3 ms·
Wow, what a twist. I'd say that doesn't really apply though because not only is consensual BDSM invisible as a minority classification, it actively tries to re
by kcolford 6y ago
Wow, what a twist.
I'd say that doesn't really apply though because not only is consensual BDSM invisible as a minority classification, it actively tries to remain hidden in public. It is inappropriate to display such things to people who haven't consented to being shown them. That's why you don't wear a gimp suit to go grocery shopping, the other patrons haven't consented to being part of that scene. So if anything someone who engages in BDSM would be very much offended see master/slave used casually in a public setting.
- hevelvarik 6y agoThis is the most patient comment I’ve ever seen and I applaud you for it!
- xscott 6y agoPatient or not, it isn't true. Even in a small semi-rural town, I saw a dominant/submissive family at the grocery store where one of them wore pretty revealing clothing with a t-shirt that said she was "collared and loved". To me, they looked like a very happy, if unconventional, couple. >> It is inappropriate to display such things [...] Heh, "inappropriate" is such a slippery word.
- devwastaken 6y agoYou're displaying the words BDSM in public on this very forum to people who haven't consented to it. That's innapropriate and we have to create a policy that respects those who don't want to see that. ~My point is when you take entire words, regardless of their context and outlaw them you're inherently suppressing that words representation of groups that use it in different contexts. There is no reason to wholey remove the terms master and slave unless the words are wholey wrong to use, which would then mean that BDSM surely is as well. Either you take all of it as being wrong or accept that words have context.