The attention seeking thing is interesting. It may very well be that they are getting off on the attention; but I don’t think that necessarily flows from the fact they are doing their thing in the mall. It could be that they want to act out the dog/owner thing as realistically as possible, which consequently has to involve the “owner” taking his “dog” out in public since that’s what dogowners do.
Does this mall permit the walking of actual canines? If not, then I am comfortable discarding the realism hypothesis and retaining the attention whoring one.
Only if you’re another dog.
The only question is where to draw the line. We clearly have limits on how much sexual content can be shown in public. You can’t have sex in public, for example. Even in places where nudity is allowed, there are generally certain actions that are not. Especially when you throw in the idea of children possibly watching.
So it really all just boils down to whether this particular display of sexual actions crosses the line or not.
The point I will bring up is this: what happens if you take the sexuality out of the picture? I can think of no generally acceptable public displays of affection that wouldn’t be okay if not sexual. But if you didn’t know about BDSM and such, would you be okay with all this?
And don’t presume to know my answer. Because I don’t know. I don’t know if my desire to accept all different kinds of sexuality is getting in the way or not.
Meh. As long as they’re spayed/neutered, who cares?
Basically this. They’re using the public as a prop for their foreplay. Which is trashy and inconsiderate, even more so because they probably enjoy being shocking. But they have every right to be trashy and shocking as long as it doesn’t become overtly sexual. By the same token, everyone else has the right to judge them, tell them they’re being obnoxious, and the mall owner’s can tell them to leave. IMO it doesn’t cross any legal lines, so while they can be kicked out of privately owned businesses, there’s no reason to arrest them.
Ever get tired of being a foregone conslusion?
Considering how much a one trick ponyism he’s got going on, I think he protesteth too much.
Maybe they were doing it at the mall because they were buying shit in a mall.
If those gays weren’t looking for attention, why were they holding hands in the mall, shoving it in my face?
If that slutty woman wasn’t looking for attention, why was she showing her bare shoulders in the mall?
Who cares what they’re doing?
Urbanredneck, you are too cute. Make sure you check under your bed for the homogays before you go to bed!
I’m amazed this couple’s public display of fetishism is as accepted as it is with most of you.
I see no reasonable explanation for the couple’s statement other than they are lying: either they are doing it for the attention, or it does extend into their sex life as a sexual fetish. Like virtually all of you I have no problem with consenting adults doing anything legal behind closed doors (except watching the Kardashians on TV—that should be banned everywhere).
In fact, if it is their lifestyle and they enjoy it, and it’s non-sexual as they claim—isn’t that even worse? If not for sexual gratification, why else would a man enjoy walking his fiancé on a leash like a dog, and her enjoying it in return? Treating women like dogs is ok in public? Is that a message anyone should have to witness?
But, like I said, it’s either attention whoring, or it’s a sexual fetish. If there are no laws prohibiting the display of all sexual fetishes in public, then there should be. Maybe the definition of “obscene” needs to be broadened to protect against other fetishists coming out of the woodwork and strutting their stuff at the mall.
I’m certain you all can think of a variety of sexual fetishes that may not fit the criteria of being pornographic, or obscene in the current legal definition of the term (maybe Bricker can provide that), but that you definitely don’t want to see in public. Would you enjoy going to a restaurant and sitting next to a couple of foot or spit fetishists? I think that may diminish my appetite a bit, how about you? But, if we allow the BDSM dog walkers free public access, don’t the other fetishists have a valid argument with “you let them do it, why not us?” Slippery slope and all.
I don’t want to look at people walking other people on a leash in public. I don’t want my kids to see it; I don’t want my granny to see it; I don’t even want my dog to see it—it may put ideas in his head to reverse our current hierarchy relationship.
Nah…no one’s that knee-jerk conservative…
I underestimated Urbanredneck.
Of course they are. It’s legal and it’s their choice, but let’s be honest, they wanted attention.
Comparing this to holding hands is preposterous. Look, it’s fine to draw parallels sometimes, but there is also common sense and people acting that weird in public clearly want to be noticed.
The thing is… you don’t really get to decide what messages you should have to witness, in public. I don’t think I should have to witness a bumper sticker that extols voting for any Democrat, but I recognize that my desire cannot become fact.
In a free society, these folks are free to advertise, by their actions, that they think treating a woman like a dog is a fine thing.
Today’s legal test for obscenity dates back to the 1973 Supreme Court decision Miller v. California. There are three prongs to the Miller test:
[ol]
[li]Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the work, “taken as a whole,” appeals to “prurient interest”[/li][li]Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law[/li][li]Whether the work, 'taken as a whole," lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value[/ol][/li]
In my view, this fails on test #2: no state, so far as I am aware, captures fully-clothed persons wearing a leash and walking on all fours as sexual conduct.
Ok, explain yourself.
-
Do you think this should be accepted in public areas?
-
Do you think this should be added to school based sex ed programs?
What are the leash laws in that state for malls?
“Accepted” how? I don’t think we need a “no people on leashes” law but if people want to cluck their tongue disapprovingly, so be it.
I think upper level (high school, perhaps upperclassmen) sex ed should include mention that different people are into different things and provided that the parties involved are all on board, legal, safe and consenting then it’s all good. The same lessons that would apply to being pressured to give a blowjob would apply to feeling pressured to wear furry handcuffs (or, conversely, liking to give blowjobs is no more or less terrible than liking furry handcuffs). I don’t think it warrants a specific “Whips & Chains” chapter any more than we need a “Reverse Cowgirl Position” chapter.
Hey, at least they weren’t doing it because they were PETA activists.
I used to go to a fetish club where it wasn’t unusual at all to see someone on a leash. I wasn’t crazy about the leash thing, but I kept my mouth shut because I’m in a freakin’ fetish club. And if they were at the club looking for attention- well, that’s great! So is every other person at the club! Welcome!
Doing it in a mall though, that’s just sad. Most malls have a sad ambience about them these days, how glamorous and sexy can you possibly feel there? It’s like wearing a prom dress at the post office.
Not my thing but I’ve seen stranger back when the Art Institute crowd was bigger and more downtown.
Excellent summary! That’s pretty much my take on it too, but you said it better than I would have.