Jub wrote: ↑
loomer wrote: ↑
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]
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?
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?
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood