I know many, many men who have been on short leashes all their married life.
No threat of being scrapped?
ISTM that they are not doing anything legally wrong but since they are not a protected class, the mall has the option to ask them to leave. Personally, I don’t care what they do as long as they don’t frighten the horses. As an aside, if you object to consensual dominant/submissive relationships, should the Dugger parents be allowed out in public?
Came here to pretty much write this.
Some submissives wear collars to indicate that they’re taken, yes. Sometimes they look like “dog collars” with an O-ring and so on. Sometimes they look like a metal choker. Sometimes the submissive just wears a specific necklace or charm, or another piece of jewelry (such as a locking bracelet or anklet). Depends on the couple, and the actual daily needs of the submissive.
It’s interesting that when I ran the same article past some fellow BDSM practitioners, the response was a giant eye roll and the suggestion that the couple in the OP were kind of being assholes. Most of the folks I know who are into those activities tend to keep things to appropriate locations. If you’re at a kink festival, fine. If you’re at a club, fine. If you’re in your own home, fine. But in public? Don’t frighten the horses.
Well my only thought on the issue of (social group du jour here) is that when the time comes for a social group to move from underground to above ground status the first members to do so tend to the the most outrageous, flamboyant, in-your-face types.
Once these folks have broken the surface into the collective societal eye most people tend to regard these outliers as true representatives of the genre they espouse. Only later, as more members of that social caste reveal themselves to the world does the true nature of the individuals involved become understood.
For example in the '70s many people thought Paul Linde and Charles Nelson Reilly represented gay society. Only later as family, friends and coworkers emerged were many Americans likely to understand that “Hey, they’re like us.”
My opinion is they’re trying too hard. Not shocked, not nothing. I’d just shrug and move along. If my granddaughter was with me, I’d just say that some adults are into different things than others, then I’d ask her if she’d like to go get an ice cream.
Don’t give up. Try some of the smaller strip malls.
Well that’s totally inappropriate!
…She should be wearing the required emotional support companion vest!
Some people, I swear… 
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I’m sorry, I was just doing my job…
I have boys around this age. Basically, what Miller said. Sure, the 10 year old would know it’s really weird. But they would (quite rightly) be satisfied with the explanation that some people are really weird and their behaviour is almost beyond explaining. That’s all there is to it. It’s the simple truth. If they really wanted to question deeper you could raise the speculative amateur-psych points that have been raised here (lack of responsibility, being looked after etc).
You may be right but then let’s put this in context; people go out in public in ways that display their sexuality all the damn time and do they want attention? They sure do. A young woman displaying her tits and ass through tight or minimal clothing is doing more to explicitly draw attention to her secondary *sexual *characteristics than this couple. The difference here is that this couple’s particular sexuality is weird, not that attention seeking through displaying sexuality is weird (assuming that’s what’s going on).
Or at least an Elizabethan collar.
If I had small children, particularly girls, I would not want to have to explain the concept of BDSM to them until a much later age. “There are some men who enjoy raping, torturing, and humiliating women”? That seems likely to cause nightmares in a 7-year-old.
What do you see as the relevance of your comment to the OP?
Banning something because it is somebody’s fetish is stupid. If these two were being actively obnoxious about it - if the woman was shouting “Bark!” or something like that - that would be something worth cracking down on. Crawling on hands and knees and wearing a lead? As long as she’s careful not to trip anyone up, I don’t care.
Fifty Shades of Grey is not an accurate depiction of BDSM, ITR.
I don’t know why BDSM or sexual fetishism is even being mentioned in this context. Sure, that may be what underlies this couple’s behaviour but we only know that through our own assumptions not through what they are doing (publically). And when it comes to small children, it seems completely nonsensical to even mention the subject since unless you tell them that this couple may be doing what they are doing as part of something BDSM or sexual, they aren’t going to know.
sigh Even though I know I’ll regret asking this: What’s an otherkin?
People whose particular brand of special snowflakeness revolves around not being human.
Because of the B and the D in BDSM. How is their activity not bondage/discipline?
I believe we had a thread about it, and it has been mentioned in others. Ah, here’s the one.
Now aren’t you glad you asked?