openly advocating for sex crimes to be criticised for being too permissive of 'sexual minority' behaviour. Literally anything labelled 'trans' still gets a free pass, e.g. all of these prisoners are unquestionably sincere and must be given special privilidges and transfers.

[Solauren]

Also, Moral is HIGHLY subjective. And in this case, you have to consider EVERYONE's morals.

After all,
Your right to swing your fist STOPS before my body begins. Then it's assault.
Your right to scream STOPS short of giving me a headache. Then it's assault.
Your right to protest stops at my property line. Then it's trespassing.
etc.

[K. A. Pital]

All rights are only abstract constructs originating from material conditions inside society. Once this is understood, the rest follows. It is not a failure to respect the rights, but just the lack of necessity for the ruling class to recognize, codify or accept certain rights.

[Solauren]

All rights are only abstract constructs originating from material conditions inside society. Once this is understood, the rest follows. It is not a failure to respect the rights, but just the lack of necessity for the ruling class to recognize, codify or accept certain rights.

Very true.

And since the majority of people prefer to keep their sexual activity in private. (I'm not talking affection, I'm talking sex), the likelyhood of the ruling class to see a necessity for a change is exceedingly low.

[Esquire]

Any poll which doesn't state what its sampling frame and final population were is not worth paying any attention to whatsoever. You can prove anything you like with the right survey design, and so until I know what design was used I consider nothing to have been proved.

Immediate edit: Exact questions being provided was so low a bar I didn't think I'd need to specify it, and yet...

[Esquire]

EDIT: Deleted

[loomer]

It's bad form to return to a debate you've left, for which I apologize, but this article presents a perfect example of the issue with Jub's thinking.

A woman says she is scared to go out after enduring a "terrifying" encounter with a man wearing a gimp suit in a dark village lane.

She was walking in Claverham, Somerset, when she saw "someone charging at me in a full black rubbery suit".

The man advanced towards her "grunting and breathing heavily" before fleeing the scene, she said.

Police said there had been a small number of reports of a man jumping out at people in the area.

Officers were called to the scene at about 23:30 BST on Thursday and used a helicopter and sniffer dog in an unsuccessful search for the man.

The victim, in her 20s, said the experience had "hugely affected" her, and she had chosen to speak to the BBC as she was concerned it may happen again.

"I would never forgive myself if this happened to someone else and I hadn't said anything," she said.
'Going to get attacked'

Describing the events that happened on her evening walk, she said she had her camera app open after spotting something on the side of the street.

"I was walking along with my torch and looked up to see someone charging at me in a full black rubbery suit and managed to take a picture," she said.

"He kept coming towards me and was touching his groin, grunting and breathing heavy.

"As I tried to take a step back he was right in front of my face and he put his leg forward. I was just trying to assess the situation in my head quickly."

"Everything was running through my head. I thought: 'This is it, I'm going to get attacked'.

"I was looking round thinking, oh my god."

The woman, who did not wish to be named, remembers pushing and screaming at the man, before he started running backwards to the main road.

An Avon and Somerset Police spokesperson said: "We're aware of concerns relating to a man acting suspiciously in the Claverham/Yatton area.

"While we're keeping an open mind about the motive for these incidents, it's clear the individual responsible is deliberately attempting to cause alarm to the men and women he's approaching.

"While no-one has been hurt during the incidents, we fully appreciate the distress these actions have caused victims."

Patrols in the area were being increased to reassure the public and identify the man responsible, the spokesperson added.

The victim has been left feeling "panicked... that there's someone watching... and I don't want to go out.

"It's not just a man jumping out at me going boo," she said.

"Every time I close my eyes I just see that face."

The man in the gimp suit was, if we use Jub's thinking, merely wearing what he wanted in a public area and touching himself, using the fact he was seen to others for a harmless sexual thrill. People had the choice to leave. If, however, we use sane thinking, it's a very different matter. We have a man, dressed in threatening sexual attire, touching himself while approaching people alone in public areas at night, causing them reasonable fear.

Now, Jub. Let me ask you. Do you think the man in the gimp suit did anything wrong, or should the woman he attacked simply be less prudish?

[Tribble]

It's bad form to return to a debate you've left, for which I apologize, but this article presents a perfect example of the issue with Jub's thinking.

The man in the gimp suit was, if we use Jub's thinking, merely wearing what he wanted in a public area and touching himself, using the fact he was seen to others for a harmless sexual thrill. People had the choice to leave. If, however, we use sane thinking, it's a very different matter. We have a man, dressed in threatening sexual attire, touching himself while approaching people alone in public areas at night, causing them reasonable fear.

Now, Jub. Let me ask you. Do you think the man in the gimp suit did anything wrong, or should the woman he attacked simply be less prudish?

...and? Why are we even debating this, given what the OP is supposed to be about?

Do we seriously believe that LGBT members just love to strip naked and/or wear gimp suits and touch themselves in public?

Newsflash: most don’t. I don’t think you guys should be taking your cues on what LGBT people like to wear based on Pride, an event purposely meant to exaggerate and caricature the LGBT community in order to draw attention.

[loomer]

It's bad form to return to a debate you've left, for which I apologize, but this article presents a perfect example of the issue with Jub's thinking.

The man in the gimp suit was, if we use Jub's thinking, merely wearing what he wanted in a public area and touching himself, using the fact he was seen to others for a harmless sexual thrill. People had the choice to leave. If, however, we use sane thinking, it's a very different matter. We have a man, dressed in threatening sexual attire, touching himself while approaching people alone in public areas at night, causing them reasonable fear.

Now, Jub. Let me ask you. Do you think the man in the gimp suit did anything wrong, or should the woman he attacked simply be less prudish?

...and? Why are we even debating this, given what the OP is supposed to be about?

Do we seriously believe that LGBT members just love to strip naked and/or wear gimp suits and touch themselves in public?

Newsflash: most don’t. I don’t think you guys should be taking your cues on what LGBT people like to wear based on Pride, an event purposely meant to exaggerate and caricature the LGBT community in order to draw attention.

We don't, but Jub decided to make the argument that total sexual freedom must be defended in response to the inappropriateness of wearing certain clothing in public.

[Effie]

We don't, but Jub decided to make the argument that total sexual freedom must be defended in response to the inappropriateness of wearing certain clothing in public.

I am curious as to whether public toplessness is more acceptable than wearing, say, a corset with a couple D-rings on it publicly.