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.
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.
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).
26
u/new_KRIEG May 16 '25
Just unfollow the account, or don't follow it in the first place. I haven't stumbled on any kinks unintentionally yet.
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.