Goths in the Daily Mail...

[emmelinemay]

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

Comments

[jaketherat.livejournal.com]

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.

[sushidog.livejournal.com]

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.