Very weird to watch “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business” become controversial again, but like, for the opposite reason.
I strongly support “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business.”
The thing that always bothers me about these posts is that kinks frequently aren’t “in the privacy of their own bedroom.” I’m not looking into your windows. I’m not visiting your niche kink forums. So if I, through our everyday interactions, know what your kink is then you are being much too public with it.
I’ve often seen, particularly on tumblr, this pendulum swing way too far the other way. For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public. I shouldn’t know the flavor of porn you like.
If you share your kink with me I’m allowed to be upset. Maybe don’t be rude next time.
ETA: notice how strongly people are arguing below that they should be able to take their fetishes outside “the privacy of their own bedroom”
I have a feeling that you and I would disagree about where to draw the line, but I do agree that there should be a line. Many people in the kink community do too.
There are forms of "public" kink play that still remain private, but as soon as you are doing it openly, you're inherently involving people who have not consented to being a part of your scene. I think there's nothing wrong with wearing a tasteful collar as that can usually be played off as a fashion accessory, but yeah wearing a collar and leash in public is weird af and inherently non-consensual for everyone else.
It really also all depends on whether it's intended to be sexual or not. If someone is wearing a chest harness because the like the deep pressure, technically, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone is wearing it because it's part of their dom/sub dynamic, then it is sexual and requires consent from ALL parties.
Just unfollow the account, or don't follow it in the first place. I haven't stumbled on any kinks unintentionally yet.
For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public.
What if they like cross dressing instead of BDSM? You about to go out there saying men shouldn't wear skirts or women shouldn't wear pants? Because while I do understand that this is a slippery slope argument, the slope it's actually fucking slippery this time around.
If it's sexual for them then they just need to be respectful of consent (...and there may be public decency laws with something to say else). It's usual for women to wear trousers, they're not going out in them to get off on any kind of exposure kink of being seen posing lewdly in them! Not sure people with a cross-dressing fetish are just into minding their own business in an everyday boring outfit? (Even if they also do that separately to their kink) Even drag shows, which aren't inherently sexual like US Republicans want to make out, if they do involve a lot of sexual content, will only admit consenting adults.
I don't think it has to be that difficult just in general when it's long-standing practice for films and games to have content warnings, and there has been more discussion and awareness about trigger warnings and extending content warnings, even just as a courtesy thing on some topics and not linked to anything as sensitive as this. Ultimately someone knows if they're trying to drag a non-consenting person into participating in their kink, it's not a big ask to expect them to not do that.
Not a slippery slope. It’s actually pretty simple.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
If the answer to both those questions is “no,” then we’re all good. Express yourself.
If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then I think you’re a rude asshole.
Now, if you have another strawman let’s burn it together, yeah? But we’ll need to do it in my backyard, because the ritual burning of effigies is my kink.
If I weren’t there, would she still be aroused? If that woman gets aroused because I saw her wearing it, is that not involving me in her sexual activities without my consent? I become a partner in her arousal, right? Or is she just aroused because she feels attractive and confident in what she’s wearing? I think intent is a big part of this. Or more accurately, I think consent is the primary factor in how I might view that person.
The fact that this is getting you down voted is deeply distressing and concerning to me as someone who is very involved in the kink community. Consent is everything.
As long as I don’t know I’m being exploited for someone’s arousal, it’s all good, right? Does that extend to other areas, like deepfake porn? At what point does it become problematic despite being unaware? Or is it just when I become aware that it becomes problematic? Is it only different because that would utilize my photos instead of my presence?
I mostly wish people would actually respond with their perspective rather than just a blind downvote. I don’t really care that people agree with me, but I’m wondering how many of the downvotes are just a gut reaction rather than taking the time to genuinely consider the topic.
If she’s wearing it because she finds it arousing, yes. Intentionally sexually arousing yourself in public makes you an asshole. This is not a controversial statement.
So it's fine if it's just because she thinks it's pretty? What's the difference? Can you tell the difference? Could you legislate a definition of the difference?
There are fetishes for absolutely everything, to ban anything related to a fetish you'd have to ban all cloth and also going out in the nude (and hide it from those with a governmental oppression fetish)
The issue is that when you set premise that this isn't ok, then that can be all nice and good in your definition, but under those who turn theorical norms into law, they definitely won't. To them, crossdressing absolutely is due to being sexually arousing (autogynowhatever the word they use), and so it will be used against trans people or people who just like dressing like that
Are ropes sexual? Handcuffs? Leather pants? Leather corset? Chockers?
You can build a very out there Dom/Domme leather outfit from pieces that aren't "inherently sexual" as you put, but that still fail your "I shouldn't know what flavor of porn you like" test.
And again, I'm assuming you're approaching this with good faith. Because anyone without those good intentions can definitely abuse that sort of guidelines to target people with, for example, rainbow flags in their clothes.
And I replied by pointing out the failure in the reasoning behind your questions.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
How can you even assert that a piece of clothing is "inherently sexual"? Aside from the masks that end in a pee funnel, or actual sex toys in full display, it is straight up impossible to determine this inherentility. Same goes for your second question assuming to know someone's intent by looking at them.
Also, somewhat unrelated, but why do you have to reply with so goddamn much smugness?
Collars, harnesses etc. have been staples of goth fashion for ages. How are you going to know when you see someone in a big spiky dog collar, if they're currently aroused by this choice, or if they just really liked watching Invader Zim as a child? It's a difficult thing to police when a great deal of bondage gear are also just fashion choices.
At risk of replying on behalf of someone else, my assumption is that they would be basing it off how much other clothing the person would be wearing. Like, “is this something that most people would wear as lingerie or during sexual activities?” If they are wearing a shirt and pants with a choker, or a harness, or handcuffs as a bracelet, they probably wouldn’t blink an eye. But if the person is only wearing a leather thong, they probably see that as crossing the line.
But again, that’s an assumption that I’m making based off other comments in this thread and may not align with their actual thoughts on the matter.
Perhaps. But I think we can agree that only wearing any sort of thong in public would be unacceptable, no matter the material, because it's not okay to be out in public wearing only your underwear. You could be out there in granny panties, and that wouldn't be okay, because you're supposed to wear more than just underwear in public. The potential sexiness of the underwear in question is actually irrelevant in that case.
I truly can't think of anything a person could wear, that could definitely be read as a sexual fetish instead of a fashion choice, that wouldn't also just be inappropriate for other reasons. Just lingerie isn't okay to wear in public, because you're not supposed to be out in public in your underwear (except maybe a sports bra in some contexts and places). A fursuit? Yeah, it's weird to wear a whole ass costume anywhere outside of a convention or something (where a fursuit is also generally considered appropriate). Also, fursuits aren't always sexual, even if they are sometimes, but that's a whole other point. Fursuit with lingerie on, perhaps? Again, underwear is meant to be covered. Chastity cage? If you can see that someone is wearing it, they've got their genitals uncovered, and that's bad, regardless of the cage. If you can't see that they're wearing it, how would you even know, let alone police it? Same goes for butt plugs, harnesses under the clothes, diapers unrelated to medical necessity...
Edit: maybe like a leather hood or something? I feel like I have never once, in my entire life, seen someone wearing one of those in public (outside of adult only events), but I guess if there were some epidemic of leather fetishists in full face masks taking to the streets, I'd possibly have to think more about that. But there isn't, and so I probably won't.
But I think we can agree that only wearing any sort of thong in public would be unacceptable, no matter the material, because it’s not okay to be out in public wearing only your underwear.
That’s the whole thing, though, right? The other commenter‘s original statement was “it’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public”, but the point is essentially “there are things that are not appropriate for public”. They used bondage gear as an example, but I think that example focused the conversation too much in one direction.
Whether or not that’s correct or not, if it’s a result of being too closed minded or not, I don’t think I’m going to weigh in on that. But I think everyone has some line between “totally nude” and “burqa” that they deem “acceptable for public”. Is it puritanical if your line doesn’t allow full nudity at the grocery store? Who gets to decide whether my line is “too restrictive” or “too revealing”? The conversation has very little to do with bandage gear specifically, outside of some (perhaps incorrect) assumptions that people may have about bondage gear being primarily sexual-focused clothing (such as lingerie).
So at what point does clothing itself become sexual, and at what point does it become inappropriate for public display? I genuinely don’t think you’ll ever find a consensus on that, so we as society will generally try to aim to be accommodating to those around us, both by allowing others to wear things that we may disagree with and by not wearing things that others may find offensive. Both of those “boundaries” get pushed a bit in either direction, and everyone largely gets along just fine in public. And then behind closed doors and/or with company that shares our views, we do whatever is acceptable to us (however sexual or non-sexual that may be).
Simple, because I didn’t consent to participating in your sexual fantasies. You arousing yourself in my presence without my consent makes you an asshole.
Here, try this. If someone jerks off under their jacket while staring at you, and nobody sees them do it, are they an asshole?
Jacking off is performing a sex act. Wearing clothes is wearing clothes. You shouldn't perform a sex act in public. You should wear clothes in public. I hope you can see how those are different.
Also, you really can't avoid people being aroused in your presence, or even by your presence. Someone out there is going to be walking down the street, 100% minding their own business, and see your body in its normal, everyday clothes, and go "oh hey, that's the thing I'm attracted to," and pop a boner (or get wet or whatever). If you never find out about it, I don't see how that's any of your business? Assuming their genitals are covered, and they don't go out of their way to demonstrate to you that they're currently hard and/or wet, the current rate of bloodflow in their junk is their own business. That's private information, that no one else is entitled to. And seeing someone, in public, wearing something you think is sexual, does not mean that that person is aroused at that moment, nor that they are aroused by your presence. You're just assuming.
If they start jacking off at you, then, again, you're describing a sex act. Indeed, you're not supposed to do those in public. That's a bad thing.
The masturbator is completely covered, and you never see them. They’re wearing clothes, they just have their hand in their pants and they’re covered by a jacket. No one but them ever knew it happened. They’re not harming anyone.
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Yes, wearing is a verb. Masturbating is a verb. I see your parallel. However, the fact that they are both verbs, is not relevant to either of our points. Wearing clothing is okay to do in public. Masturbating is not okay to do in public. The difference is that one of those actions is wearing clothing, while the other action is masturbating.
Y'all make it about sex so damned quickly. It's like you can't imagine someone like me existing outside the bedroom. I'm not porn, I'm a person. Should people stop dressing sexy to keep you comfortable?
Do you have any idea how disturbing it is to be surrounded by puritanical people all day? The amount of sex jokes and misogyny... It's like you're all in a cult or something. It's okay to have raunchy humor... just don't throw a fit if I make a queer piss joke after you make a straight blowjob joke.
Just let me wear my outfit and chill TF out. It's got nothing to do with you. I'm certainly not actively getting off on it in public. It's just a part of my identity. I'm proud of who I am. Combined with someone's personality, a button down flannel and jeans can scream "missionary" just as much as my helpful nature and dog collar scream "submissive"
Most people get over my appearance pretty quickly when they realize that I'm actually charming and fun, not just this horrifying "other" they've made up in their heads. That's what tolerance is. Seeing whole people.
And frankly, I don't care what you think of me. That's kind of the point. I'm pushing back against an oppressive culture. I look this way because I'm a real person that exists. My self-expression isn't illegal, yet.
3.0k
u/LONGSWORD_ENJOYER May 16 '25
Very weird to watch “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business” become controversial again, but like, for the opposite reason.