emmelinemay: (Real men)
emmelinemay ([personal profile] emmelinemay) wrote2008-01-22 03:46 pm
Entry tags:

Goths in the Daily Mail...

Goth who walks fiancee on a leash is banned by bus driver who told him: 'No dogs allowed'

The Daily Mail reports that, basically, goths are treated like weirdos because they dress weird.

This is one reason I don't miss dressing crazy on a day-today basis any more.

I have my grannie's voice in my head going 'she'll catch her death going out dressed like that in weather like this'

Oh, daily mail.

The comments are comedy gold.

What idiots! What do they do when they go to work? Dress the same? Or don't they work? They would never get past a first stage interview dressed like this.
- S, Leicester

He looks like a work-shy scrounger to me, get a job and pay your way.
- Harry Basset, Whitby

If he was a gentleman goth, he would loan her his coat.
- John, United Kingdom

Re: Let's play mad-libs

[identity profile] cyber-child.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 06:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you're trying to say here? :/

Why are you bringing homosexual sex into the argument? Any reason you've quoted me almost verbatim too?

I'm not trying to sound like a dick, and if I've somehow missed out on a subtlety here, please let me know. *confused*

[identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 06:26 pm (UTC)(link)
As far as I'm concerned BDSM is a sexuality, and I genuinely am interested in your views on what the distinction between a sexuality and a sexual/lifestyle practice; are you not just talking about a question of scale?
No; sexuality is to do with who you're attracted to, sexual practice is to do with what you want to do to/with them. Being with the person you're attracted to in public is a pretty basic right; doing the things you want to do with them in public isn't.

Now, admittedly, the social rules on what is and isn't allowable in public are fairly arbitrary, but they apply to everyone within a given society; it wouldn't be acceptable for non-BDSMers to lead each other around on leashes in public either. But BDSMers can hold hands in public, just like everyone else.

I stand by my assertion that BDSM couples have just as much right to express their relationship in public as anyone else, and going out in public wearing a leash doesn't transgress the standard you laid out
I think it does, actually; for most people, wearing a leash (not just a collar) is not merely an expression of a relationship, but also a sexual act. Of course couples who are into BDSM have a right to express their relationship in public, and there are many ways they could do so within the terms of their preferences; a slave collar, a t-shirt or dog-tag saying "Dani's Bitch", and so on. But leading your girlfriend/sub/whatever on a leash takes it a step beyond that, and into the realms of active scening, which makes it inappropriate for public places.

As I said, I think the bus driver in question acted like a twat, adn I certainly wouldn't suggest stringing the two goth kids up for their transgression, but I do think they're extremely naive to expect people to accept the whole leash thing without blinking. Either they're sceners who are taking a scene out into the (non-consenting) public, in which case they really need to revisit the whole "safe, sane, and consensual" thing, or they're actually just doing it because they think it's cool and a bit kinky and shocking. In which case they can hardly be surprised and horrified when people are shocked by it.

Re: Let's play mad-libs

[identity profile] jaketherat.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 06:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Sorry for confusion, I was (somewhat facetiously) making the point that if you substitute gay for BDSM then the debate immediately hits much rockier ground. Your comment was just an easy target for this and I didn't have any particular urge to flame you. My broader point, I guess, is that I don't get why BDSM sexuality is considered a legitimate target for discrimination by people who never dream of applying the same attitude to gay people. Your comment doesn't seem out of place in this day and age, my version of your comment wouldn't have seemed out of place in 1970s debate about gay couples publicly displaying affection. If it weren't for pioneering couples who dared to confront that earlier prejudice then we wouldn't have the tolerant society that we do today. I see a double standard, is the brief way of putting it :)

[identity profile] jaketherat.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I disagree with your definitions on where the line between sex and sexuality lie, but I don't see any point arguing that one any further as we're clearly just going to disagree.

Either they're sceners who are taking a scene out into the (non-consenting) public, in which case they really need to revisit the whole "safe, sane, and consensual" thing, or they're actually just doing it because they think it's cool and a bit kinky and shocking.

Or they could be doing it because it genuinely reflects the way they feel about each other and they want to express the nature of their relationship, and why shouldn't they?

In which case they can hardly be surprised and horrified when people are shocked by it.

As far as I can tell, they're not complaining about people being shocked, the issue is that they weren't allowed to ride the bus.

Regarding safe, sane and consensual, I don't think much of the general public's right not to be offended by minorities' self expression. This may be a more extreme position than I think it is, I don't know. I'm sorry to return to the same analogy, but I can't get the image of Jim Davidson types saying 'I don't mind what they get up to behind closed doors' about gay people. That's the image of the 'non-consenting' public that I have and, frankly, fuck 'em.

Apologies for the poorly constructed argument, I seem to have gone into rambling mode.

[identity profile] nils.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 06:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Pretty much guaranteed to shock people, I guess... ;-)

[identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 07:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Or they could be doing it because it genuinely reflects the way they feel about each other and they want to express the nature of their relationship, and why shouldn't they?

Because society as a whle likes to keep intimate expressions of feeling towards one's partner in private. As I say, the line is fairly arbitrary, but it's there, and it applies to everyone. If I want to express my tenderness towards my loved one by smearing him in honey and licking it off slowly, good for me. But I'd better not do it on public transport, no?

I'm sorry to return to the same analogy, but I can't get the image of Jim Davidson types saying 'I don't mind what they get up to behind closed doors' about gay people. That's the image of the 'non-consenting' public that I have and, frankly, fuck 'em.
SO should we just accept people having sex in public, then?

The way I see it, it's all about equality. If straight people can hold hands in public, then gay people should also be able to hold hands in public, and if Jim Davidson objects, then he can go and fuck himself in the privacy of his own home.

But that's not the issue here; it's not about allowing one set of people to do something in public, but objecting wqhen another group of people do the same thing; it's about deciding where the line lies between "expressions of affection which are acceptable in public" and "expressions of affection which are not acceptable in public". Obviously some people will put it further towards one end or the other, but I can't say I think it's particularly oppressive to say that leading someone on a leash is on the "not acceptable in public" side (as long as we say the same regardless of whether the people involed are straight, gay, bi, into BDSM or whatever).

As far as riding the bus is concerned, yes, they should of course be allowed to ride the bus, and yes, of course the driver in question is being a twat. But that doesn't mean that they arne't kind of being twats too. They can hardly be unaware that leading your girlfriend around on a leash is not normal or socially accepted behaviour, whether they're doing it as part of a scene or just for shock value.

I'm actually trying to think now how I would react if a student of mine came to my office with their partner/sub on a string; I think I would insist that they put their scene (or whatever) on hold while in my office, regardless of what they choose to do on their own time.

Re: Let's play mad-libs

[identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 07:15 pm (UTC)(link)
The thing is, there really is a difference between the partner you choose, and the acts you perform with them. That difference is, I think, obvious to most people, and is also obvious to the law, and to people who study sexuality. There is a very very big difference between saying "You may not be gay in public" and saying "You may not perform sexual acts in public".

I realise (from your other comments) that you don't acknowledge that difference, but you're in the minority there, and to try to claim discrimination purely on the basis that you think performing an act of BDSM in public is no different from being gay is... well, I don't think it's going to get you very far, is all.

[identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 07:17 pm (UTC)(link)
You don't see the difference between being gay or straight or whatever, and actually having sex or performing sexual acts? If that's not what you're saying, could you explain, because I'm honestly a bit confused; to me, the distinction is very clear, so I may just be missing your point here.

[identity profile] deviblue.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 07:54 pm (UTC)(link)
What hes wearing is fine

What shes wearing is fine (although not exactly the best thing to wear in a cold and wet part of the country)

its the dog chain that makes them look like a pair of cocks.

...and his name

[identity profile] quercus.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
This isn't the BD community though - it's only a couple of kids trying to outrage the straights. Keeping your partner on a doglead is hardly outrageous. Look at the outrage here - not "sexual deviancy!" or "buggery on the rates!" but just a vague unease about the post-Beauvoir gender politics of who's on which end of the leash.

Now when _can_ a bus driver exclude a passenger? Pretty much whenever they feel like it (and so should it be). With a few stautory exceptions for race, gender, age, disability (unobserved) and maybe religion these days, the driver can do what they like, subject only to keeping the company happy that they're a profitable steward for their bus.

Any "court action" is pointless and doomed (and this ain't Usenet, so let's forget the playground "I'll sue you rhetoric").

Equally, the driver is hardly "insulting" the passenger by calling her a dog. She has after all, donned a dog collar.

So what are the company's rules? If they exclude passengers who will "outrage" or "offend" other passengers, then they've good grounds. But if the Daily Mule can run your story, you're hardly succeeding in offending the straight-laced! So if we've any complaint with the driver, it's that they're personally being unreasonably exclusive to people who are now broadly mainstream. No more than that. If the company wants a profitable route around Erfurt or Whitby , then maybe they'd better recruit some more tolerant drivers. In the meantime though, it's just a couple of insignificant people being inconvenienced by their non-conformity. Now -that_ has gone on since hippies, beatniks, and whatever they had in Victoria's day.

[identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com 2008-01-22 11:31 pm (UTC)(link)
This isn't the BD community though - it's only a couple of kids trying to outrage the straights.
Well, quite; they've made a big effort to stand out and shock people,and now they've succeeded. Well done them.

That being the case, it would be daft to suggest that there's some sort of big equality issue here, or that they're being oppressed for their sexuality or whatever.

As I've said, I don't think the bus driver was right to assault them, nor to ban them from the bus, but I also think that they are idiots.

Now -that_ has gone on since hippies, beatniks, and whatever they had in Victoria's day.
Aesthetes, perhaps? Or were they more Edwardian?

[identity profile] load-of-flannel.livejournal.com 2008-01-23 11:51 am (UTC)(link)
Well Id have sympathy.

Except both of them are so stunningly stupid they actually talked to the Sun and posed for a photo.

So Sympathy gone.

Also their sole plan is to immeadiately have children which they obviously cant afford to support. Although it is the Sun so that might not be true.

However anyone who talks to the Sun probably is the sort of waste of space who thinks that breeding is a god given right that every other persopn should pay for.

The Bus Drivers a git though.... Dogs are allowed on bus's. Certainly Stage Coach and all London busses.

The Bus Drivers who claim they arent are probably liars. Usually its an excuse to keep the big issue vendor from getting home.

Three times Ive had a busdriver off his bus and talking to his 'managers' for trying to pull that one.

[identity profile] wildeabandon.livejournal.com 2008-01-23 01:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Now, admittedly, the social rules on what is and isn't allowable in public are fairly arbitrary, but they apply to everyone within a given society; it wouldn't be acceptable for non-BDSMers to lead each other around on leashes in public either. But BDSMers can hold hands in public, just like everyone else.

I think this is where I disagree with you. I mean, outside a BDSM context there's a scale with varying degrees of social acceptability, which goes roughly from holding hands, via fairly chaste kissing, passionate snogging, fumbling, through to actual sex. It's not immediately obvious where being on a leash falls on that scale, but my instict would be somewhere between chaste kissing and passionate snogging, so maybe a bit naff, but not offensive in the same way that an actual scene would be.

[identity profile] quercus.livejournal.com 2008-01-23 01:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Aesthetes were definitely Victorian - 1870s, 1880s. They were ridiculed too (G&S' "Patience") and Wilde was once chucked in the river Cherwell.

Edwardians had their own "teddy boys", but largely in a mild and jovial manner. They favoured many of the fashions later revived in the '50s, often with the addition of a swordstick. The more extreme end of this was the same sort who today end up with the BNP. Their favoured "sport" was slumming it in the rougher end of London, then carving up isolated non-English poor people. The whole "Sexton Blake"-era schtick of Limehouse opium dens and "The Yellow Peril" was fuelled by hysterical jingoistic tabloids of the period (which brings us back to the Daily Mule), and anyone non-white around that part of town was considered fair game for a bit of ultraviolence. A lot of Burgess' inspiration for Alex's droogs came from this period.

[identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com 2008-01-23 01:36 pm (UTC)(link)
I suspect it depends on whetehr one sees BDSM as purely sexual, or as something else as well; in the sexual sense, yes, you're probably right. On the other hand, I find my feminist hackles rising slightly at the whole concept of a man leading a woman around on a leash in public. I suspect I'd probably object somewhat no matter what the gender-pairing, come to that. In any case, to me, the sort of power-play that it represents makes it an uncomfortable thing to watch, as an outsider, because what the outsider sees is not the love and affection and respect,a nd the adherence to specific rules and safewords, adn the "topping from the bottom" possibilities,a nd so on; what the outsider sees is someone objectified and treated like an animal or a slave, in the name of sex.

Does that make sense?

Page 3 of 3