I don’t think anyone has argued that this activity was acceptable. Many have said it shouldn’t be outlawed, which is a different matter.
Passing a bunch of narrow laws to outlaw weird and unusual behavior that doesn’t directly harm people seems like a bad idea to me. But if someone I was close to tried to pull a stunt like that, I would tell them I thought they were acting like a jerk, and they should knock it off.
Heh, you are quite mistaken if you think I’m in the camp that wants to outlaw what this pair was up to - because, if you read the posts above, you will see that I’m not.
I just think that equating walking a partner on a leash like a dog with hand-holding is, quite frankly, complete nonsense. The notion that the average ‘person on the Clapham omnibus’ will, one day, find dog-walking a partner in public as normal and endearing as hand-holding is utterly delusional.
In fact, it is an odd echo of the old conservative lament over normailization of homosexuality - that if society fails to disapprove of homosexual expression in public (such as gay marriage), it must therefore approve of all sexual expression in public, no matter how publicly rude - the “slippery slope” argument. I always thought that argument was bullshit and that different situations were, well, different. Just because I approve of gays doing whatever straights are allowed to do in public without rudeness or comment does not, contrary to that old conservative argument, mean I have to approve of all sexual expressions in public - such as the various varieties of fetishism: piss-play say, or one partner physicially beating another with whips – or walking another like a dog.
That has, to be clear, nothing whatsoever to do with their “right to behave as they want” or with some alleged “obligation to behave according to [my] list of specifications”. They can make public exhibits of themselves, I for one will not lift a finger to stop them, or support laws that criminalize them - I just find it utterly tacky and rude. Some things, no matter what one’s sexual orientation or predilictions, are inherently, by the rules of politeness, private matters: actual sex is one of them - and so is various forms of fetishistic display that are clearly intended to unwittingly involve the public oin one’s own kink. If this annoys exhibitionists who get off on shocking people in public - well, so be it; acting out their kink, unfortunately, makes them rude.
The issue ought to have nothing to do with legality (or for that matter with any disapproval of fetishism as such) and everything to do with politeness and decorum.
Malthus: I do understand your position that such displays should not be outlawed. On that we agree 100%.
I also agree with you that it’s tacky and rude behavior. When I looked at their pictures I was not thinking about how much I wished they lived next door to me. Rather the opposite.
I think where you and I differ is simply in how much tolerance for public tackiness we each have. I for one am far more concerned about excessive social shaming and runaway quasi-religious enforced public compliance than I am about the general public’s admittedly huge ability to be low-brow.
It seems you draw your line more the other direction. Which is all just fine w me.
That’s fair enough.
Sometimes it was that. Sometimes, it was just that two people really wanted to hold hands. Very often, it wasn’t about communicating any sort of meaning at all.
Hence, to quote myself, “… Insofar as it is intended to have any meaning for observers …”.
It’s possible to be concerned about all of those things. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by social shaming, but doesn’t leash-walking a woman, or black man, or midget, or gay, or…anyone else fit the criteria of social shaming? As long as they don’t shame you, it’s ok?
The NY dog-woman likes to be leashed? So what? Nobody elected her to be the spokeswoman for womankind. Why is it now verboten to now show Disney cartoons depicting black people shucking & jiving on the screen, but ok to have some white attention whore walk a black person (or anyone else) on a leash at the mall? My vote? Ban it all. It’s disgusting, and an enlightened society, as we profess to be, ought to be able to make laws against things the majority of people, or minority protected class, find disgusting and shameful.
The law’s not rocket science; it’s simply manipulation of words. You don’t need Einstein to make a law prohibiting shameful behavior.
Right - and some times there is zero intent.
So, how are you so completely certain that’s not the case with our dog walkers?
Again, “Ban what the majority of people, or minority protected class dislikes!” would be a very, very slippery slope.
Not really, no. Social shaming is done with an intent to get a person to stop a particular behavior. This is different than people who are into shame play as part of a BDSM relationship - the person walking his girlfriend on a leash is, presumably, not attempting to shame her into not acting like a dog anymore. And that’s assuming that shame plays into what they’re doing at all.
Huh? Who said that she spoke for all womankind?
It’s not “verboten” for Disney to use racial caricatures in their movies. They don’t do it anymore, because it won’t sell anymore. But there’s no “ban” on putting a big ol’ Mammy stereotype in the next Pixar movie. They won’t be arrested, or sued over it. They’ll just get a shit-ton of bad publicity and lose a lot of money on their movie.
I think that’s almost precisely the opposite of what an enlightened society looks like. On the contrary, that’s a massively reactionary stance - an appeal to turn back the clock to when anyone deviating from the accepted norm can be penalized for it, regardless if their behavior is causing any actual harm or not.
The really funny bit is where you threw in “protected minority class” in there, as if that actually meant something in the context of your argument. Twenty years ago, the majority of people in this country thought gays were shameful and disgusting. Under your concept of an “enlightened” society, the country would have been perfectly justified at banning open displays of homosexuality, because it was “disgusting” to the majority. And today, when the majority of the country thinks that gays should be allowed to marry, there’s still a minority who thinks that homosexuality is disgusting. And (unlike gays) they’re largely a protected minority - Christians. So, that’s it for gay rights.
And the same applies, obviously, to every single civil rights movement ever. Black rights? It’s shameful how those uppity blacks think they’re as good as white people. Banned. Women’s rights? Disgusting, seeing all those women leave their proper place in the home and start trying to get jobs like men. Banned.
See, what makes a society enlightened is the realization that behavior that does not harm people should not be criminalized. Basing legislation on nothing more than the squick factor is not just anti-enlightenment, it’s a fundamentally juvenile mindset, an inability to see past one’s own prejudices and allow others the freedom to live their own lives how they best see it.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that these laws you support are too hard to write. The main argument is that they’re really, really stupid laws. So, no, you don’t need an Einstein to write them. Pretty much exactly the opposite of an Einstein, really.
Miller: Well, first of all, now that I’ve gotten your attention, and I’m still not sure, based on your last reply, whether or not you’re a lawyer…can you answer the question, “what intrinsically is the difference between hard core fetishism and sex and public nudity, other than the fact the public hard core fetishism is, as far as I can tell, not illegal and public sex and nudity are illegal? Is it, as Gyrate seems to allude to, a matter of public hygiene? Or, is it, as Bricker appears to allude to a matter that needs to pass the Miller Test? Or, is it something else?
Just to be clear, I don’t mean the “you” Miller test, I mean the Miller v. California Test. 
Absolutely not. If you reread both what I wrote and what I was responding to, you will notice that the whole point was to counter the idea that acting in a way that attracts negative attention necessarily means that the motivation is attracting negative attention.
I also disagree with you on this point. I think you’re wrong also when assuming that gay people holding hands in public were necessarily trying to assert anything. Not everything done in public is a deeply thought of public proclamation.
For instance, what about tourists wearing skimpy clothes in countries where such clothing is generally considered shocking? Do you believe every one of them is either enjoying the negative attention or making a deliberate public statement about the freedom to dress the way you want?
Sometimes, people’s motivations are pretty straightforward, like in “I feel like doing this, and the hell with what those people will think”.
And, who gets to make that interpretation, the dog walker, the dog, or the people having to witness the dog-woman? Because, to me it looks like the “dog” is in a subordinate position, not unlike an antebellum slave.
Grin! I probably am…
It isn’t so much that I’m okay with it…but that the world is absolutely full of things I’m not okay with…so I might as well shrug and let the world do its thing.
I’m far more opposed to nuclear weapons than to leash cosplay, and you can see how much attention the world pays to me when it comes to weapons.
I’m far more opposed to someone in the parking lot with a “Fuck Obama” bumper sticker. And since that’s perfectly legal, I figure I just have to put up with the lesser offense.
Fetishism is subjective. One guy gets an erection every time he sees toesies, but most of us don’t. That one guy goes to the mall and stares at anyone who is wearing sandals. He’s having the time of his life. He’s deriving significant sexual gratification from it.
What can we do about it? Since most of the rest of us aren’t stimulated in that way, we don’t have laws against “idecent exposure” of the toes. If all of us were inclined that way, we’d probably have such laws.
The law has to be objective. We have laws preventing lovers from grinding their hips together in erotic conjunction (tribadism or frottage.) So, yes, we do have laws restricting some kinds of public behavior. This is probably okay.
(It leads to huge “gray areas” involving “disturbing the peace” or “offending public morals,” where the arresting officer, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury might all have entirely different values and beliefs.)
Personally, I think that the law should, in fact, permit public nudity. But there isn’t a chance in hell of that social reform coming along any time soon.
(Public sex, no, because that could foul the scene with contaminants. I don’t want to have to mop up reproductive fluids every time I sit on a park bench. Oops, too late.)
(Hell, I once saw a urinal with a splash of semen…at Disneyland! What kind of perv jacks off in a urinal at Disneyland?)
I am not a lawyer. I do not know the legal distinction between public sex, public nudity, and public fetishism. My personal distinction is, “Gross, should be illegal, but I honestly can’t give a good reason,” “Gross, should be legal, because it’s not hurting anyone,” and “Hilarious, and should be encouraged at every opportunity.” In that order.
Since I can’t give a good reason for the first thing being illegal, I’m not going to try to argue that it should be illegal, because that’s an argument I’d lose. If there’s every something on the ballot about legalizing public sex, I’m going to have to do some hard thinking before I vote. Since that’s probably never going to happen, I don’t worry about it too much.
What do you mean, who gets to make that interpretation? What interpretation? That the purpose of walking her on a leash is not to get her to stop walking on a leash? Yes, the woman is clearly in a subordinate position. So what? What does that have to do with what I wrote? For that matter, what does that have to do with the sentence immediately preceding it?
FTR, the incident described is, in fact, wholly unlike antebellum slavery. For one thing, the woman’s there voluntarily, and can leave whenever she wanted. For another… actually, no, never mind. There isn’t another. “There voluntarily,” and “Can leave at any time,” are enough to make the comparison insultingly inapt.
I’ll take “Questions you don’t want the answer to for a 1000,” Alex.
Twenty years ago is not today. And 20 years into the future is not today. We deal with current issues as best we can. What else can we do?
Please explain what that has to do with anything. I don’t use marijuana. I think recreational use of marijuana should be legal. I dislike golf intensely. Golfing is legal, and I think it should stay that way. How is what I might hypothetically do or not do relevant to anything?