NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, aside from people not being dogs, the overwhelmingly juvenile need for attention, and the complete hypocritical whining when they get the attention, nothing.

Nobody needs to be like everyone else, but these Emmy-award-winners are so desperate to be different, they conform to deliberate nonconformity. In short, they're rebels without a cause. Or a clue, for that matter.

So I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of this perception as my problem. I'm not the one allowing myself to be treated like an animal in public nor am I the one holding the leash. It's adolescent posturing writ publicly, it's bogus, and it's disingenuous.


Ohh yeah how dear them teenagers rebel, how very dear they!:rolleyes:

BDSM belongs in privacy, not in public.

Yeah like them gays, how dear they flaunt their homosexuality in public, what about them men that wear makeup in the street? Odd fuckers how dare they.

On them cutsie hetro couples, that *gasp* hold hands in a public display of affection!

Sheesh man, take your own advice and grow up a little huh.

what actual harm was done to anybody by their choice of clothing? Ohh yeah none.

Meh I like it, I guess that just shows that taste differs huh. So the prick of a bus driver didn't like their taste in cloths. Sack him!

What? i posted 10 pages ago! i'm surprised people respond to my observations done so long ago.
But i stick by my initial point that sort of clothing is not alluring, just sort of desperate.
Nah the Driver shouldn't have told them they were freaks, he should be fined then promoted to um supervisor bus driver where he doesn't actually drive busses he sort of organises them, thus he avoids contact with the public and reducing possible tensions.
And the couple should dump the chain thing, i don't like the clothes, but i wouldn't be shocked to see people wearing them, but the chain takes it too far.
Has anyone else ever woken up too late one day when they had a test and had to run in? i did this morning, so unfair.

Has it occurred to you that your opinion is neither more nor less relevant than his?

Considerably less when it comes to being expert on what turns Wilgrove on?

God woman. Point out the obvious why don't you? I'm appalled at you second sentance, in fact more sort of scared, and you know what........nah better not say that.
So to conclude this debate.
P1) If Bus drivers insult other people they should be punished.
P2) The Bus driver insulted other people.
P3) The people wore clothes that could have dangered their lives on the bus.
PC) Both of them should go away and have some think time, then talk to each other. That or a big fine for both of them.

What? i posted 10 pages ago! i'm surprised people respond to my observations done so long ago.

10 pages = still less than a day ;)
And some silly people indeed read a complete topic.

Hmm.. maybe that is pollworthy.

Has anyone else ever woken up too late one day when they had a test and had to run in? i did this morning, so unfair.
No, but I really ought to be revising for mine. Damn NSG and Top Gear distracting me...

meh, i don't even see why its a security risk. what's the deal there?


but then i haven't read the (whole) thread...

i'd have let em on

It isn't a security risk. Driving off before your passengers are seated is, not having seatbelts on buses is, allowing passengers to stand on the stairs is, the drivers mates talking to him while he drives is, going full throttle and then slamming on the brakes 10 foot before the bus stop is, wearing a choke chain, nope I can't see it.

What? i posted 10 pages ago! i'm surprised people respond to my observations done so long ago.
But i stick by my initial point that sort of clothing is not alluring, just sort of desperate.
Nah the Driver shouldn't have told them they were freaks, he should be fined then promoted to um supervisor bus driver where he doesn't actually drive busses he sort of organises them, thus he avoids contact with the public and reducing possible tensions.
And the couple should dump the chain thing, i don't like the clothes, but i wouldn't be shocked to see people wearing them, but the chain takes it too far.
Has anyone else ever woken up too late one day when they had a test and had to run in? i did this morning, so unfair.

Morning! I'm at work, and so have just caught up.:D

What? i posted 10 pages ago! i'm surprised people respond to my observations done so long ago.
But i stick by my initial point that sort of clothing is not alluring, just sort of desperate.
Nah the Driver shouldn't have told them they were freaks, he should be fined then promoted to um supervisor bus driver where he doesn't actually drive busses he sort of organises them, thus he avoids contact with the public and reducing possible tensions.
And the couple should dump the chain thing, i don't like the clothes, but i wouldn't be shocked to see people wearing them, but the chain takes it too far.
Has anyone else ever woken up too late one day when they had a test and had to run in? i did this morning, so unfair.

Meh it's only clothing, how can that be taken too far? What does that even mean?

Someone should flog them for being criminally goth.

Someone should flog them for being criminally goth.

For some reason I suspect you would enjoy doing that a little too much...
Need a whip ? Or some tissues and lube ;) ?

Is it really any more icky than cuddling and kissing in public? Is it really grosser than 8 inches of underwear?

I swear back when I dealt blackjack at the local casino, I saw one kid hoist up his baggy shirt to reveal eight inches of red designer skivvies above the waistband of his jeans which were sitting about mid-buttocks. He grabs his waistband, pulls them DOWN!!! in the back so his whole ass is visible and then drops his shirt again. At that point, why wear pants? Just wear a mumu. :p

A thin steel chain would look pretty attractive after that :pWOUAHAHAHAHA

thats so ... interesting :D

Meh it's only clothing, how can that be taken too far? What does that even mean?

Well i suppose you could use the chain as a weapon, to strangle someone, maybe. Or when traveling on a bus and, say the Bus has to stop suddenly and the chain is stuck you could cause serious damage to your neck.
Also if someone wanted to attack you and you had a chain around your neck they could use it against you.
And wearing a particular type of clothing that stands out could isolate various parts of society, meaing attacks from narrow minded people are more likely, and i think there's better ways of expressing yourself other than by what you wear, and i don't like suits either or those NED tracksuit things.
So um yeah i don't really have a problem with Goth clothing, but it just seems pointless, daft, ridiculous, over the top, jumping the gun, going over the hill, driving the car er were was i? oh yeah, and have a productive day at work.

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).your "I am a left wing person" should not be used as a shield.

your personal sexual/fashion intolerances should be a separate issue from your political preferences.

unless you feel "the left" has an official policy regarding sexual or fashion preferences.

I voted that the driver's job is to drive the bus and nothing else. Who does he think he is to insult others because of their lifestyle, it's not as though it's self destructive. Besides, at least they're not emo faggots, and yes I have something against emo.

Well i suppose you could use the chain as a weapon, to strangle someone, maybe. Or when traveling on a bus and, say the Bus has to stop suddenly and the chain is stuck you could cause serious damage to your neck.
Also if someone wanted to attack you and you had a chain around your neck they could use it against you.
And wearing a particular type of clothing that stands out could isolate various parts of society, meaing attacks from narrow minded people are more likely, and i think there's better ways of expressing yourself other than by what you wear, and i don't like suits either or those NED tracksuit things.
So um yeah i don't really have a problem with Goth clothing, but it just seems pointless, daft, ridiculous, over the top, jumping the gun, going over the hill, driving the car er were was i? oh yeah, and have a productive day at work.

Wha....?


So by the same reasoning then, long hair can be pulled in a fight(no long hair)shell suits can easily catch on fire(no shell suits) Hoodies can be pulled over the face to blind you(no hoodies) Shit it seems safer to walk around nekkid!

So as I say, it's only clothing how does it 'go too far', and what does that even mean?

bullshit.
unless you have information about their clothes being impregnated with some SARS/ChikenFlu/naugthy Virus/Bacteria..
Where they hospital workers?

I was talking about the chain thing.

So to conclude this debate.

P3) The people wore clothes that could have dangered their lives on the bus.bullshit.
unless you have information about their clothes being impregnated with some SARS/ChikenFlu/naugthy Virus/Bacteria..
Where they hospital workers?

Presumably they rather like the attention they get from dressing in their chosen style, so I would suspect they are overjoyed to get this much media exposure.

Wha....?


So by the same reasoning then, long hair can be pulled in a fight(no long hair)shell suits can easily catch on fire(no shell suits) Hoodies can be pulled over the face to blind you(no hoodies) Shit it seems safer to walk around nekkid!

So as I say, it's only clothing how does it 'go too far', and what does that even mean?

What i mean is "the people in the pictures above" went too far, from a safety perspective.
I was referring to NED clothing, and Gothic clothing more as a tribal instinct to fit in with thier peers, which is fine but when different groups of people dress differently it doesn't take much to get them fighting with some alcohol in them thus i link certain types of clothing with certain types of thinking, and when i see lots of people wearing the same clothes (which can be viewed as extreme) it can be a sort of isolating factor if you don't wear those clothes. A sort of social closure i suppose.

I was talking about the chain thing.

Thats still rubbish, what about people who wear chains around their waist with keys on the end? What about kids who wear their strides half way down their legs, are they not a tripping hazzard?

What i mean is "the people in the pictures above" went too far, from a safety perspective.
I was referring to NED clothing, and Gothic clothing more as a tribal instinct to fit in with thier peers, which is fine but when different groups of people dress differently it doesn't take much to get them fighting with some alcohol in them thus i link certain types of clothing with certain types of thinking, and when i see lots of people wearing the same clothes (which can be viewed as extreme) it can be a sort of isolating factor if you don't wear those clothes. A sort of social closure i suppose.

Okay I get you now, but I still think thats crap.

If you think such attire 'degrading' and 'wrong', well, perhaps you're not as 'tolerant' as you thought?


I don't think you can make a strong case that it isn't degrading, the iconography clearly looks toward humiliation, control etc. Now, one can choose to be represented - and treated - as such and "downright wrong" is clearly a value judgement but neither in any way stop it from being degrading.

I voted before reading the BBC article, which was a mistake. If it was truly out of regard for their safety, then I felt it was within the driver's rights to deny them access. A sharp break could've resulted in the girl being choked by the dog chain.

If it was a moral decision, then it's not his call to deny them access to the bus.

I voted before reading the BBC article, which was a mistake. If it was truly out of regard for their safety, then I felt it was within the driver's rights to deny them access. A sharp break could've resulted in the girl being choked by the dog chain.

If it was a moral decision, then it's not his call to deny them access to the bus.

Naa that was a 'lets cover out arses' statement from the bus company. Consider that no bus is fitted with seatbelts, then a sharp brake could do a lot of damage to just about everybody on the bus. This line of reasoning then just does not work.

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

What makes them freaks? They dress odd? So she wears a leash. How many gearls wear chokers? isn't that kind of like a collar? I think everyone is a little bit over the top. It's not like he was whipping her, she's not crawling on all fours, I don't see what the big deal is.

Good on this bus driver. Thousand bucks says there where seniors on this bus, probably young children as well. That kind of stuff can be left in privatized areas. If I was ever with my little cousin/niece/nephew. And he came on the bus, I wouldnt care about the bus driver. I'd keep him off myself with a kick to the chest. People who have actual lives and work for a living and have kids dont dress like that.

And to the Canadian woman who said she had a large education and no mental illness...Well as much as you think you dont have something mental going on (mind you, not an illness) you do have some abnormal about your...People arent supposed to enjoy that. And its cool if you do, just dont go flaunting it around town.

Oh dear, what's the matter, your fragile sensitivities got offended by something mildly different from the blandness of your flavourless vanilla world? What kind of adults would children grow to be if they were sheltered from a little odd thing or two because a square adult can't accept nor tolerate the subtle differences that make our society interesting.

As for kicking someone in the chest, that would be assault unless they had drawn a knife on you or somehow actually threatened you with physical harm. Seeing how the couple never threatened anyone, your statement about kicking them amounts to physical assault, and puts you in the wrong.

And what's this? You're now telling people what they are and aren't supposed to enjoy? Sounds like something I heard from someone m,y age who had a terribly sheltered view on the world and as if he knew everything everyone should and ought to do. You do NOT have the position nor any type of authority to say what people are supposed and not supposed to enjoy.

It boils down to choice.

Ignoring the flamy nature of your last bit, let me say that I must have come from the Land of Faux Goths then, 'cause my jeans-and-t-shirt mind held more darkness in it that all the Robert-Smith wannabees crawling all over the schools I went to. They weren't dark, they were mildly shodowy. They talked about killing themselves. I fucking TRIED, okay? So forgive me if seeing a shitload of emo assholes complaining about absolutely NOTHING and dressing in black, dyeing their spiked hair, whiting out their faces and bloody-painting their lips does absolutely nothing for me but produce uncontrollable derisive laughter. Darkness/pain/whatever the hell you wanna call it -- it doesn't need a dress code. Dress codes invite poseurs, and that's what the majority of these ebony-clad goth-lites are.

Flamey? Instead of vague accusations, elaborate.

Oh gee, you've walked that path? How amusing. Good for you. Maybe instead of judging, you ought to take a step back and think. Did people not judge you when you went through that phase? Oh, I bet people judged you as harshly as you're judging people who are 'emo' and 'goth'. There is really no difference in terms of the reaction.

There is a difference in the way each person who dresses in dark clothes acts but the treatment seems to be that these people are somehow freaks, and I wager that people would have thought of you as a freak and yet you're engaging in the same line of thought as these other people have.

And you all know what? I think I'm ALLOWED this ONE irrational semi-demonization. You know why? Because, when it comes down to it, I WOULD HAVE LET THESE TWITS ON THE GODDAMNED BUS. I can't BELIEVE all of you chose to overlook that statement every time I typed it. Not only that, but nobody here has ever seen me react like this to any other "group" of any kind. And that's not even a reaction that's said "kill them" or even "give 'em a little shove". So I apologize to all you goth lovers and pampered pets out there. But I'm gonna laugh at you. But y'know what? I will beat the first person to suggest you should get beat up to the punch.

Even if you would have let them on, it doesn't change the fact that you're judging them even though you have been in the position of the judged prior to this. Perhaps since you walked a mile in those shoes, you could have shown more tolerance, but it seems you didn't learn your lesson because you're judging them on what is on the outside.

I am no goth lover or pampered pet. I simply believe in not judging someone because they look different. You seem to be judging them without knowing anything about them, kind of like how some people may have judged you when you were going through that phase.

The only problem I can see that might have a leg to stand on is this: if I'm a parent with a child riding the bus, I'm not going to enjoy trying to explain alternative lifestyles when the chreub asks why the lady was wearing a bikini and a leash. That said, the world is a weird place, and no insulation in the world prepares you for most of it.

That's why it's good practise to let the child understand from the outset that there are different people and that there is nothing inherently wrong with alternative life styles. Why shelter a child? They will ask questions eventually.

She called herself a dog, so she deserves to be treated like one. No dogs aloud.

So, dogs can't be loud? :p Or did you perhaps mean "allowed", which is the correct word?

I have seen drivers tell the musicians to stop their playing and I do believe it is somewhere in the TTC's bylaws (probably under the "don't make a disturbance" stipulation). Might be something to take up with the driver if it happens again.

I'm referring to people with their music players with headphones on and not the musicians who are sanctioned to play in different stations. The actual musicians are not an issue, it's the fuckwits who play their hi-hop so loud that you hear that crap through the headphones.

What a waste of nice outfits..

Naa that was a 'lets cover out arses' statement from the bus company. Consider that no bus is fitted with seatbelts, then a sharp brake could do a lot of damage to just about everybody on the bus. This line of reasoning then just does not work.

Huh? Seriously? The busses here mostly have seat belts...

Anyway, I had to think long about this one. A few weeks ago I would have shouted in outrage at the discriminating, intolerant bus driver, but I had an experience a while back that set things into perspective a bit.
I was on the bus station on a Friday evening, waiting for the bus home. There are always a good few drunks and bums around, but usually they leave people alone. Not so this time : one of the bums I had seen a few times before around there kept first trying to get into the waiting hall, but was accompanied out again soon each time by one of the Bus Eireann guys. He then started walking up to people and trying to talk to them, upsetting quite a few (keep in mind he was incoherent and rather smelly). The Bus Eireann guy on the platforms eventually told him to get lost and stop hassling passengers.
My bus arrived, I got on and found a place towards the middle of the bus. The bus was filling up fast as usual for a Friday, and suddenly the bum I had seen earlier was trying to get on the bus. The bus driver asked what he thought he was doing and he said he was going to Galway. Now he was on the right bus for that, Galway being the final stop, he even had a ticket (that's what he must have been so anxious about getting from the waiting hall) but Galway is a 4 hour drive away. I was only going to the first stop on the line, and even that is 30 mins. The bus driver told him he couldn't get on the bus, and a shouting match started. A Security guy came on the bus, but by that time the bum had thrown himself in an empty seat and refused to leave. They called the gardai, and soon two of them showed up, and the guy got off the bus without further ado.

I was seriously relieved, I have to admit. And felt bad about it at the same time.
I felt he should have the same rights as everyone else to take a bus to Galway if he felt like it and could pay for it, but at the same time I know I would not have put up with having to smell the guy for 30 mins. Aside from the fact that there was no telling if he might turn violent at some point (he didn't seem to be the violent type, but you never know beforehand, do you?)
I was rather grateful that neither the bus driver nor the Security guy nor the police suggested allowing him to take the bus. They did suggest the last bus that night, as it was bound to be mostly empty anyway, but I don't know if he took that one. I haven't seen him since.

So in a way, I can feel for the bus driver when faced with those two... I mean, all things considered and much as I like Goths, they do aim to look morbid and scary. So I think nobody should be surprised if they do succeed in scaring folks now and then...

..
He then started walking up to people and trying to talk to them, upsetting quite a few .....its a completely different issue.

in this case its not about what he is wearing.. but its about his drunken + upsetting behavior, its not about what your Drunken dude is wearing but about what he is doing.

The bus driver or any other citizen would not be wrong to tell him off..

Well, if they claim to be Goths, the driver might have mistaken them for barbarians from the Germanic tribes. I mean, what if the guy was Alaric the Visigoth on his way to sack Rome again?

That was my first thought too. I fully expected the couple not allowed on the bus to be clad in chain mail, bearing battle axes and sharpened swords, with a severe BO problem and a language that sounds vaguely familiar but uncivilised. The bus driver could reasonably have expected a whole horde of them to be hiding in the bushes, just waiting for their leaders to give them the signal to pillage the bus, slaughter the passengers, and spend the night in drunken revelry.

As it is, I was rather disappointed.

I don't think she's actually subserviant at all...it's quite clear from both articles that Tasha Maltby makes Dani Graves do absolutely everything for her...the whole "dog" thing is just, for the lack of a better word, a façade.

Indeed. That woman will have a very smooth and leisurely marital life. In some respects. :P

It might have worked for you but I'm now terrified of Smunkeeville

As you should be. ;)




(KIDDING!!!)

You didn't like his coat? I quite liked it, actually.
Me too. And the girl's dress. I dig goth fashion. I wish I could wear it, but on me too much black just looks... Sicilian. Like my great aunt Rose. Not gothic.

its a completely different issue.

The bus driver or any other citizen would not be wrong to tell him off.. and/or call the police.

Note that the bus driver wasn't at the station yet at that time. He most likely didn't see him until the guy got on the bus and showed him his ticket.

And, no, I don't see this as a very different issue. Both are cases where people are not allowed on busses because of their appearance and because they upset the driver and might upset other passengers.
Me, I wouldn't have a problem having Goths on the bus, but I'm sure there's a number of senior citizens out there who might be seriously disturbed by this.

Well, no. It describes a human-dog relationship quite well. Pets do not make food for their master either - they provide companionship. But are subservient as well.
Not if they are cats.

I wonder, would all the moralists here, pretending to be so concerned with Ms. Maltby's self worth, be happier if she called herself a cat and had her boyfriend carry her around in a basket?

The bus driver had absolutely no right to do what he did. My opinions on the couple aside, it's not his bus. He's an employee of a company who owns the bus and controls his salary. If I were his boss, he'd be fired in an instant.

I don't think you can make a strong case that it isn't degrading, the iconography clearly looks toward humiliation, control etc. Now, one can choose to be represented - and treated - as such and "downright wrong" is clearly a value judgement but neither in any way stop it from being degrading.
I partially disagree with you.

For instance, to MY eyes and in MY opinion, the chain does have some slight connotation of humiliation and control.

However, I do not assume that MY eyes/opinion are shared by the person wearing the chain. So I do not assume that Ms. Maltby sees the chain the same way I do. For her it might have an entirely different connotation. In fact, if I took the time to sit and think about it, I could come up with a handful of perfectly appropriate connotations for the chain in that picture, that would be just as meaningful as "dog leash" but have nothing at all to do with humiliation, control or degradation. So obviously, MY initial gut reaction is not the one, true meaning of the chain symbol.

Keeping in mind that there are many ways to interpret the chain, and keeping in mind that Ms. Maltby is not me, I cannot bring myself to say that she is degrading herself or making herself subservient by her fashion/lifestyle choice. I cannot stop being aware that I might be -- and probably would be -- imposing my own thoughts/feelings onto her.

Because I cannot know that I am not doing that, nothing I could say about her clothing would be accurate, fair, or honest, unless I prefaced it all by saying: "This is how that makes me feel." In which case, I would just be talking about myself, not about her.

So it would be accurate to say that many people might see the chain as a symbol of humiliation, control and degradation, but it is not accurate to say that Ms. Maltby is humiliated, controlled or degraded by the chain.

Huh? Seriously? The busses here mostly have seat belts......

Damn not only do you have good looking nurse you als have seatbelts on buses!

So I think nobody should be surprised if they do succeed in scaring folks now and then...

Heh but did you see the pics of these two, scary? Naaa.

Not if they are cats.

I wonder, would all the moralists here, pretending to be so concerned with Ms. Maltby's self worth, be happier if she called herself a cat and had her boyfriend carry her around in a basket?

According to the BBC article the guy does all the housework etc for her, on the grounds you wouldn't expect a pet to do it. Interesting form of 'degradation and control'

According to the BBC article the guy does all the housework etc for her, on the grounds you wouldn't expect a pet to do it. Interesting form of 'degradation and control'
Truth. I should only be so "degraded." *Thinks about pile of laundry still to be done, groceries to be bought, work waiting for me to get off the internet and pay attention to it* Lucky goth bitch.

This is just a weird story. I wouldn't go out dressed like either one them, but I don't see how they could be denied a bus ride...that had money to pay, or a buss pass, right? As long as that is the case, I think they should have been able to get on the bus. I've never heard that bus driver's decide what is and is not appropriate attire for in the public...

And, no, I don't see this as a very different issue. Both are cases where people are not allowed on busses because of their appearance .I dont agree.
Whatever your drunken dude was wearing is irrelevant. (its not about what he was wearing but about what he was doing to other people)

the Goth couple in this OP were not drunken + trying to "talk to people"..

they were minding their own business.

That was my first thought too. I fully expected the couple not allowed on the bus to be clad in chain mail, bearing battle axes and sharpened swords, with a severe BO problem and a language that sounds vaguely familiar but uncivilised. The bus driver could reasonably have expected a whole horde of them to be hiding in the bushes, just waiting for their leaders to give them the signal to pillage the bus, slaughter the passengers, and spend the night in drunken revelry.


Hehe yeah also the word Goth is so misused nowadays, it seems to mean anybody that dress predominatly in black, rather than those who listen to Goth music, but then I'm old anyway, remember goth music, all that lace and..and... shit.... moan..grumble....grumble....moan .... not like the olden days *sigh* were's me slippers!

Here's the thing I don't get. A lot of people in this thread have called them 'attention seeking" or the like, and I'm not sure why.

First people argue that because of their clothes they're seeking attention. While this may be true, and they may wear it for attention, there's no actual indication. In fact, it's entirely possible that they simply enjoy wearing it, and don't really care. Moreover there was no indication they were doing ANYTHING to "seek attention" when they were getting on the bus, other than doing the highly provocative and attention whorish action of...getting on a bus.

So others say the leash was provocative. Well, as I said, that leash is a symbol of their relationship. It demonstrates how their relationship is. People wear wedding rings for the same reason, tos how their relationship with a spouse. People wear a crucifix, to show their relationship with god. She wears a leash, to show her place as "a pet". I see no difference. Again, it wasn't like she was explaining this to everybody who walked by, she was simply getting on a bus.

Now, others have said going to the newspaper was provocative and attention seeking. Well, let's talk about that. Let's say instead of goths they were black, or hispanic, or jewish, or a pair of gay men, or two lesbians, and the bus driver said "no niggers allowed", or "no spicks allowed" or "no kikes allowed" or "no fags allowed" or "no dykes allowed". If they had been discriminated against for being black or hispanic or jewish or gay, and went to the papers, nobody would think they were just attention seeking.

The last time a bus company told a black person in the US where to sit, it caused riots, and Rosa Parks is near universally considered a hero of the civil rights movement, not a whiny attention seeking bitch.

When the same exact thing happens here (hell, worse, she was at least let on the bus), people just going about their lives, bothering nobody, doing nothing, were discriminated because of the way they look, and people argue that they were just seeking attention.

I would hope people would be more evolved by now.

Here's the thing I don't get. A lot of people in this thread have called them 'attention seeking" or the like, and I'm not sure why. ...I would hope people would be more evolved by now.

I think you're just seeking attention.

Feh. There are worse people who ride buses. Goths who wear dog leashes are pretty mild.

And also, is it just me, or do all male Goths seem to have decidedly feminine names?

So it would be accurate to say that many people might see the chain as a symbol of humiliation, control and degradation, but it is not accurate to say that Ms. Maltby is humiliated, controlled or degraded by the chain.

Well, we can't get inside people's heads but I think the iconography is very strong in that instance and it would be a much bigger assumption to assume it's not the case than that it is. Yes, this is partly to do with my own feelings but I think at some point we've got to draw a line and say "yes, it's subjective but not all subjectivity is equal". We can make a qualified subjective judgement based on the strong connotations such an image has and the implications that exist when choosing that image.

And also, is it just me, or do all male Goths seem to have decidedly feminine names?

I don't know, what's your name?

The bus driver had absolutely no right to do what he did. My opinions on the couple aside, it's not his bus. He's an employee of a company who owns the bus and controls his salary. If I were his boss, he'd be fired in an instant.

I believe this was the public's bus, which makes it worse: should this couple be exempt from all taxes, since they are not granted public services?

Here's the thing I don't get. A lot of people in this thread have called them 'attention seeking" or the like, and I'm not sure why.

First people argue that because of their clothes they're seeking attention. While this may be true, and they may wear it for attention, there's no actual indication. In fact, it's entirely possible that they simply enjoy wearing it, and don't really care. Moreover there was no indication they were doing ANYTHING to "seek attention" when they were getting on the bus, other than doing the highly provocative and attention whorish action of...getting on a bus.

So others say the leash was provocative. Well, as I said, that leash is a symbol of their relationship. It demonstrates how their relationship is. People wear wedding rings for the same reason, tos how their relationship with a spouse. People wear a crucifix, to show their relationship with god. She wears a leash, to show her place as "a pet". I see no difference. Again, it wasn't like she was explaining this to everybody who walked by, she was simply getting on a bus.

Now, others have said going to the newspaper was provocative and attention seeking. Well, let's talk about that. Let's say instead of goths they were black, or hispanic, or jewish, or a pair of gay men, or two lesbians, and the bus driver said "no niggers allowed", or "no spicks allowed" or "no kikes allowed" or "no fags allowed" or "no dykes allowed". If they had been discriminated against for being black or hispanic or jewish or gay, and went to the papers, nobody would think they were just attention seeking.

The last time a bus company told a black person in the US where to sit, it caused riots, and Rosa Parks is near universally considered a hero of the civil rights movement, not a whiny attention seeking bitch.

When the same exact thing happens here (hell, worse, she was at least let on the bus), people just going about their lives, bothering nobody, doing nothing, were discriminated because of the way they look, and people argue that they were just seeking attention.

I would hope people would be more evolved by now.
Well, remember, Rosa Parks lived in the USA. The whole bus thing in the US was part of a much larger, more traumatic, and (we hope) unforgettable lesson in US society.

These goths live in the UK, which, well...have they ever had to deal with issues of social discrimination as dramatically as we have? Sometimes I think our British cousins are so much more civilized than us, and then other times I am shocked at what some people over there feel comfortable saying about other people in public. We had awareness of discrimination bashed over our heads pretty forcefully. When I talk to some people from other countries, I get unexpected reminders that other people have not gone through that.

There was a story I saw several years ago in an English language Prague newspaper about an incident of discrimination in the Czech Republic. Some hardware store in some suburban town ran a local television ad promoting a big sale. The ad showed a totally stereotyped Jew gleefully and greedily chasing down all the bargains in the store. The ad was meant to show just how good the discounts were going to be. The Czech branch of the Anti-Defamation League directly contacted the owner of the hardware company and asked him to take the ad off the air. Amazingly -- to me, as an American -- this Czech company owner professed total ignorance that this portrayal of Jews would be in any way offensive to Jews, but he also seemed sincerely upset to learn that it was, and the ad was immediately yanked.

The article quoted the company owner as saying how the Anti-Defamation League had to explain the Holocaust to him, and how such images of Jews have been used over time to dehumanize Jews and make scapegoats of them, and other things that I had learned from earliest childhood in the US. His whole response seemed to be, "Why didn't anyone ever tell me this before? Why was this never taught in my school?" The article then went on to talk about how Eastern European school curricula are often shockingly lacking in information about the Nazis and WW2 and the atrocities against civilians and the Holocaust because, apparently, that was not considered important under the Soviet school system which was mostly about indoctrinating kids to be good communists and prepare them to work for the state and the future. And it said that this incident about the television ad had opened up a big public discussion about fixing this, and about the general level of bigotry in the Czech Republic, because the Czechs are proud of their country's long history of religious tolerance.

So sometimes, I think we are dealing with real discrimination based on unreasoning hostility against someone different, and other times I think we are dealing with just plain ignorance, which causes people to believe things that are false because they do not have true information. So much of the negative things I hear people say about goths, punks, homosexuals, etc, are clearly based on total ignorance of the real lifestyles of the people in question. I wonder how many people would be as willing to admit and correct their ignorance as that Czech hardware guy was.

I don't think you can make a strong case that it isn't degrading, the iconography clearly looks toward humiliation, control etc. Now, one can choose to be represented - and treated - as such and "downright wrong" is clearly a value judgement but neither in any way stop it from being degrading.

I've been someone's pet before. I've worn a collar. (I didn't wear a leash, but I certainly would have if my master had requested it.) I didn't feel in the least bit degraded - if anything, I felt honored. I figure the fact that I can point to a very specific example of it not being degrading is a reasonably strong case that it doesn't have to be degrading.

Well, we can't get inside people's heads but I think the iconography is very strong in that instance and it would be a much bigger assumption to assume it's not the case than that it is. Yes, this is partly to do with my own feelings but I think at some point we've got to draw a line and say "yes, it's subjective but not all subjectivity is equal". We can make a qualified subjective judgement based on the strong connotations such an image has and the implications that exist when choosing that image.
Yes, you think that. Of course, you did already say all that, and you are now just repeating it in a somewhat unresponsive response to my argument of why that is not a valid approach. The fact that you would like to impose your opinion on someone else, does not make your opinion accurate to the facts. Claiming the right to impose your opinion on someone else is not magically going to transform your opinion into fact, or make your feelings be her feelings.

So my point stands. When it comes to Ms. Maltby's feelings, self-respect, and dignity, Ms. Maltby's opinion is the only one that matters. If she says she is not being degraded, then she is not being degraded, and your opinion otherwise means jack-squat.

Your argument in the face of that, that you should still get to dictate the meaning of her lifestyle because you feel really strongly about it, is just another way of saying that you think she should dress to please you instead of herself.

It boils down to this: Since, as you acknowledge, we cannot get inside someone else's head, your assertion that the iconography is so strong that it should override the meaning Ms. Maltby applies to her own life, becomes patently ridiculous. If you cannot get into her head, you cannot get into mine or anyone else's, either. So on what basis do you assert that this clear iconography is clear to anyone but you? On what basis will you presume to override the other meanings of that iconography that other people claim is just as clear and strong to them? Surely you must see that all you are doing here is trying to find some excuse to impose your opinions onto someone else.

Yes, you think that. Of course, you did already say all that, and you are now just repeating it in a somewhat unresponsive response to my argument of why that is not a valid approach. The fact that you would like to impose your opinion on someone else, does not make your opinion accurate to the facts. Claiming the right to impose your opinion on someone else is not magically going to transform your opinion into fact, or make your feelings be her feelings.

So my point stands. When it comes to Ms. Maltby's feelings, self-respect, and dignity, Ms. Maltby's opinion is the only one that matters. If she says she is not being degraded, then she is not being degraded, and your opinion otherwise means jack-squat.

Your argument in the face of that, that you should still get to dictate the meaning of her lifestyle because you feel really strongly about it, is just another way of saying that you think she should dress to please you instead of herself.

It boils down to this: Since, as you acknowledge, we cannot get inside someone else's head, your assertion that the iconography is so strong that it should override the meaning Ms. Maltby applies to her own life, becomes patently ridiculous. If you cannot get into her head, you cannot get into mine or anyone else's, either. So on what basis do you assert that this clear iconography is clear to anyone but you? On what basis will you presume to override the other meanings of that iconography that other people claim is just as clear and strong to them? Surely you must see that all you are doing here is trying to find some excuse to impose your opinions onto someone else.

Let's go for the countdown:
4 - Holding an opinion does not necessitate an imposition of that opinion
3 - Although subjective to a degree, iconography is not merely any old opinion - if it were cinematographers would be quickly out of a job.
2 - Who is to say that is the meaning she applies to her life? I've proffered my version which is to say she finds this degradation appealing in someway which, backed by the iconography she herself employs, is a qualified subjective judgment.
1 - How about cooling down? Your post about not being exposed to issues displayed a laughable amount of ethnocentrism for someone accusing others of being judgemental and your various inaccurate presumptions in this last post do a disservice not just to me and my argument but to yourself as well.

Seriously...
Don't know how to vote.

Going by the rules we have in Hawaii,
the Driver does have the right to refuse people on the bus he's driving but he cannot prevent anyone from boarding a bus he's not driving.

so his preventing them entering a bus at the station (if we assume he wasn't driving that bus) was wrong.


Not so seriously?

He identifies her as his pet.
She Identifies herself as his pet

and pets are NOT allowed on buses unless they 1) are in a secure carrying device (and a leash is not a secure carrying device) or 2) they are a service animal, and I really don't think the services she provides him would count.

Going by the rules we have in Hawaii,
the Driver does have the right to refuse people on the bus he's driving but he cannot prevent anyone from boarding a bus he's not driving.

A bus driver can not refuse people from entering public transportation because he does not like how they are dressed. It's illegal and blatantly unconstitutional.

He identifies her as his pet.
She Identifies herself as his pet

and pets are NOT allowed on buses unless they 1) are in a secure carrying device (and a leash is not a secure carrying device) or 2) they are a service animal, and I really don't think the services she provides him would count.

Wait, hold on a moment. Are you actually trying to make this argument? I mean, are you really, truly, seriously trying to say because that he identifies her as a "pet", and she allows him to do so, that means she legally classifies as a pet?

Are you REALLY trying to go down this road?

Wait, hold on a moment. Are you actually trying to make this argument? I mean, are you really, truly, seriously trying to say because that he identifies her as a "pet", and she allows him to do so, that means she legally classifies as a pet?

Are you REALLY trying to go down this road?

I assume the reason it was prefixed with "not so seriously" is that it was not so serious.

"Driver reserves the right to refuse service." is prominately displayed.

of course that doesn't mean the driver is safe from any legal reprecussions.

First off, what kind of bus are we talking? Local public transportation or chartered bus, it does make a difference.

Also, ever see those signs "not responsible for lost or stolen items"? Yeah, they're about as worthless as well.

no, if you noticed, I said "NOT so seriously". :p

Fair enough, didn't notice. On the other hand there were a few here who made that arguments in a serious tone.

A bus driver can not refuse people from entering public transportation because he does not like how they are dressed. It's illegal and blatantly unconstitutional.
"Driver reserves the right to refuse service." is prominately displayed.

of course that doesn't mean the driver is safe from any legal reprecussions.

I was recently told I cannot board a bus with my drink from McD's. I didn't complain, I just stepped aside and I waited for the next bus and got on then, after asking the driver if it was ok, and the driver said yes as long as the drink was covered.

I've seen bus drivers kick people off for shouting. I've seen bus drivers allow people on with expired passes and transfers. and I've seen one driver refuse a poor person on without explination (tho I heard (as in unsubstanciated) from a regular rider that the person deficated often on the buses he rides on.)

the two Goths can and did complain and the company is investigating, that I support.

Wait, hold on a moment. Are you actually trying to make this argument? I mean, are you really, truly, seriously trying to say because that he identifies her as a "pet", and she allows him to do so, that means she legally classifies as a pet?

Are you REALLY trying to go down this road?
no, if you noticed, I said "NOT so seriously". :p

Let's go for the countdown:
4 - Holding an opinion does not necessitate an imposition of that opinion
Insisting on defining her chain for her, against the definition she herself gives it, IS imposition of your opinion.

3 - Although subjective to a degree, iconography is not merely any old opinion - if it were cinematographers would be quickly out of a job.
Irrelevant. I already said that a symbol can have many meanings and mean different things to different people. If it were not so, there would be no controversy over Huckleberry Finn, and there would be no university courses and hundreds of papers written about the meaning of the white whale in Moby Dick.

Since symbols can have many meanings, and you cannot know which meaning any given person adheres to, you cannot say that symbol A has meaning B and expect widespread agreement.

2 - Who is to say that is the meaning she applies to her life? I've proffered my version which is to say she finds this degradation appealing in someway which, backed by the iconography she herself employs, is a qualified subjective judgment.
This is starting to seem silly.

Who is to say what meaning she applies to her life? How about her? How about taking her word for what it means to her? Did she SAY she is being degraded and likes it anywhere in that article? If so, please show me the quote. No, actually, she said nothing at all about degradation and quite a lot about things that have nothing to do with degradation.

And you've "proffered your version" of what she says it means to her? In other words, you have imposed your opinion over hers, like I said? How about just letting her tell you what her life is about, just for laughs, to see what happens?

1 - How about cooling down?
And how about not finding more assumptions about other people to present as if they are facts? What makes you think I'm not calm?

Your post about not being exposed to issues displayed a laughable amount of ethnocentrism for someone accusing others of being judgemental and your various inaccurate presumptions in this last post do a disservice not just to me and my argument but to yourself as well.
Just like your opinion of Ms. Maltby's dress and lifestyle, this remark is just you imposing your opinion of me onto me. Another way to read my post could be as a recounting of my personal experiences and statement of my thoughts based on those experiences. It is interesting that you read a post about people basing opinion on ignorance, and you say you can identify things I am ignorant about in that post, but rather than tell me what I am wrong about -- in other words, rather than answer the questions contained in the post -- you just blame me for not knowing what you know and use it as a basis to describe me in a negative manner.

Instead of just scolding me for saying something you think is wrong, why don't you follow the example of the Czech Anti-Defamation League and give me the information you think I am lacking?

First thngs first...She is HOT!!!

next...Its not the drivers choice who gets on, so long as they pay the fare, and it is definatly not his job to man-handle anyone and call anyone freaks or dogs, despite what she calls herself, as long as they are going to pay the fare, they are entitled to ride on the bus, END OF, it;s not up to the driver, the clue is in the name DRIVE-er, if it was his job to stop people getting in, he'd have become a bouncer!!!!

He should be sued and fired!!:sniper:

First off, what kind of bus are we talking? Local public transportation or chartered bus, it does make a difference. local public transportation run by a private non-profit group.

Also, ever see those signs "not responsible for lost or stolen items"? Yeah, they're about as worthless as well.
and they are NOT responsible for any items lost or stolen.

I don't know if this has been addressed or not (I couldn't be arsed to read all of the pages :(), but the actual issue the bus driver had was with the attire being unsafe. If the bus driver had a crash, the chain would have choked the woman, and the bus driver is responsible for the passengers of the bus.
For animal owners: it is advised you unchain/unleash your pet whilst on a public vehicle. :)

Edit: Pets are allowed on buses at the drivers discretion.

Why don't they just perform some sort of arcane ritual and damn the bus driver to hell?

Edit: Pets are allowed on buses at the drivers discretion.
it depends on the city/county/state.

and they are NOT responsible for any items lost or stolen.

It's funny that you believe that.

it depends on the city/county/state.
And of course, driver's discretion does not apply to guide dogs. Maybe the young goth gentleman should have blindfolded himself. ;)

And of course, driver's discretion does not apply to guide dogs. Maybe the young goth gentleman should have blindfolded himself. ;)

and her leash would be close to a full body harness...

not that such a harness would be bad to look at mind you... :D

the Driver does have the right to refuse people on the bus he's driving but he must have a very good reason.

Otherwise any bigoted Bus driver could refuse access to a Gay, Black, or Muslim person .... or a girl wearing something he (and others like him) dont like.

Let's go for the countdown:
4 - Holding an opinion does not necessitate an imposition of that opinion
3 - Although subjective to a degree, iconography is not merely any old opinion - if it were cinematographers would be quickly out of a job.
2 - Who is to say that is the meaning she applies to her life? I've proffered my version which is to say she finds this degradation appealing in someway which, backed by the iconography she herself employs, is a qualified subjective judgment.
1 - How about cooling down? Your post about not being exposed to issues displayed a laughable amount of ethnocentrism for someone accusing others of being judgemental and your various inaccurate presumptions in this last post do a disservice not just to me and my argument but to yourself as well.

Bwahahah I like you, you seem sensible!

Seriously...
Don't know how to vote.

Going by the rules we have in Hawaii,
the Driver does have the right to refuse people on the bus he's driving but he cannot prevent anyone from boarding a bus he's not driving.

so his preventing them entering a bus at the station (if we assume he wasn't driving that bus) was wrong.


Not so seriously?

He identifies her as his pet.
She Identifies herself as his pet

and pets are NOT allowed on buses unless they 1) are in a secure carrying device (and a leash is not a secure carrying device) or 2) they are a service animal, and I really don't think the services she provides him would count.

Ahh yes but this is in the UK where the rule is, dogs are allowed as long as the are on the leash, not on the seat and ride on the top deck.

but he must have a very good reason.

Otherwise any bigoted Bus driver could refuse access to a Gay, Black, or Muslim person .... or a girl wearing something he (and others like him) dont like.

I keep telling you people, all bus drivers are cunts. Sack him!

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

On those occasions where I have had to use public transportation, I have been treated to people who smoked (in violation of rules), people who have had no notion of hygiene, people who've been drunk, people who've been disorderly, disruptive, grubby, unruly children (and adults), people who've dressed (and I use the word advisedly) in next to nothing (how does bath towels wrapped sarong style sound). Those two would be refreshing and welcome.

but he must have a very good reason.

Otherwise any bigoted Bus driver could refuse access to a Gay, Black, or Muslim person .... or a girl wearing something he (and others like him) dont like.
yep. and like I also said, it does NOT provide him legal protection. so yes, like the goth couple, anyone who is refused service can complain and it will be investigated.

then the company itself can take it upon themselves to discipline the driver if they feel it warranted (and this is for any form of complaint... not just one of discrimination.)

Ahh yes but this is in the UK where the rule is, dogs are allowed as long as the are on the leash, not on the seat and ride on the top deck.
which is why I said going by "Hawaii's rules" because I really don't know the UK's rules on buses. ;)

On the contrary, the true expression of the individual comes from expression of it's worth and necessary (and interdependent) cooperation with everyone else.

You really do talk shit, don't you.

The expression of the individual varies from individual to individual. That's why they call them individuals.

You may like to express your individuality by ascribing to a preset uniform community - or I could be misreading you - but you seem like someone who values 'fitting in' far more than expressing yourself.

Me - I fit in where I fit in, and I stand out where I stand out. And that's what it takes to express MY individuality.

Actually I have have nil respect for such attention-seeking freaks who act differently because they can.

Which is weird, because they are all so enamoured of you...

I don't think you can make a strong case that it isn't degrading, the iconography clearly looks toward humiliation, control etc. Now, one can choose to be represented - and treated - as such and "downright wrong" is clearly a value judgement but neither in any way stop it from being degrading.

Surrendering control is degrading?

So... military uniforms are degrading? Men wearing ties...?

The 'iconography' doesn't duggest humiliation - although there are some that DO seek humiliation. Indeed, you couldn't be more wrong. In dom/sub circles, there is PRIDE attached to being submissive to another, and - if you think the 'dom' holds all the control, you really don't understand anything about the dom/sub sub-culture.

Me too. And the girl's dress. I dig goth fashion. I wish I could wear it, but on me too much black just looks... Sicilian. Like my great aunt Rose. Not gothic.

Not all goth fashion is black, especially in the UK. We have our 'ubers' (the industrial, techno end of goth) who are actually quite colourful. We have 'perky goths' who have been known to wear pinks, pastels, and white - my ex was a perky goth, and one of her favourite outfits was a short wedding dress, with a pearlescent corset, worn with black mesh sleeves.

Even among 'trad' goths, purples, deep reds, deep greens, etc are not uncommon.

It might be worth shopping around a bit online, seeing what kinds of gothy attire you can find that might work. Goths are the beautiful people, and goth girls are just delicious. :)

Here's the thing I don't get. A lot of people in this thread have called them 'attention seeking" or the like, and I'm not sure why.

First people argue that because of their clothes they're seeking attention. While this may be true, and they may wear it for attention, there's no actual indication. In fact, it's entirely possible that they simply enjoy wearing it, and don't really care. Moreover there was no indication they were doing ANYTHING to "seek attention" when they were getting on the bus, other than doing the highly provocative and attention whorish action of...getting on a bus.

So others say the leash was provocative. Well, as I said, that leash is a symbol of their relationship. It demonstrates how their relationship is. People wear wedding rings for the same reason, tos how their relationship with a spouse. People wear a crucifix, to show their relationship with god. She wears a leash, to show her place as "a pet". I see no difference. Again, it wasn't like she was explaining this to everybody who walked by, she was simply getting on a bus.

Now, others have said going to the newspaper was provocative and attention seeking. Well, let's talk about that. Let's say instead of goths they were black, or hispanic, or jewish, or a pair of gay men, or two lesbians, and the bus driver said "no niggers allowed", or "no spicks allowed" or "no kikes allowed" or "no fags allowed" or "no dykes allowed". If they had been discriminated against for being black or hispanic or jewish or gay, and went to the papers, nobody would think they were just attention seeking.

The last time a bus company told a black person in the US where to sit, it caused riots, and Rosa Parks is near universally considered a hero of the civil rights movement, not a whiny attention seeking bitch.

When the same exact thing happens here (hell, worse, she was at least let on the bus), people just going about their lives, bothering nobody, doing nothing, were discriminated because of the way they look, and people argue that they were just seeking attention.

I would hope people would be more evolved by now.

QFT.

...but the actual issue the bus driver had was with the attire being unsafe. If the bus driver had a crash, the chain would have choked the woman, and the bus driver is responsible for the passengers of the bus.


I don't buy it. It sounds like an attempt to cover his ass. If the leash isn't being attached to anything except the girl, there's just no real way it's any more dangerous than a heavy necklace, a solid bangle, or a bag carried across a shoulder.

I don't buy it. It sounds like an attempt to cover his ass. If the leash isn't being attached to anything except the girl, there's just no real way it's any more dangerous than a heavy necklace, a solid bangle, or a bag carried across a shoulder.

Or a cell phone, for that matter.

Look, anything can be used as a weapon... In all seriousness, you really could kill somebody with a pancake (or a waffle, if that's your thing).

I keep telling you people, all bus drivers are cunts. Sack him!
Oh, all right already!!!

*Invades, defeats and occupies the UK, and declares self dictator in order to have the power to sack that **** of a bus driver. Does so. Then shoots Peepleonia for using the word "****" too many times in one thread. Then packs up army and goes home.*

:p

Not all goth fashion is black, especially in the UK. We have our 'ubers' (the industrial, techno end of goth) who are actually quite colourful. We have 'perky goths' who have been known to wear pinks, pastels, and white - my ex was a perky goth, and one of her favourite outfits was a short wedding dress, with a pearlescent corset, worn with black mesh sleeves.

Even among 'trad' goths, purples, deep reds, deep greens, etc are not uncommon.

It might be worth shopping around a bit online, seeing what kinds of gothy attire you can find that might work. Goths are the beautiful people, and goth girls are just delicious. :)
That's nice to know, but I ain't wearin' nuthin' that's gonna accentuate the genetically determined black circles under my eyes. *reminds self that it's really great to be Italian*

Oh, and yeah, I can just imagine me being "perky." You know me, G. Think about it. It's kinda not a happening likelihood, right? *imagines hours of hysterical laughter from my mother if me being perky were to be so much as suggested to her* Me am not the perky one.

I absolutely love the goth look -- the darker and more Byronesque the better -- but what I wear is strictly Mrs. Peel, Marlene Dietrich or Katherine Hepburn. Those are the looks I can carry, and I consider myself lucky. :)

I'm referring to people with their music players with headphones on and not the musicians who are sanctioned to play in different stations. The actual musicians are not an issue, it's the fuckwits who play their hi-hop so loud that you hear that crap through the headphones.

Ah, my bad...I don't know what to say there. I don't see how someone listening to their music too loud on their headphones is any different than someone talking to someone else in the seat ahead or behind them as the noise level is roughly the same. I also wasn't referring to the buskers- one time, I actually *did* have a set of musicians ride on the bus I was on; and the driver told them to stop. Although I enjoyed their music it was bothersome.

Well, no. It describes a human-dog relationship quite well. Pets do not make food for their master either - they provide companionship. But are subservient as well.

I admit, I don't know a lot about the rest of Graves' and Maltby's relationship, but something tells me that Maltby will never get a job (as pets don't work), if Maltby needs something at the store Graves will have to get it, if they're at a restaurant or a movie (or need a bus ticket) Graves will have to pay (as pets don't pay for anything)...basically, the only think Graves might have over Maltby is "no, I don't want to go for a walk right now" or "no, I don't want to go into that store." The only "subservient" part to their relationship is that Graves may have control over where the couple goes, but in terms of things like housework, needs fulfilment, errands, maybe even money, it's Maltby who holds the leash. Besides, dogs get pretty pampered as well...any needs they have their master has to fufill, but that's understandable since dogs *require* humans to do things for them. Maltby, being a human (and thus able to run some errands if she can) just wants things done for her...not that there's any problem with that if Graves is happy but she is far from being completely subservient to Graves.

Huh? Seriously? The busses here mostly have seat belts...

I've got to move me to Ireland then. :)

That was my first thought too. I fully expected the couple not allowed on the bus to be clad in chain mail, bearing battle axes and sharpened swords, with a severe BO problem and a language that sounds vaguely familiar but uncivilised. The bus driver could reasonably have expected a whole horde of them to be hiding in the bushes, just waiting for their leaders to give them the signal to pillage the bus, slaughter the passengers, and spend the night in drunken revelry.

As it is, I was rather disappointed.

Heheh...even though I'd hate to hear about the loss of human life, I'd have to admit, that would be quite the story indeed.

Hehe yeah also the word Goth is so misused nowadays, it seems to mean anybody that dress predominatly in black, rather than those who listen to Goth music, but then I'm old anyway, remember goth music, all that lace and..and... shit.... moan..grumble....grumble....moan .... not like the olden days *sigh* were's me slippers!

I agree- I mean, the real Goths (as in the actual group of Germanic tribes that contributed to the Fall of Rome) weren't evil at all. They even gave us trousers.

Let's say instead of goths they were black, or hispanic, or jewish, or a pair of gay men, or two lesbians, and the bus driver said "no niggers allowed", or "no spicks allowed" or "no kikes allowed" or "no fags allowed" or "no dykes allowed". If they had been discriminated against for being black or hispanic or jewish or gay, and went to the papers, nobody would think they were just attention seeking.

I agree in this instance, although I do think that there are times when minority groups *do* complain just to get attention...I think back to the time the Jewish Defence League harped on Will Smith when Smith said that Adolf Hitler had good intentions but went about it the wrong way. So I don't think there's ever a time when minority groups get a free pass if they act irrationally.

That's nice to know, but I ain't wearin' nuthin' that's gonna accentuate the genetically determined black circles under my eyes. *reminds self that it's really great to be Italian*

Oh, and yeah, I can just imagine me being "perky." You know me, G. Think about it. It's kinda not a happening likelihood, right? *imagines hours of hysterical laughter from my mother if me being perky were to be so much as suggested to her* Me am not the perky one.

I absolutely love the goth look -- the darker and more Byronesque the better -- but what I wear is strictly Mrs. Peel, Marlene Dietrich or Katherine Hepburn. Those are the looks I can carry, and I consider myself lucky. :)

Ah well, can't blame a guy for trying to bring one more gothchick into the world. :D

(Black circles under eyes..... btw... in full goth, that'd be hidden by your white face makeup, wouldn't it?)

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).
Left wing but not liberal. Quite the opposite in fact, you're an authortarian, no?
As you should be. ;)




(KIDDING!!!)
No, you really should be. She has like 3 bat'leths and 2 super genius daughters.
I've been someone's pet before. I've worn a collar. (I didn't wear a leash, but I certainly would have if my master had requested it.) I didn't feel in the least bit degraded - if anything, I felt honored. I figure the fact that I can point to a very specific example of it not being degrading is a reasonably strong case that it doesn't have to be degrading.

Your owner was Jocabia, wasn't it?

Why are goths and art types typically so good looking? I just wish they had better taste in clothes (and lifestyles).

Ah well, can't blame a guy for trying to bring one more gothchick into the world. :D

(Black circles under eyes..... btw... in full goth, that'd be hidden by your white face makeup, wouldn't it?)

Not the Sicilian circles. That's why Italian women all wear those giant black sunglasses, even at night.

Goths are good looking??
Yeah, a lot of them are skinny with no acne and good bone structure. At least around here they are. They'd look better if they went outside sometimes though.

I've been someone's pet before. I've worn a collar. (I didn't wear a leash, but I certainly would have if my master had requested it.) I didn't feel in the least bit degraded - if anything, I felt honored. I figure the fact that I can point to a very specific example of it not being degrading is a reasonably strong case that it doesn't have to be degrading.

What is it they say?

"Pics or it only happened in Ohio"... Um...
"Pics or I will send you chocolate"... no...
"Pick a card, any card..." meh...

Ah!


Pics or it never happened! :D

;)

Why are goths and art types typically so good looking? I just wish they had better taste in clothes (and lifestyles).Goths are good looking??

Why are goths and art types typically so good looking? I just wish they had better taste in clothes (and lifestyles).
I don't know if I'd say they're typically good looking - any more than any other group of people. But goth can certainly do a lot to enhance good looks. :)

Really, all these people who are so shocked and horrified by goth fashion should thank their stars they don't live in the 1920s, next door to first gen Surrealists and Dadaists. There are still old people in Paris who remember the time Man Ray shaved only half his face (vertically, down the middle), and that poet whose name nobody remembers but who used to work out his post-WW1 traumatic stress disorder by walking around in his uniform and taking random pistol shots at people, just to laugh while they ducked for cover. It's called street art, people!!

If i were a Goth, I would say I asked for that. However, I am not, and I have a decidedly masculine name. However, the male Goth in the article had a decidedly feminine name, and the most well-known Goth in America was a contestant on the most recent edition of the reality show "The Amazing Race." His name? Kynt. Spelled exactly like that. (His girlfriend and racing partner was named Vyxsin, pronounced like "Vixen," which leads me to believe that Goths tend to pick their own names.)

Well that explains why they are fucked up. Their parents are fucked up too(assuming those are their real names). :p

It is a well known thing though that all bus drivers are cunts(except one)

very true. What about us train staff though, are we ok?

I don't know, what's your name?

If i were a Goth, I would say I asked for that. However, I am not, and I have a decidedly masculine name. However, the male Goth in the article had a decidedly feminine name, and the most well-known Goth in America was a contestant on the most recent edition of the reality show "The Amazing Race." His name? Kynt. Spelled exactly like that. (His girlfriend and racing partner was named Vyxsin, pronounced like "Vixen," which leads me to believe that Goths tend to pick their own names.)

If i were a Goth, I would say I asked for that. However, I am not, and I have a decidedly masculine name. However, the male Goth in the article had a decidedly feminine name, and the most well-known Goth in America was a contestant on the most recent edition of the reality show "The Amazing Race." His name? Kynt. Spelled exactly like that. (His girlfriend and racing partner was named Vyxsin, pronounced like "Vixen," which leads me to believe that Goths tend to pick their own names.)
Whereas other subcultures visit their sins upon their children. *Weeps for Moon Unit Zappa and Dweezil Zappa*

Yeah, a lot of them are skinny with no acne and good bone structure. At least around here they are. They'd look better if they went outside sometimes though.you mean those who look to good to be straight? :p

Whereas other subcultures visit their sins upon their children. *Weeps for Moon Unit Zappa and Dweezil Zappa*

My parents almost named me Moon Unit. Instead, they gave me a hideously long middle name inspired by my grandmother and a T-Rex song, which I eventually had changed because it caused me so many problems on official papers etc.

Your owner was Jocabia, wasn't it?

No.

What is it they say?

"Pics or it only happened in Ohio"... Um...
"Pics or I will send you chocolate"... no...
"Pick a card, any card..." meh...

Ah!


Pics or it never happened!



Also no. :p

No.
I'm gonna ask him and I bet he won't say that. :P



Also no. :p
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/_SoApBoX_/nooooooo.png

I'm gonna ask him and I bet he won't say that. :P

Sure, but as we should know from Mafia games, Jocabia can never be trusted. ;)

Also no. :p

Why don't you like Ohio? :(

Whereas other subcultures visit their sins upon their children. *Weeps for Moon Unit Zappa and Dweezil Zappa*

I'll take "Moon Unit" over "Kynt" any day of the week, though. Not over much else, though.

Why don't you like Ohio? :(

It takes too long to drive through. Every time I've driven between home and the east coast, I find myself wishing that Ohio weren't so fat. :p

Voted for it's his job to drive the bus and nothing else. I'd be surprised if he hadn't dealt with freaks like this before.

That being said, is anyone surprised that his retort was to call the guy a fascist? I bet they've marched in every anti-war rally in Britain. Face of the left.

Perhaps she was his seeing eye goth?

Sure, but as we should know from Mafia games, Jocabia can never be trusted. ;)

Maybe he'll have pics.

It takes too long to drive through. Every time I've driven between home and the east coast, I find myself wishing that Ohio weren't so fat. :p

Driving to the west coast will give you a serious attitude problem about Nebraska.

Driving to the west coast will give you a serious attitude problem about Nebraska.

Nah, seeing as I live in Missouri, it'll just give me a serious attitude problem about Kansas. (And has - KS is horribly boring to drive through. Luckily, I've had far fewer occasions to follow I-70 west than east.)

Maybe he'll have pics.

If so, they won't be of me, but you can certainly ask Joc for pics of himself in a slave-collar. That'd be entertaining. :p

Can one assume that living in a council house on benefits and planning to start a family really means that they live in a house built with taxpayer money, get paid not to work and plan on having kids so that they get more money?

If so, they won't be of me, but you can certainly ask Joc for pics of himself in a slave-collar. That'd be entertaining. :p

You should be his mistress! FTW!

It takes too long to drive through. Every time I've driven between home and the east coast, I find myself wishing that Ohio weren't so fat. :p

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/is-not-fat-is-just-fluffy.jpg


You knew it was coming ;)

You should be his mistress! FTW!

Gah, no. I am so not a dom. The one time my master and I tried switching, it went something like this:

Me: Um. Should I, like, give you an order or something?
Him: I guess.
Me: Um. Um. Come here? If you want?
Him: But I don't want to right now.
Me: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Wait, no, I mean, um, do it anyway!
Him: No, you should come over here.
Me: Okay! No, wait, shit. Um. Don't tell me what to do or, um, I'll...spank you?
Him: You totally won't.
Me: You're right. I totally won't.
Him: Hahahaha. We suck at this.
Me: Hehe. Yes. Yes, we do.
Him: Now, get over here, pet.
Me: Yay! Yes, sir!

Gah, no. I am so not a dom. The one time my master and I tried switching, it went something like this:

Me: Um. Should I, like, give you an order or something?
Him: I guess.
Me: Um. Um. Come here? If you want?
Him: But I don't want to right now.
Me: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Wait, no, I mean, um, do it anyway!
Him: No, you should come over here.
Me: Okay! No, wait, shit. Um. Don't tell me what to do or, um, I'll...spank you?
Him: You totally won't.
Me: You're right. I totally won't.
Him: Hahahaha. We suck at this.
Me: Hehe. Yes. Yes, we do.
Him: Now, get over here, pet.
Me: Yay! Yes, sir!

Are you a talking dog?

Are you a talking dog?

No, I'm a talking human. Dogs, you may have noticed, tend not to have the manual dexterity to type, given their lack of hands.

No, I'm a talking human. Dogs, you may have noticed, tend not to have the manual dexterity to type, given their lack of hands.

You'd be surprised. Some dogs can do some pretty neat stuff.
Or you could be a Warewolf?

You'd be surprised. Some dogs can do some pretty neat stuff.
Or you could be a Warewolf?

Nah, I think I would have noticed.

And my dog can indeed do some pretty neat stuff, but I think typing might be a bit beyond her.

Nah, I think I would have noticed.

And my dog can indeed do some pretty neat stuff, but I think typing might be a bit beyond her.

You could always talk to your dog (assuming what you said about you not being a warewolf was to maintain secrecy) and convince it to type stuff.
That or you're not a warewolf and you could make a special keypad for your dog and teach it from a young age how to use.
erm erm and yeah um i like dogs....um but if you are a warewolf i'd prefer not to be eaten, if that's okay by you.

Are you a talking dog?

I find your lack of kinkyness reassuring.

You could always talk to your dog (assuming what you said about you not being a warewolf was to maintain secrecy) and convince it to type stuff.
That or you're not a warewolf and you could make a special keypad for your dog and teach it from a young age how to use.
erm erm and yeah um i like dogs....um but if you are a warewolf i'd prefer not to be eaten, if that's okay by you.

Heh. I'm pretty content with the tricks my dog already knows (which include "sit," "shake," "bounce," "dance," "go to bed," "go to the garage," "go downstairs," "give me a kiss," "fall over," and "get up on the haystack"). I have no need to try to teach her "type on NSG."

And I promise I'm not a werewolf, and I only eat people under very specific circumstances. ;)

I find your lack of kinkyness reassuring.

erm thanks ditto to you.
Heh. I'm pretty content with the tricks my dog already knows (which include "sit," "shake," "bounce," "dance," "go to bed," "go to the garage," "go downstairs," "give me a kiss," "fall over," and "get up on the haystack"). I have no need to try to teach her "type on NSG."

And I promise I'm not a werewolf, and I only eat people under very specific circumstances. ;)

Hey if you could get your dog to type on NSG take a photo of it for me? Then i can sell it for lots of money to a newspaper, then i give you half the money so you don't eat me.
Ah i see, playing the old double bluff, make people think you are a warewolf by saying you aren't one then it turns out you are one but no one can prove it. hmmm i'll have to be clever in what i say, so i'll say you aren't a warewolf but could be one if you had the time then?;)

erm thanks ditto to you.
I see that you are new to General. Welcome.... ;)

Gah, no. I am so not a dom. The one time my master and I tried switching, it went something like this:

Me: Um. Should I, like, give you an order or something?
Him: I guess.
Me: Um. Um. Come here? If you want?
Him: But I don't want to right now.
Me: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Wait, no, I mean, um, do it anyway!
Him: No, you should come over here.
Me: Okay! No, wait, shit. Um. Don't tell me what to do or, um, I'll...spank you?
Him: You totally won't.
Me: You're right. I totally won't.
Him: Hahahaha. We suck at this.
Me: Hehe. Yes. Yes, we do.
Him: Now, get over here, pet.
Me: Yay! Yes, sir!
And so the universe returns to its proper order.
Nah, I think I would have noticed.

And my dog can indeed do some pretty neat stuff, but I think typing might be a bit beyond her.

You should give her a try anyway. Some intelligent discourse on NSG would be a pleasant change of pace. :p

And so the universe returns to its proper order.


You should give her a try anyway. Some intelligent discourse on NSG would be a pleasant change of pace. :p

Heh. While she's definitely smarter than many of the posters on here, I'm not sure she cares much about politics. Her opinion on most everything is something like: "If I can eat it, drink it, play with it, chew on it, snuggle with it, smell it, ride in it, and/or chase it, it's good." :)

I see that you are new to General. Welcome.... ;)

Thank you kindly.(see Wind Farm thread-notice shameless promotion).
I'll probably hang about here for a while until someone comes up with a treatment to get rid of me.
Do you find NSG eats up so much time? I spend ages on it, with fascinated clicking on things i didn't know and watching the big debates. Oh and happy Burns night.http://www.electricscotland.com/burns/langsyne.html

Heh. While she's definitely smarter than many of the posters on here, I'm not sure she cares much about politics. Her opinion on most everything is something like: "If I can eat it, drink it, play with it, chew on it, snuggle with it, smell it, ride in it, and/or chase it, it's good." :)

Well, she could smell politics, but she wouldn't like it.

Well, she could smell politics, but she wouldn't like it.

I don't know...I think most politicians would probably pet her, which would be enough for her to love them forever. She's not too picky, really.

Plus, you know, she likes to smell horse poop. Politics can't smell much worse than that.

If the bus Driver felt it would disturb his other passengers, which he might know well and get alot of money from, then I would say his actions would keep the money coming in from the masses.

If this couple want to do these fantasies it's absolutely fine by me... gives me something to watch when I am sat out at lunch but they MUST expect some people to get offended.

If the arabs can be so easily offended... why not the rest of us?.

So, who do you suppose a passenger should have pay for their medical bills or lost pay if the bus did have to make a hard break suddenly and got their neck or some other body part caught up in her chain resulting in an injury? Would this couple, who one of the articles cited as living on government benefits, or the bus company be financially responsible? Unleash the bitch (pun intended) while on the bus, problem solved.
One of the pics appears to be a artist's representation of the inside of an Arriva bus (in Leeds, its the only one I could find), the other is an actual picture. Both seem to indicate they allow standing on the bus, hence the bar grips, so as far as I can see there are no seatbelts as previously suggested by other posts.
http://www.minigalleryworld.com/Julie_Gledhill/images/20060418190815_500/large/Arriva_Bus_in_Leeds.jpg
http://www.arrivabusandcoach.co.uk/GalleryImages/DSC01669.jpg

I never said it was. Read my replies. The notion of someone believing they need to be leashed or wishing to be leashed (not what they wear) is repellant to me, especially in a public setting.

So fuck their free will then?

People have a right to their sexuality until their sexuality is thrust upon others without their consent. I read D/s stories where Doms send their subs to the doctor with horrible things written and/or things inserted places, ect. That is forcing an unwilling party to be part of your sexuality. Someone being lead around on a leash isn't so much. That act is not overtly sexual. For people that know what's going on, it's an overt act of dominance, but that's completely different. It's just like all the people that walk around with collars on. And there's nothing wrong with D/s period. So long as both parties are willing, there's nothing wrong with their kink.

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).

It was her choice (is there an echo in here?). And I doubt you're the most left wing person on here, hell I'll bet I could give you a run for money on some issues.

I voted that the driver's job is to drive the bus and nothing else. Who does he think he is to insult others because of their lifestyle, it's not as though it's self destructive. Besides, at least they're not emo faggots, and yes I have something against emo.

And, you know, there's the homophobic jackass aspect of your personality.

Well, if she's going to call herself a dog, I think she should be treated like one. As a female, it is disheartening to hear another woman acting in such a manner.

It's even more disheartening to see a woman still doesn't have a right to her own sexuality. Bonus for another woman doing the oppressing.

It's even more disheartening to see a woman still doesn't have a right to her own sexuality. Bonus for another woman doing the oppressing.

It's not disheartening that she dresses in that manner, or even that she walks on a leash. It's disheartening that she would prefer being a dog, a possession of another human being, instead of being a person, and thus his equal.

It's even more disheartening to see a woman still doesn't have a right to her own sexuality. Bonus for another woman doing the oppressing.

Seconded. :(

Yes you do.

You do if she's cool with it.

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).

...

The question is, why is this even in the news?

I remember when I was a kid and me and a group of friends got refused entrance on a city bus because we were screwing around and fake fighting at the bus stop. I also remember times when store workers would follow us around in case we were trying to steal.

What kind of person actually goes to the newspapers about this drama? Damn freaks.

On the contrary, the true expression of the individual comes from expression of it's worth and necessary (and interdependent) cooperation with everyone else.

Did you actually just say that individual expression depends on consensus?

Ooahhhkaayy. *backs away* akward.

No, the majority is fine with me.




Actually I have have nil respect for such attention-seeking freaks who act differently because they can.

Welcome to a free country.
I rather have more respect for them than the crowd-followers. And as someone who's come in contact with lots of Goths -- they can be funny, intelligent people! The ones I've known were brilliant.

God woman. Point out the obvious why don't you? I'm appalled at you second sentance, in fact more sort of scared, and you know what........nah better not say that.
So to conclude this debate.
P1) If Bus drivers insult other people they should be punished.
P2) The Bus driver insulted other people.
P3) The people wore clothes that could have dangered their lives on the bus.
PC) Both of them should go away and have some think time, then talk to each other. That or a big fine for both of them.

Thank you for so totally not addressing my point that you telling Wilgrove that he is wrong about what he finds sexually attractive is ludicrous, and making some other unconnected point instead.

Now THAT is frightening.

No, I'm a talking human. Dogs, you may have noticed, tend not to have the manual dexterity to type, given their lack of hands.

:D

Well, if she's going to call herself a dog, I think she should be treated like one. As a female, it is disheartening to hear another woman acting in such a manner.

No, if she calls herself a dog and lets her boyfriend treat her like a pet he should treat her like one. As a female and a human being, it is disheartening to hear another woman state that someones personal choice should be sufficient reason to treat them as a sub-human.

So, who do you suppose a passenger should have pay for their medical bills or lost pay if the bus did have to make a hard break suddenly and got their neck or some other body part caught up in her chain resulting in an injury? Would this couple, who one of the articles cited as living on government benefits, or the bus company be financially responsible? Unleash the bitch (pun intended) while on the bus, problem solved.

As has been pointed out before, there is a difference between a driver saying "excuse me miss, but that collar is unsafe in this bus" (which arriva implies the driver said, or at least should have said) and "No dogs allowed, freak" (as the couple implies the driver said according to the daily mail).

And of course, in a seatbelt free buss the extra risk posed by a choker is neglible.

Yeah like them gays, how dear they flaunt their homosexuality in public, what about them men that wear makeup in the street? Odd fuckers how dare they.

On them cutsie hetro couples, that *gasp* hold hands in a public display of affection!

Sheesh man, take your own advice and grow up a little huh.

what actual harm was done to anybody by their choice of clothing? Ohh yeah none.

I can always tell when someone doesn't read the whole thread. :rolleyes:

So fuck their free will then?

Aaaand again....

Hey, guys, here's a thought -- use the multi-quote and continue to read, you might find that someone has changed their mind.

My parents almost named me Moon Unit. Instead, they gave me a hideously long middle name inspired by my grandmother and a T-Rex song, which I eventually had changed because it caused me so many problems on official papers etc.
T-Rex, eh? Could have been worse. They could have been Tubes fans.

Can one assume that living in a council house on benefits and planning to start a family really means that they live in a house built with taxpayer money, get paid not to work and plan on having kids so that they get more money?
One can assume anything one likes, but it won't be relevant unless it matches their real situation.

I think firing or suing the driver would be going a bit far...
If the incident was repeated, maybe.

One can assume anything one likes, but it won't be relevant unless it matches their real situation.
It's not an assumption, read the article.

Thats rediculous homeless people ride bus & no one stops them. His job is bus driver not Fashion Police.

It's not disheartening that she dresses in that manner, or even that she walks on a leash. It's disheartening that she would prefer being a dog, a possession of another human being, instead of being a person, and thus his equal.
Woah just because you put a leash around your neck doesnt mean you don't have any sense of self worth. IMO they are just having fun. When you see five year olds playing games like this do you think its disheartening?

Woah just because you put a leash around your neck doesnt mean you don't have any sense of self worth. IMO they are just having fun. When you see five year olds playing games like this do you think its disheartening?

Well there's different socially acceptable behaviour for children and adults.
They might be having fun, but that doesn't take away the upbringing of the driver which sould be very anti-sematic, so to avoid this response they don't wear a chain.
In public you will get a different response to humour than in private or with people you know, and can be often seen as insulting.

Well there's different socially acceptable behaviour for children and adults.
They might be having fun, but that doesn't take away the upbringing of the driver which sould be very anti-sematic, so to avoid this response they don't wear a chain.
In public you will get a different response to humour than in private or with people you know, and can be often seen as insulting.

I don't think I understand your words. There is nothing wrong with an adult doing something fun, thats kind of the statement they were most likely going for. "We don't take our appearance too seriously". And if they did not do it in public how would their message get out?
I don't like how people are afraid to be themselves on the outside for fear they won't be taken seriously on the inside.

I think the problem is perception.

some people can see a leash in many ways.

Trust: the leashed person is giving the holder a great deal of trust
Subservant: the leashed person is giving the holder all their freedom
slave: the leashed person is conditioned to accept the leash (imposed subservant)
Kinky: self explanitory


The many reactions can fall into any catagory. "She's demeaning herself" can fall into them seeing her as a slave or subservant. unless they have a sign stating "I wear this leash as a sign of my total trust in my partner" anyone can think anything and make interpretations where they will. Many see a person in chains and the first thought would be 'slave' because of the historical connotations involved.

the next common viewpoint I feel, would be kinky and Subservant depending on their actions towards each other.

to think trust would require personal knowledge of those invovled.

and those thoughts can happen in a blink of an eye or longer... depending on the person thinking them.

Well there's different socially acceptable behaviour for children and adults.
They might be having fun, but that doesn't take away the upbringing of the driver which sould be very anti-sematic, so to avoid this response they don't wear a chain.
In public you will get a different response to humour than in private or with people you know, and can be often seen as insulting.

How on earth is "not liking Goths" in any way "anti-sematic"?
Are Goths equivalent to Semites?
They are Middle Easterners? Truly? How can we tell?

I think he meant "anti-semantic": that refers to someone who is prejudiced against people expressing themselves.

I think he meant "anti-semantic": that refers to someone who is prejudiced against people expressing themselves.

I have got to admit I have never heard the term before. And apparently Merriam-Webster has not either.

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for anti-semantic:

1. anti-semitic 2. antisymmetric
3. enticements 4. immanentistic
5. enticement 6. anti-American
7. antagonistic 8. antisatellite
9. anti-Semitism 10. antecedently
11. antiseptic 12. antistatic
13. antiscientific 14. anti-Semites
15. intestinally 16. intumescent
17. antiseptically 18. intestinal
19. anti-Western 20. anticommunist

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

*taps*
Hmm.....

Oh wait!


*winds*

:D All better! ;)

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

I think he meant "anti-semantic": that refers to someone who is prejudiced against people expressing themselves.

isn't there a contest where people can submit words they created and their definition? I suggest you enter this as your word. :p

T-Rex, eh? Could have been worse. They could have been Tubes fans.

YOU LAY OFF THE TUBES!

They're one of my favorite musical guilty pleasures!

*strolls off whistling the kick-ass horn soli from "Wild Women of Wongo".*

Hey, guys, here's a thought -- use the multi-quote and continue to read, you might find that someone has changed their mind.

Here's a thought, don't assume that I always have sufficient time and attention span to do so, especial with a thread that's ten pages long at the maximum posts per page. I read and respond as posts I wish to respond to come up. Deal with it.

It's not disheartening that she dresses in that manner, or even that she walks on a leash. It's disheartening that she would prefer being a dog, a possession of another human being, instead of being a person, and thus his equal.

She is a pet, not a dog. She is still a human being, she is still his equal. The only thing is, they've chosen what their roles are, and some people aren't comfortable with those choices.

The question is, why is this even in the news?

I remember when I was a kid and me and a group of friends got refused entrance on a city bus because we were screwing around and fake fighting at the bus stop. I also remember times when store workers would follow us around in case we were trying to steal.

What kind of person actually goes to the newspapers about this drama? Damn freaks.

Were you assaulted?

No?

End of comparison. Case closed.

It's not an assumption, read the article.

Someone missed the point of the post they were replying to, eh?

Muravyets replied to someone who said they could 'assume' a set of circumstances based on some things in the article. Thus, if your answer is 'it's not an assumption', you obviously missed the whole 'assume' exchange.

-1 relevent points.

Here's a thought, don't assume that I always have sufficient time and attention span to do so, especial with a thread that's ten pages long at the maximum posts per page. I read and respond as posts I wish to respond to come up. Deal with it.

Tell ya what: you pull your head out and GAIN the attention span. Those of us who've been through the thread really don't appreciate it when someone saunters in and replies to something completely out of context. If you can't be bothered to read into the context of statements, then you really look foolish replying to them. If that doesn't bother you, that's fine, but don't expect people to not call you on it.

She is a pet, not a dog. She is still a human being, she is still his equal. The only thing is, they've chosen what their roles are, and some people aren't comfortable with those choices.

as a Side note, if she considers herself his pet, wouldn't that mean that she's not his equal? 'He' being the holder of the chain that is.

After all, according to the article, he chooses what she wears, he feeds her and he makes her bed, he... waitaminute... maybe he's actually her servant and he only thinks he's her owner...

pretty slick way to get a butler without paying him... :D

as a Side note, if she considers herself his pet, wouldn't that mean that she's not his equal? 'He' being the holder of the chain that is.

After all, according to the article, he chooses what she wears, he feeds her and he makes her bed, he... waitaminute... maybe he's actually her servant and he only thinks he's her owner...

pretty slick way to get a butler without paying him... :D

I'v been involved in D/S relationships, of various kinds... and have had a lot of friends in the scene.

Aside from the sub-culture of 'Gor' (which pretty much IS fantasy material for those who like to denigrate women), there is no pretense that the subbie (pet, little one, slave) is actually unequal to the dom (lord, master, whatever).

How you chose to regulate the internal relationships... who you chose to have what authority... doesn't change whether or not your partners are equal. It's also worth remembering, a dominant doesn't 'take' authority - it is given.

I'm pretty sure you get this, actually - I'm basically repeating it for those who might not.

as a Side note, if she considers herself his pet, wouldn't that mean that she's not his equal? 'He' being the holder of the chain that is.

Of course not, for one very good reason. He only holds the chain as long as she lets him.

I'v been involved in D/S relationships, of various kinds... and have had a lot of friends in the scene.

Aside from the sub-culture of 'Gor' (which pretty much IS fantasy material for those who like to denigrate women), there is no pretense that the subbie (pet, little one, slave) is actually unequal to the dom (lord, master, whatever).

How you chose to regulate the internal relationships... who you chose to have what authority... doesn't change whether or not your partners are equal. It's also worth remembering, a dominant doesn't 'take' authority - it is given.True, which is why I'm focusing only on those two (the involved and not including anyone from the outside.)

now realize that in mostly all D-S releationships, it's formed when both parters trust one another to enter such a relationship.

however, even tho the Dominate one doesn't take the position (being that it's given and thus not argued,) it does mean that subserviance is assumed, voluntarily, by the other. that does indicate an inequality in the relationship. a voluntary inequality, but inequality all the same.

the only equality they would hold then is the ability to end the D-S relationship while the inequality in the relationship itself still exists while the relationship goes on.

I'm pretty sure you get this, actually - I'm basically repeating it for those who might not. I understand. :cool:

Of course not, for one very good reason. He only holds the chain as long as she lets him.

but as I asked. "WHILE she consideres to be HIS pet, the roles are not equal." meaning once she takes the chain from his hand, she no longer considers herself his pet and therefor now his equal.

True, which is why I'm focusing only on those two (the involved and not including anyone from the outside.)

now realize that in mostly all D-S releationships, it's formed when both parters trust one another to enter such a relationship.

however, even tho the Dominate one doesn't take the position (being that it's given and thus not argued,) it does mean that subserviance is assumed, voluntarily, by the other. that does indicate an inequality in the relationship. a voluntary inequality, but inequality all the same.

the only equality they would hold then is the ability to end the D-S relationship while the inequality in the relationship itself still exists while the relationship goes on.

I understand. :cool:

Subservience and dominance have nothing to do with equality.

It's like saying that a husband and wife can't be 'equal' in their relationship, because man and women are different, and thus unequal... or white and black partners can't be equal, because THEY are different.

Someone in a relationship may be the dominant... may have the (appearance of) authority... but the positions are still equal. How you attribute the responsibility (or whatever) doesn't affect that.

but as I asked. "WHILE she consideres to be HIS pet, the roles are not equal." meaning once she takes the chain from his hand, she no longer considers herself his pet and therefor now his equal.

No - because they weren't unequal even while she was bound. Just different.

But if she's capable of taking the chain at any moment, then she's his equal at all times, regardless of whether she's on a leash
Did you read what is involved in their relationship? Do you honestly call that equal just because she can end it?

so if you were in a relationship where you did the cooking, the cleaning, Chosing what your partner wears, possibly down to the point of you in complete control of the finances, you would call that equal because your partner can end it?

but as I asked. "WHILE she consideres to be HIS pet, the roles are not equal." meaning once she takes the chain from his hand, she no longer considers herself his pet and therefor now his equal.

But if she's capable of taking the chain at any moment, then she's his equal at all times, regardless of whether she's on a leash

No - because they weren't unequal even while she was bound. Just different.

different in what way?

Did you read what is involved in their relationship? Do you honestly call that equal just because she can end it?

so if you were in a relationship where you did the cooking, the cleaning, Chosing what your partner wears, possibly down to the point of you in complete control of the finances, you would call that equal because your partner can end it?

He doesn't choose DESPITE her, he chooses FOR her.

There's a big difference.

different in what way?

When I have been in D/S relationships, sometimes I'm the dominant, sometimes the submissive. Sometimes both.. sometimes both on the same day.

Being dominant means you are in the role that is gifted the authority, being the submissive means you are in the role that is gifted with a lack of authority.

No matter which side of the equation, I've never been in a situation where the understanding was anything BUT that we were still equal.

We had different roles - that's how we were 'different'... but roles don't equate to lack of equality.

Subservience and dominance have nothing to do with equality.

It's like saying that a husband and wife can't be 'equal' in their relationship, because man and women are different, and thus unequal... or white and black partners can't be equal, because THEY are different.

Someone in a relationship may be the dominant... may have the (appearance of) authority... but the positions are still equal. How you attribute the responsibility (or whatever) doesn't affect that.
except in a normal marriage or partnership The responsibilities are shared. they can be divided, but they are still shared. reading their abridged discription, what is she contributing to the responsiblity of maintaining the house/home/partnership other than letting him do all the work?

btw, being unequal doesn't mean she's 'lower' than him. it could very well be he's 'lower' than her. so yes, I do realize he can also end the relationship.

When I have been in D/S relationships, sometimes I'm the dominant, sometimes the submissive. Sometimes both.. sometimes both on the same day. and in this case, it doesn't sound like they switch off or even remove themselves from the roles.

Being dominant means you are in the role that is gifted the authority, being the submissive means you are in the role that is gifted with a lack of authority. and the inequality exists in these roles. that's what I was talking about. While one is in the role of dominance, the other the role of servant, there cannot be equality within the role.

No matter which side of the equation, I've never been in a situation where the understanding was anything BUT that we were still equal. equal while in the roles? or the fact that both partners agree when one calls it off, the other agrees? which isn't equality, but an agreement to terminate the role-playing.

We had different roles - that's how we were 'different'... but roles don't equate to lack of equality. I agree if those participating do switch around. the Dominant taking the subservant role from time to time. but if the roles are not swapped, how can both say equal since the roles requires inequality?

True, which is why I'm focusing only on those two (the involved and not including anyone from the outside.)

now realize that in mostly all D-S releationships, it's formed when both parters trust one another to enter such a relationship.

however, even tho the Dominate one doesn't take the position (being that it's given and thus not argued,) it does mean that subserviance is assumed, voluntarily, by the other. that does indicate an inequality in the relationship. a voluntary inequality, but inequality all the same.

the only equality they would hold then is the ability to end the D-S relationship while the inequality in the relationship itself still exists while the relationship goes on.

To argue in this sense would render the concept of "equality" to be meaningless. Equality in a relationship does not mean "every party puts in the same". Equality does not mean "each party pays half the bills, does half the chores, and does half the work".

If you try to argue that this is your definition of equality then you will find that there are no relationships that are inherently "equal" in this regard. Equality in a relationship means one thing simply. Both parties have equal bargaining power. Both partners have the ability to choose. Both parties have the ability to negotiate. Both parties have the ability to set their terms and neither party has any more power over the other.

D/s is not about inequality. It never is. Every partner is free to choose. Every partner is free to say no. Every partner is free to accept. Every partner is free to set terms that he, or she, does not wish to accept. Every party is free to negotiate for things in exchange for others.

"you do what I say" isn't unequal, provided the other partner is free, at any time, to say "no, go fuck off".

but as I asked. "WHILE she consideres to be HIS pet, the roles are not equal." meaning once she takes the chain from his hand, she no longer considers herself his pet and therefor now his equal.

And once again, it's not that she does, it's that she can that makes their positions equal, albeit different.

It's not an assumption, read the article.

I read both the BBC and the Daily Mail articles. Neither one of them mentioned anything about the couple planning to start a family in order to get more money from the state.

He doesn't choose DESPITE her, he chooses FOR her.

There's a big difference.and one common point.
she gave up her right (for lack of a better word) to choose for HERSELF.

Now this is assuming that their relationship is not "between the hours of 6 pm to 6 am" but until either one calls it off for good.

Mr Graves said: "She's very animal like, she's kind of like a pet, as well as a partner."

He said he "does everything" for his girlfriend, including laying out clothes for her, feeding her and cleaning their house.

He said: "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house."

Somehow it doesn't sound like she's 'not acting like an animal' at any time around him. (this is assuming she has a job somewhere.)

and one common point.
she gave up her right (for lack of a better word) to choose for HERSELF.

Did she somehow undergo some brain surgery or other method that renders her incapable of making her own choices? Is this man some marvel comicsesq psychic that is capable of entering her mind and forcing her to do things against her will? Is she infected with some space parasite that leaves her unable to resist suggestion?

No?

Then bullshit she gave up her right to choose for herself. She is completely free to choose for herself. Choosing to do what someone else asks of you is still a choice. To pretend that she can not choose for herself is nonsense, and competely fails to understand the concept of "choice".

Well there's different socially acceptable behaviour for children and adults.
They might be having fun, but that doesn't take away the upbringing of the driver which sould be very anti-sematic, so to avoid this response they don't wear a chain.
In public you will get a different response to humour than in private or with people you know, and can be often seen as insulting.
You mean "insulting" in the sense of calling people "freaks" in public and pushing and shoving them because you don't like the way they dress?

I simply do not understand the argument that it is the couple's responsibility to anticipate the prejudice of a bus driver and dress to mollify him. How do you feel about people who think that pretty women deserve to be ogled, jeered at, and even grabbed if they walk down the street looking nice? Should women wear burkhas, or at least avoid attractive clothing, maybe stop washing their hair, in order not to excite the passions of morons? How about people who believe that it's okay to bully gays on the street? Should gays go hide in a closet to protect the feelings of homophobes? Of course not. Bigots and ignorant jackasses should not be allowed to dictate public decorum. You keep saying how this goth couple are offending public taste. Well I'm a member of the public, and I am not in the least bit offended by them. You see plenty of people in this thread who also are not offended by them. And the management of the bus company itself is apparently not offended by them enough to ban them from their buses. So who are you to presume to speak for public taste? And who is that bus driver to presume so? That bus driver is the only person in this story whose actions I find offensive.

As a bus is a business on wheels (even if publicly owned), and as the driver is the proprietor-in-residence, he has the right to refuse service to whomever he wants. I'm not sure how he has the right to prevent them from getting onto another bus, though, unless he's somehow the supervisor of those other bus drivers.

Here's a questiopn Grave...
How long (average) are the roles assumed? several hours a day, or several days a week, or longer?

YOU LAY OFF THE TUBES!

They're one of my favorite musical guilty pleasures!

*strolls off whistling the kick-ass horn soli from "Wild Women of Wongo".*

Wongo = the middle name Neesika could have been saddled with. I rest my case. *strolls off humming "What Do You Want From Life* ;)

Here's a questiopn Grave...
How long (average) are the roles assumed? several hours a day, or several days a week, or longer?

That depends, entirely, on the relationship. It's also entirely irrelevant to the question of whether they are equal or not.

Every submissive follows the orders of a dominant because he/she chooses to. That's it. End of story. A consensual, informed d/s relationship, no matter how unequal it looks from the outside, is fundamentally equal, every party does what she or he choses to do.

Same as every other relationship.

Did she somehow undergo some brain surgery or other method that renders her incapable of making her own choices? yes, she chose to give them up by assuming the subservant role.

of course, if you've been reading my posts, you'll see that I accepted the fact that she can end the D/S relationship and I also said that the inequality existed WHILE THEY WERE IN THEIR ROLES and that the inequality is only within those two and not involving anyone else. in other words, while she view herself as his pet, she is still equal to the bus driver who is NOT participating in their relationship.

Did I say he forced the role on her? no.
Did I say neither one of them couldn't end the relationship? no.
Am I focusing on the positions of the roles themselves? Yes.
Am I arguing anything else besides the roles both of them assumed onto themselves? no.

except in a normal marriage or partnership The responsibilities are shared. they can be divided, but they are still shared. reading their abridged discription, what is she contributing to the responsiblity of maintaining the house/home/partnership other than letting him do all the work?

btw, being unequal doesn't mean she's 'lower' than him. it could very well be he's 'lower' than her. so yes, I do realize he can also end the relationship.
The bolded phrase is what invalidates your argument by revealing it to be entirely subjective. There are few ideas more subjective than the concept of "normal" in close interpersonal relationships. The mere fact that you categorize other kinds of relationships as "normal" implies that theirs is abnormal, and this allows you speak negatively about it. Yet their kind of relationship is a norm for millions of people in the world -- not just fetishists, but people living in many different kinds of cultures and societies.

That depends, entirely, on the relationship. It's also entirely irrelevant to the question of whether they are equal or not.

Every submissive follows the orders of a dominant because he/she chooses to. That's it. End of story. A consensual, informed d/s relationship, no matter how unequal it looks from the outside, is fundamentally equal, every party does what she or he choses to do.

Same as every other relationship.
thank you for answering Grave.

so which is the puppet? Neo Art of Grave_N_Idle?

yes, she chose to give them up by assuming the subservant role.

And once again, bullshit. Though, you've already shown yourself to have a deep and profound misunderstanding about how these relationships work.

Actually, it seems you have a deep and profound misunderstanding about how relationships work period.

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.
Awww, what's wrong with freak? I like freaks. And I'm a freak too, and proud of it. :D

So, yeah, the bus driver was wrong to do that, IMO.

The bolded phrase is what invalidates your argument by revealing it to be entirely subjective. There are few ideas more subjective than the concept of "normal" in close interpersonal relationships. The mere fact that you categorize other kinds of relationships as "normal" implies that theirs is abnormal, and this allows you speak negatively about it. Yet their kind of relationship is a norm for millions of people in the world -- not just fetishists, but people living in many different kinds of cultures and societies.
I'm trying to focus on the D-S aspect and it's differences with other relationships so YES it is subjective. I'm trying to learn about the D-S culture since I am not apart of it.

I'm doing so by asking questions and comparing it to other relationships out there that I am familiar with.

Is that soo wrong?

thank you for answering Grave.

so which is the puppet? Neo Art of Grave_N_Idle?

Grave is quite a seperate person. However, as someone who himself has been involved in several d/s relationships in the past, and we are discussing d/s relationships on a public forum, I figured you'd actually care for the answer of someone experienced in the area you are discussing.

So I assumed that while you didn't address the question to me directly, because I actually know a good deal on the subject, if you were actually interested you might want to hear. I suppose that my assjmption that you'd actually be interested in learning something about a subject you know so little about might interest you. But hey, if you just want to wallow in your own ignorance...alright.

If I were you though, I wouldn't so publicly broadcast that fact. Makes people lose respect for you pretty quick.

And once again, bullshit. Though, you've already shown yourself to have a deep and profound misunderstanding about how these relationships work.

Actually, it seems you have a deep and profound misunderstanding about how relationships work period.

is she in the role of pet?
is she in the subservant role?
was this role forced upon her?
does the subservant role come with choices other than that of ending the role? or does the subservant role come with the choices the dominate allows the subservant to make (not including the choice to end the role)?

I'm trying to focus on the D-S aspect and it's differences with other relationships so YES it is subjective. I'm trying to learn about the D-S culture since I am not apart of it.

I'm doing so by asking questions and comparing it to other relationships out there that I am familiar with.

Is that soo wrong?

Is asking questions and comparing it wrong? No. But that's not what you're doing. You on the other hand begin with certain assumptions, then ridgedly adhere to those assumptions. You refuse to acknowledge, understand, absorb or appreciate the answers given by people who do know about the subject. Which does create the impression that you're not trying to learn at all. You're creating your own bias and misconception based on ignorance than trying to justify that bias and misconception by pretending to ask questions, then arguing with every explanation you're given.

Which..yeah, that's pretty wrong. Bigoted too.

Grave is quite a seperate person. However, as someone who himself has been involved in several d/s relationships in the past, and we are discussing d/s relationships on a public forum, I figured you'd actually care for the answer of someone experienced in the area you are discussing.

So I assumed that while you didn't address the question to me directly, because I actually know a good deal on the subject, if you were actually interested you might want to hear. I suppose that my assjmption that you'd actually be interested in learning something about a subject you know so little about might interest you. But hey, if you just want to wallow in your own ignorance...alright.

If I were you though, I wouldn't so publicly broadcast that fact. Makes people lose respect for you pretty quick.

except I specifically asked Grave. and YOU answered. funny isn't it. are you so interested in showing off your knowledge that you will answer anything even if it's not directed at you?

and yet you accuse me of not reading and understanding posts yet you seem to not understand a question directed specifically to someone else.

very interesting...

Is asking questions and comparing it wrong? No. But that's not what you're doing. You on the other hand begin with certain assumptions, then ridgedly adhere to those assumptions. You refuse to acknowledge, understand, absorb or appreciate the answers given by people who do know about the subject. Which does create the impression that you're not trying to learn at all. You're creating your own bias and misconception based on ignorance than trying to justify that bias and misconception by pretending to ask questions, then arguing with every explanation you're given.

Which..yeah, that's pretty wrong. Bigoted too.

what ridgedly? I'm looking for clarification and am questioning.

so you're now answering for Muravyets also? wow, do you think others can't respond to their posts by themselves?

and now we know Neo Arts answer to ignorance. it's to insult others. nice going there.

and one common point.
she gave up her right (for lack of a better word) to choose for HERSELF.

Now this is assuming that their relationship is not "between the hours of 6 pm to 6 am" but until either one calls it off for good.



Somehow it doesn't sound like she's 'not acting like an animal' at any time around him. (this is assuming she has a job somewhere.)
I chided someone else for making assumptions, now I have to point out the same weakness with you.

1) You assume she gave up any rights at all. You do not know that. You only assume it because of what "leash" and "pet" mean to you, which is in obvious conflict to what she says it means to her. But she has said nothing in the articles that in any way suggests she has given up her right to choose. Quite the opposite, in fact. Not choosing to exercise a right at any given moment is not the same as giving up the right. You have no basis on which to assert that she has given up the right to choose anything for herself, ever, as opposed to simply choosing to cede authority to make some decisions to her boyfriend at this time.

2) You assume you know the nature of their relationship. You assume that, based on one photo, and some bus stop stories, you can make comments about what their life at home is like, and that it is something different from what they say it is. Come on, JuNii. Really now. The only information you have about what they do at home is their own words, and that does not support your argument.

3) Finally, you assume she has a job somewhere -- but where in the articles was that indicated? And what relevance would it have except to indicate that her relationship with her boyfriend is as consensual and of her own choosing as she says it is? If she can turn the pet act on and off at will, then pray tell us how precisely it is that she has given up her right to choose how to live? In fact, you have no idea whether she turns the act on and off. You have no idea how "literal" the act is. You have no idea whether they keep it up without a break in the privacy of their own home. You don't know a damned thing about it, except what they themselves say -- all of which contradicts any notion that she is unequal, mistreated, disrespected, lacking self-respect, less than human, etc, etc, etc.

is she in the role of pet?
is she in the subservant role?
was this role forced upon her?
does the subservant role come with choices other than that of ending the role? or does the subservant role come with the choices the dominate allows the subservant to make (not including the choice to end the role)?

yes
yes
no
yes

The last answer is the one you don't seem to understand quite well. I am unserhow this role somehow makes her incapable of saying "you know what, I changed my mind and don't want to do this anymore".

Why is it that you presume that her only option is to say "yes, sir" or "I want to break up"? Why in the world is she somehow unable to say "no?"

Now, true, if she refuses to continue that role, he may choose to end that relationship. That is always possible. But that is the potential consequence of her choice.

She is always free to JUST SAY NO. Nothing more than "no". Yes, that may end the relationship, but then again, a lot of choices people make can end relationships. I'm pretty sure that if I shot her father and raped her mother, my girlfriend probably wouldn't want to continue dating me.

She's free to refuse any time she wants. Sure that might have consequences, but every relationship comes with deal breakers. If I choose to shoot her father and rape her mother, I accept the consquences of that choice, which includes, but is not limited to, her dumping my ass. Thus if I want to continue dating her, I make the choice not to shoot her father and rape her mother.

waitaminute... maybe he's actually her servant and he only thinks he's her owner...

pretty slick way to get a butler without paying him... :D

^ See? That's what I was trying to say earlier on:

I admit, I don't know a lot about the rest of Graves' and Maltby's relationship, but something tells me that Maltby will never get a job (as pets don't work), if Maltby needs something at the store Graves will have to get it, if they're at a restaurant or a movie (or need a bus ticket) Graves will have to pay (as pets don't pay for anything)...basically, the only think Graves might have over Maltby is "no, I don't want to go for a walk right now" or "no, I don't want to go into that store." The only "subservient" part to their relationship is that Graves may have control over where the couple goes, but in terms of things like housework, needs fulfilment, errands, maybe even money, it's Maltby who holds the leash. Besides, dogs get pretty pampered as well...any needs they have their master has to fufill, but that's understandable since dogs *require* humans to do things for them. Maltby, being a human (and thus able to run some errands if she can) just wants things done for her...not that there's any problem with that if Graves is happy but she is far from being completely subservient to Graves.

thank you for answering Grave.

so which is the puppet? Neo Art of Grave_N_Idle?
When people say things like this, it makes them look defeated.

and now we know Neo Arts answer to ignorance. it's to insult others. nice going there.

Frankly speaking, if after the explanations you're given already you're still spouting the same nonsense you are when you came into this thread, you're obviously a bit beyond hope.

It's obvious you've done absolutly nothing to consider other possibilties other than your preconceived perceptions, which are coming across rather bigoted. It means nothing that you ask questions, if you consistantly reject answers that disagree with your preconceived notions.

I'm trying to focus on the D-S aspect and it's differences with other relationships so YES it is subjective. I'm trying to learn about the D-S culture since I am not apart of it.

I'm doing so by asking questions and comparing it to other relationships out there that I am familiar with.

Is that soo wrong?
You are not asking questions that would gain you information. You are asking questions as set-ups so you can then follow up with "and that's why their relationship is bad" type remarks. GnI already told you what these kinds of relationships are like, several times over, but apparently you don't like what he had to say and want to keep picking on these goths as being abnormal and bad and maybe even icky. So I say you are not focusing on the D-S aspect to learn about it. You are focusing on it to attack it.

except I specifically asked Grave. and YOU answered. funny isn't it. are you so interested in showing off your knowledge that you will answer anything even if it's not directed at you?

and yet you accuse me of not reading and understanding posts yet you seem to not understand a question directed specifically to someone else.

very interesting...
I'm surprised to see someone like you, who has been kicking around NSG for a good long time, say something so newbie. This is an open internet forum. Every member has the ability and the right, according to the forum's customs, to respond to any post they read. You know that.

I chided someone else for making assumptions, now I have to point out the same weakness with you.carefull with assumptions, for it's easy to make them yourself.

1) You assume she gave up any rights at all. You do not know that. You only assume it because of what "leash" and "pet" mean to you, which is in obvious conflict to what she says it means to her. But she has said nothing in the articles that in any way suggests she has given up her right to choose. Quite the opposite, in fact. Not choosing to exercise a right at any given moment is not the same as giving up the right. You have no basis on which to assert that she has given up the right to choose anything for herself, ever, as opposed to simply choosing to cede authority to make some decisions to her boyfriend at this time. now you assume that of me. wrong. i'm only focusing on what those to described of their relationship where they said
Mr Graves said: "She's very animal like, she's kind of like a pet, as well as a partner."

He said he "does everything" for his girlfriend, including laying out clothes for her, feeding her and cleaning their house.

He said: "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house."
so with that last line, "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house." can we draw the conclusion that she is in almost every sense of the word, a pet? a pet doesn't choose what to wear, as he stated in the second line of the quote. he feeds her so we can assume he cooks, but I am not assuming she eats out of a dog dish. nor do I think that she's not using the bathroom and is also washing herself. yet he is describing living with a pet.

a pet doesn't choose what to watch on the television, a pet doesn't choose what to eat for dinner yet his comments does lead one to believe that such choices are not hers because she is in the role of pet.

this is NOT to say she cannot step out of the role, nor that she can end it.

2) You assume you know the nature of their relationship. You assume that, based on one photo, and some bus stop stories, you can make comments about what their life at home is like, and that it is something different from what they say it is. Come on, JuNii. Really now. The only information you have about what they do at home is their own words, and that does not support your argument. I am not basing it off of the photo nor of the bus stop stories, but HIS comments about their relationship as stated in both the daily mail as well as the BBC article.

and as for their home life?
Mr Graves said: "She's very animal like, she's kind of like a pet, as well as a partner."

He said he "does everything" for his girlfriend, including laying out clothes for her, feeding her and cleaning their house.

He said: "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house."


"I am a pet, I generally act animal like and I lead a really easy life," she said.

"I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."
so I'm baising my guesses on their homelife baised on what they said.

3) Finally, you assume she has a job somewhere -- but where in the articles was that indicated? she's actually a student according to the dailymail.
The music technology student had this defence of her lifestyle.

And what relevance would it have except to indicate that her relationship with her boyfriend is as consensual and of her own choosing as she says it is? no relavence except I can guess that she doesn't "act like an animal" at her work (or in this case class). proving that 1) it's voluntary and 2) she can end the relationship.
If she can turn the pet act on and off at will, then pray tell us how precisely it is that she has given up her right to choose how to live? I'm not arguing her choosing how to live.
I was questioning and trying to clarify to me, Grave_N_Idle pointed out that they were equal while in the role of D-S.
In fact, you have no idea whether she turns the act on and off. You have no idea how "literal" the act is. You have no idea whether they keep it up without a break in the privacy of their own home. You don't know a damned thing about it, except what they themselves say -- all of which contradicts any notion that she is unequal, in a D/S relationship are the Role of Dominate equal to the role of subservant? or is one role actually lower than the other? (this does NOT touch upon the ability to end the relationship only the roles they assume.)
mistreated, disrespected, lacking self-respect, less than human, etc, etc, etc.and where did *I* ever claim that? or are you ASSUMING things.

except I specifically asked Grave. and YOU answered. funny isn't it. are you so interested in showing off your knowledge that you will answer anything even if it's not directed at you?

and yet you accuse me of not reading and understanding posts yet you seem to not understand a question directed specifically to someone else.

very interesting...


People who seek knowledge don't really care where it comes from. The fact that you seem so caught up in who answers your questions suggests you don't really care about getting an answer. If you're going to reject an answer from someone who is knowledgeable about the subject you're supposedly wanting to learn about, then you should probably drop the pretense that you actually care about learning anything.

I'm surprised to see someone like you, who has been kicking around NSG for a good long time, say something so newbie. This is an open internet forum. Every member has the ability and the right, according to the forum's customs, to respond to any post they read. You know that.

actually, I've seen such posted questions where a question is posted to a specific poster. most times, it's left for the person to answer since it was addressed to that poster specifically.

now what the mods have shut down in the past is THREADS posted for one particular poster.

in a D/S relationship are the Role of Dominate equal to the role of subservant? or is one role actually lower than the other? (this does NOT touch upon the ability to end the relationship only the roles they assume.)

Careful, because you're mixing up your terms badly. There is a very big difference between "the dominant" and "the role of the dominant".

The person who assumes the role of the dominant is equal to the person who assumes the role of the submissive. At least, in a healthy relationship, they're supposed to be.

The dominant and the submissive are equals in the relationship. Their roles may be different, but that doesn't make them any less equal.

You are not asking questions that would gain you information. You are asking questions as set-ups so you can then follow up with "and that's why their relationship is bad" type remarks. GnI already told you what these kinds of relationships are like, several times over, but apparently you don't like what he had to say and want to keep picking on these goths as being abnormal and bad and maybe even icky. So I say you are not focusing on the D-S aspect to learn about it. You are focusing on it to attack it.again you're making assumptions of me.

How do you know That the D-S lifestyle is actually repulsive to me or it might actually be a fetish of mine. or I might be curious about the lifestyle.

you take one comment and suddenly you know everything about me? careful about those assumptions Muravyets.

Frankly speaking, if after the explanations you're given already you're still spouting the same nonsense you are when you came into this thread, you're obviously a bit beyond hope.

It's obvious you've done absolutly nothing to consider other possibilties other than your preconceived perceptions, which are coming across rather bigoted. It means nothing that you ask questions, if you consistantly reject answers that disagree with your preconceived notions.
thank you for reading neo.

since my 'nonsense' now is different than the 'nonsence' I posted when I came onto this thread, it kinda proves you wrong there.

man I love it when people psychoanalyse me and just misses the mark so badly. :p

man I love it when people psychoanalyse me and just misses the mark so badly. :p

We only have your behavior upon which to judge. If you feel yourself unfairly misrepresented, perhaps you should do a better job representing yourself.

Careful, because you're mixing up your terms badly. There is a very big difference between "the dominant" and "the role of the dominant".

The person who assumes the role of the dominant is equal to the person who assumes the role of the submissive. At least, in a healthy relationship, they're supposed to be.

The dominant and the submissive are equals in the relationship. Their roles may be different, but that doesn't make them any less equal.

so what's the difference between "the Dominant" and "the Role of Dominant". wouldn't "the Dominant" one take "the Role of Dominant" in such a relationship?

granted I can see relationships where both are comfortable in either role.

"He slammed me backwards."

What is the British word for asault and battery?

so what's the difference between "the Dominant" and "the Role of Dominant". wouldn't "the Dominant" one take "the Role of Dominant" in such a relationship?

One is a person, the other is the position. "the dominant" is the person in the relationship who assumes the role of the dominant. You first asked if "the dominant and the submissive were equal" then you asked:

in a D/S relationship are the Role of Dominate equal to the role of subservant?

Of course the ROLE of the dominate is not equal to the ROLE of the subservant, in the same way that the role of a doctor is not equal to the role of an accountant. They're different things.

However the person who is the dominant is, in any healthy relationship, equal to the person who is the submissive. The roles are not "equal" in the sense that they're different things. But the people are equal.

We only have your behavior upon which to judge. If you feel yourself unfairly misrepresented, perhaps you should do a better job representing yourself.

actually, I find it more humorous than anything else.

for one thing, for some of debates and what not, I tend to let the other define the terms and argue with that. which gets funny when they end up arguing against the terms they themselves defined.

but most times, I see how others define my posts for that shows what they are thinking and how. which is funny when some people think I'm being bigotted when in fact they are defining the post in their own minds. (yes, there's a reason why I am intentionally vague on some points.)

but for this subject of D-S? Honestly, I have nothing against any of the fetishes (except beastility, rape and child molesters... tho there might be others I'm not aware of) as long as all involved are doing so of their own free will. but there is very little I know about the D-S world outside of rumors and Hollywood. so yes, I've had alot of those chipped away by Muryvetts, Grave_n_Idle and you. however, that won't stop me from also seeing how you and others THINK.

One is a person, the other is the position. "the dominant" is the person in the relationship who assumes the role of the dominant. You first asked if "the dominant and the submissive were equal" then you asked:



Of course the ROLE of the dominate is not equal to the ROLE of the subservant, in the same way that the role of a doctor is not equal to the role of an accountant. They're different things.

However the person who is the dominant is, in any healthy relationship, equal to the person who is the submissive. The roles are not "equal" in the sense that they're different things. But the people are equal.

ah, thanks.

I think it would depend on whether it was a government opperated bus, or a private company. A government run bus should have to let them on, but a privately run company has the right to refuse service to anyone. As the case in point I believe is for a government bus, they really can't refuse service, unless the strictly violate a posted dress code that is.

carefull with assumptions, for it's easy to make them yourself.
<snip>
I'm not going to respond point for point because all of those points were already covered, and none of your examples pulled from the articles contain enough information to justify the things you have been saying -- including the things you tried to deny saying, just because I did not use your exact wording. If I were to get deeper into each and every detail with you on this, it would quickly devolve into the kind of endless loop of "yes you did/no I didn't" that I have had way too much of lately.

Here is the bottom line:

You say you're just trying to understand these folks.

I read post after post in which you impose meanings on their lifestyle, describe them increasingly negatively, and reject all explanations of what they are doing, even after you specifically asked for those explanations.

I then also compare what you say about their lives, to what they say about their lives.

When I put these things together, I conclude that actions speak louder than words. It is my conclusion, based solely on what I have read in this thread, that you are expressing prejudicial opinions about these people's lifestyle, that you are not actually seeking information about it (or you would accept the information that has been given to you), and that you seem rather intent on putting them down, over and over.

Furthermore, I choose to decide that they probably know more about their lives than you do. So I will take everything they said at its face value (acknowledging large gaps in my understanding because they really didn't say all that much), and I will ignore your cherry-picked quotes that you claim support your assertions about their lives. Ms. Maltby says she is fine and happy with her lifestyle. In the face of that, nothing you say about her means anything, nor is it anything but your own opinion based on your own likes and dislikes as well as your own imaginings.

You have repeated your negative views of them many times, yet this is my opinion of them and of your argument. I do not think you have much chance of convincing me that you are not just blowing smoke to express your own prejudices, so you may as well stop trying to argue it with me. This post contains all the answer you are going to get, unless your argument goes through some profound changes.

[snipped] then have fun with your assumptions. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Jastreb
So, who do you suppose a passenger should have pay for their medical bills or lost pay if the bus did have to make a hard break suddenly and got their neck or some other body part caught up in her chain resulting in an injury? Would this couple, who one of the articles cited as living on government benefits, or the bus company be financially responsible? Unleash the bitch (pun intended) while on the bus, problem solved.

Originally Posted by The Alma Mater
As has been pointed out before, there is a difference between a driver saying "excuse me miss, but that collar is unsafe in this bus" (which arriva implies the driver said, or at least should have said) and "No dogs allowed, freak" (as the couple implies the driver said according to the daily mail).

And of course, in a seatbelt free buss the extra risk posed by a choker is neglible.


I did not see a reply to the original question I posed to which you were replying. Regardless of what the couple says the bus driver said, the question I posed was, who is supposed to be responsible for any injuries incurred as a result of the bus driver allowing a passenger who may be standing in an aisle with a 6 foot long chain attached to her neck?
The choker is not the issue, it the chain attached to the choker which seems to be a danger to others. If the chain were removed there wouldn't be an issue. If they are unwilling to remove the chain then I suppose they should just walk or perhaps if the couple seriously believes she is a pet and want to travel on the bus as such, they should find a pet carrier to confine her in during her bus ride. Thus avoid risking the safety of passengers. Perhaps, then they would truly feels as idiotic as this really is. People do have a right to express themselves, however I think this is just a tad bit over the top. Particulary when there is a real possibility that their "freedom" could result in someone totally unrelated to the situation being injured. Buses do often have to make quick brakes, people are often jolted and fall forward while riding on buses. It is certainly plausible that an injury could result in have one passenger attach to another with a six foot long chain riding on a bus. Therefore I do feel the bus driver has the 'right' (so to speak) to disallow their entry on the bus as long as the chain is attached. What was actually said by the bus driver is yet to be determined.
As for me, I suppose I have a bit of trouble taking at face value for absolute truth what this couple states thst the driver said to them. They seem to be a physically healthy couple, reportedly living in public housing and living off of government funds. I wonder what sob story they had to report to the government to qualify for those benefits. For me this is just discrediting from the get go. The paper also stated the young lady is in college, I'm not aware of any pets attending college... hmmmm

again you're making assumptions of me.

How do you know That the D-S lifestyle is actually repulsive to me or it might actually be a fetish of mine. or I might be curious about the lifestyle.

you take one comment and suddenly you know everything about me? careful about those assumptions Muravyets.
I've been reading several pages of your comments, but considering how repetitious you've been, maybe it really is all just one, wrong comment.

then have fun with your assumptions. :rolleyes:
Did you post this in response to any particular post of mine? Or just in general?

It couldn't possibly have been in response to the post in which I laid out the specific features of your argument that caused me to reach certain conclusions, and explained how those details were connected to those conclusions, because whether those conclusions are right or wrong, since they are based on information that is actually present in the thread, they are not assumptions.

And that eye-rolling trick is good too. It really hammers home the dismissal. :)

Did you post this in response to any particular post of mine? Or just in general? just the irony of you warning me about making assumptions while you make your own.

It couldn't possibly have been in response to the post in which I laid out the specific features of your argument that caused me to reach certain conclusions, and explained how those details were connected to those conclusions, because whether those conclusions are right or wrong, since they are based on information that is actually present in the thread, they are not assumptions. except you didn't. you accuse me of cherry picking quotes from both articles, yet those are insites into their home life.

an act that you said is me being assuming yet like you, it's baised off of what they told those reporters.

Neo Art and Grave_n_idle described and explained a lifestyle where the role play is NOT to the same extreme as those two take it. even autobiographical books I read about D-S and S-M all describe it as a hobby, one where they break out of the role to go back home and live their lives until the next session, but the two in the article, Graves and Miss Malby (sp) seem like they are not treating it like a hobby but a lifestyle in which the roles is not just a coat to be taken off but is actually becoming their skin (tho one can only guess if it will continue on in that fashion after their married.) Imagine a trekker actually wearing the uniform and the makeup and role playing a vulcan or klingon 24/7. That's what it seems they're doing and what I was wondering is by actually living those unequal roles how can it be said that they are equal?

And that eye-rolling trick is good too. It really hammers home the dismissal. :)it wasn't meant to hammer home any dismissal. Sorry if you took it that way.

Here's a questiopn Grave...
How long (average) are the roles assumed? several hours a day, or several days a week, or longer?

When I lived in a D/s relationship, it was 24/7 - and guess what? We were still equals. The fact that I chose to submit to my master in no way rendered me inferior to him, and anyone outside our relationship who tried to treat me as if I were inferior (and there were several such, who figured "her boyfriend's submissive" somehow meant "everyone's submissive") quickly got the verbal equivalent of a knee to the testicles from me.

That's what it seems they're doing and what I was wondering is by actually living those unequal roles how can it be said that they are equal?

Legally, Tasha Maltby and Dani Graves are equal, since they're humans. With regards to the relationship, perhaps the equality comes from the fact Maltby agreed to be Graves' pet and thus wasn't "forced into" the role. She probably also set the conditions in which she'd accept such a role, and thus it's different from pure subservience in that she can determine her role within the relationship, even though outwardly she appears to be the submissive one. I truly believe Graves is actually the submissive one, since Maltby is getting pampered and Graves does all the work, but at the very least both seem to have agreed what their roles and (most likely) the conditions behind those roles.

Neo Art and Grave_n_idle described and explained a lifestyle where the role play is NOT to the same extreme as those two take it.

No, we didn't. That's part of what you don't understand. I was not talking about any level of "extreme". My whole point was, even with couples who are far MORE extreme than these two, the relationship is still equal.

Even in full term, 24/7 d/s relationships, this is still not "unequal" as you try to make it out to be.

That's what it seems they're doing and what I was wondering is by actually living those unequal roles how can it be said that they are equal?

Because, simply, it seems you are incapable of seperating the roles from the people? You also seem to be operating under some odd dilusion that in non d/s relationships that couples are any more or less equal.

That's the main crux of your problem, you're operating on a flawed perspective of how relationships work. Not just d/s relationships, all relationships.

For example, let's talk about my relationship for a moment. My girlfriend is a brilliant, intelligent, beautiful, sophisticated woman, but god love her, she can't cook. I mean she really can't cook. This woman has screwed up toast, in my $80 toaster.

I, on the other hand, am a fairly good cook. Not professional, but I do already. As such, we have reached an understanding in our relationship. I do for the most part, all of the cooking. She has maybe made us 5 meals in a year and a half. It can be said I do all the cooking between the two of us.

also, when we go shopping, my 6 foot 180 pound frame is far more able to carry grocerries up the hill to my apartment than her 5'4 slip of a frame.

So I make all the food, and carry the majority of the groceries.

Is our relationship unequal?

There are lots of D/s couples that live that dynamic full time. I read several blogs of such people. Yes, they are equals in the relationship. Either one can look around and say 'I don't want to do this anymore.' Does the relationship change then? Of course. Not necessarily for the bad. And it's not like the same thing doesn't happen to vanilla couples too. If two people decide going into a marriage they don't want kids; for example, then one changes their mind, that relationship is going to change.

Since both can opt out at any time, both are equal partners in the relationship.

just the irony of you warning me about making assumptions while you make your own.

except you didn't. you accuse me of cherry picking quotes from both articles, yet those are insites into their home life.

an act that you said is me being assuming yet like you, it's baised off of what they told those reporters.
Except for the parts you left out, in which they say things indicative of freely choosing that way of living and of being happy with it and proud of it. See, when you only pick out the bits you think you can use, that's called cherry-picking.

Neo Art and Grave_n_idle described and explained a lifestyle where the role play is NOT to the same extreme as those two take it. even autobiographical books I read about D-S and S-M all describe it as a hobby, one where they break out of the role to go back home and live their lives until the next session, but the two in the article, Graves and Miss Malby (sp) seem like they are not treating it like a hobby but a lifestyle in which the roles is not just a coat to be taken off but is actually becoming their skin (tho one can only guess if it will continue on in that fashion after their married.) Imagine a trekker actually wearing the uniform and the makeup and role playing a vulcan or klingon 24/7. That's what it seems they're doing and what I was wondering is by actually living those unequal roles how can it be said that they are equal?
The two bolded phrases indicate that you are making an assumption. As I said, you actually know little to nothing about what these people actually do at home or anywhere else, so you cannot know what "extreme" they take it to or not. Likewise, seeming does not automatically equal actuality. What they seem like, based on the extremely superficial glimpse you have had at them, is just too flimsy to be used as a foundation for an argument declaring Ms. Maltby to have given up her rights in favor of inequality.

And even so, your argument is dependent on a non sequitor (if that's the phrase I want). Even if it turns out to be true that they keep up their little act 24/7, how does it necessarily follow that that is a bad or undesireable thing? Couples of all kinds live their little role-plays together 24/7, for years and years. Hell, my own grandparents had 90% of all the people who knew them convinced they were the happiest and most stable of all couples, with a rich and affectionate lifestyle, for almost 60 years. Talk about keeping up a facade!

If a couple maintain a lifestyle 24/7, that in and of itself does not imply that the lifestyle is unhealthy or a burden to them. It only means they like doing it.

it wasn't meant to hammer home any dismissal. Sorry if you took it that way.
Mm-hm.

When I lived in a D/s relationship, it was 24/7

Hah, interesting you still say "D/s" Old habits die hard huh? ;)

Hah, interesting you still say "D/s" Old habits die hard huh? ;)

Heck, I still forget and sign my name all in lowercase sometimes. :p

Legally, Tasha Maltby and Dani Graves are equal, since they're humans. With regards to the relationship, perhaps the equality comes from the fact Maltby agreed to be Graves' pet and thus wasn't "forced into" the role. She probably also set the conditions in which she'd accept such a role, and thus it's different from pure subservience in that she can determine her role within the relationship, even though outwardly she appears to be the submissive one. I truly believe Graves is actually the submissive one, since Maltby is getting pampered and Graves does all the work, but at the very least both seem to have agreed what their roles and (most likely) the conditions behind those roles.
That's how I see it, too.

One might be able to make a different argument if Ms. Maltby was the submissive one AND did all the work of the household as well, but then there probably would not be as much controversy over that, since that seems to be what many people have considered "normal" for many generations. Frankly, not only do I think Ms. Maltby might be a submissive in name only, I also think there is a very amusing and elegantly executed social satire in their lifestyle that I, for one, appreciate a lot.

Heck, I still forget and sign my name all in lowercase sometimes. :p

hehe. You know, it's never something I could get into. Hell, I have an ego the size of texas but even I can't bring myself to say "My" and "Mine"

hehe. You know, it's never something I could get into. Hell, I have an ego the size of texas but even I can't bring myself to say "My" and "Mine"

Heh. My master had an ego the size of several Texases, and quite the messiah complex to boot, and even he couldn't remember to capitalize stuff like that most of the time. Lowercase came pretty naturally to me, though - I actually started doing it before I even knew that anyone else used that to denote submission.

Heh. My master had an ego the size of several Texases, and quite the messiah complex to boot, and even he couldn't remember to capitalize stuff like that most of the time. Lowercase came pretty naturally to me, though - I actually started doing it before I even knew that anyone else used that to denote submission.
I always sign my name in all lower case, but for some reason, no one has ever seemed to have taken that as a sign of submission from me. ;)

I started doing it to emulate e.e. cummings, back when I was a snotty teenager, and then my hand got lazy (as lazy as the rest of me) and it was just too much trouble to go back to writing the capitals. Besides I don't like the way the capitals look.

Heh. My master had an ego the size of several Texases, and quite the messiah complex to boot, and even he couldn't remember to capitalize stuff like that most of the time. Lowercase came pretty naturally to me, though - I actually started doing it before I even knew that anyone else used that to denote submission.

Yeah, a messiah complex is the danger of that sort of thing...fortunatly my sub had a tendancy to laugh at me when I did something stupid, which I invariably did. Helps keep one humble.

By the way Poli, check your telegrams.

It is, within reason, a driver's choice who to let on. I wouldn't have told them they couldn't, but the leash would be a safety issue... so I suppose therein lies the stipulation...

On an unrelated note, that girl is pretty cute... looks like an old ex-girlfriend of mine.

except in a normal marriage


Now there's an interesting turn of phrase...


...or partnership The responsibilities are shared. they can be divided, but they are still shared.


And? People get to share the responsibilities as they choose, yes?

Since I arrived in Georgia, I've encountered a number of 'Good Christian Wives' who do EVERYTHING in the house, while 'hubby' wins the bread.

I don't see how that is any different to this.


reading their abridged discription, what is she contributing to the responsiblity of maintaining the house/home/partnership other than letting him do all the work?


Well, I can't pretend to know what's in his head... but maybe he likes serving her? I knew a guy who had one sickly girlfriend after another, somehow he always endede up with the depressives, the people with illnesses, etc. I didn't get it at first, until I spotted the pattern - it wasn't something about sick people that attracted him - it was being absolutely needed.


btw, being unequal doesn't mean she's 'lower' than him. it could very well be he's 'lower' than her. so yes, I do realize he can also end the relationship.

No - neither is 'lower', implicitly. Just different.

and in this case, it doesn't sound like they switch off or even remove themselves from the roles.


So? I was merely pointing out that my persepctive isn't from just one side. A lot of doms only ever dominate, and a lot of subbies are only ever submissive.


...and the inequality exists in these roles. that's what I was talking about. While one is in the role of dominance, the other the role of servant, there cannot be equality within the role.


No - it's not an inequality. The roles ARE equal, and interdependent. This isn't some enforced servitude - this is a cooperative situation. The dominant isn't 'more' anything, except dominant.


...equal while in the roles? or the fact that both partners agree when one calls it off, the other agrees? which isn't equality, but an agreement to terminate the role-playing.


The end of the relationship isn't the only equality. Dom/Subs relationships are contracts. Each person gets from the relationship what they want.


...I agree if those participating do switch around. the Dominant taking the subservant role from time to time. but if the roles are not swapped, how can both say equal since the roles requires inequality?

The roles don't require inequality - that's your red herring. The roles are equal, they are just different.

and one common point.
she gave up her right (for lack of a better word) to choose for HERSELF.

Now this is assuming that their relationship is not "between the hours of 6 pm to 6 am" but until either one calls it off for good.


Dom/sub relationships vary according to the specific dom and sub, but the standard format is that the terms are firm, but fluid. It is always best to agree in advance what your boundaries and needs are, so you don't accidentally overstep one another... but that is subject to change.

If the couple decides, for example, that they like spanking... but then the subbie decides she doesn't like spanking, then a healthy d/s relationship will evolve a 'no spanking' clause.

The best way to term d/s relationships, is as 'negotiations'.

By the way - have you ever been sick, and had someone care for you? Maybe cook for you, maybe even feed you? Tuck you in to bed, mop your fevered brow?

You chose to surrender those roles - albeit, with mitigation - I wonder if you feel like you were unequal?


Somehow it doesn't sound like she's 'not acting like an animal' at any time around him. (this is assuming she has a job somewhere.)

I still don't see how this is relevent. That's how their relationship works, and they are both happy with it. Neither is being taken for a ride. And - submitting to a dom doesn't make you less than human. Pet =/= animal.

Here's a questiopn Grave...
How long (average) are the roles assumed? several hours a day, or several days a week, or longer?

It varies from person to person.

I've been in d/s relationships where I was 'dom' for the entire course of the relationship.... or dom for most of the relationship, but submissive during sex (sometimes)... or in more 'switch' situations.

Some people only really turn on their dom/sub situations in clubs, with friends... maybe online... in the bedroom. Others are totally dom/sub all the time. Others are always in the role, even if they aren't always active... if you know what I mean.

The bolded phrase is what invalidates your argument by revealing it to be entirely subjective. There are few ideas more subjective than the concept of "normal" in close interpersonal relationships. The mere fact that you categorize other kinds of relationships as "normal" implies that theirs is abnormal, and this allows you speak negatively about it. Yet their kind of relationship is a norm for millions of people in the world -- not just fetishists, but people living in many different kinds of cultures and societies.

To my knowledge, most 'normal' relationships could easily be tracked for dom/sub characteristics, anyway.

Just - not everyone discusses them, or formalises them.. or likes leashes.

I'm trying to focus on the D-S aspect and it's differences with other relationships so YES it is subjective. I'm trying to learn about the D-S culture since I am not apart of it.


D/s relationships are not 'different' to 'other relationships'... except that they make explicit what is implicit. Almost every relationship has some domination and some submission in it.

Maybe the BIG difference is - with a full on d/s relationship - you KNOW going in, what you are going to get.

except I specifically asked Grave. and YOU answered. funny isn't it. are you so interested in showing off your knowledge that you will answer anything even if it's not directed at you?


I'm far from the only person on NS that has been involved in d/s relationships. It seems a bit unreasonable to jump all over someone else for trying to help explain what it is you say you don't understand.

D/s relationships are bigger than just my experience - I'm glad someone else offered some additional support.

so what's the difference between "the Dominant" and "the Role of Dominant". wouldn't "the Dominant" one take "the Role of Dominant" in such a relationship?


No.

In fact, it's almost textbook... there's quite a lot of people that live VERY 'dominant' lives in their everyday world (work, etc) who just can't wait to get home and be dominated by their partner.

Neo Art and Grave_n_idle described and explained a lifestyle where the role play is NOT to the same extreme as those two take it. even autobiographical books I read about D-S and S-M all describe it as a hobby, one where they break out of the role to go back home and live their lives until the next session, but the two in the article, Graves and Miss Malby (sp) seem like they are not treating it like a hobby but a lifestyle in which the roles is not just a coat to be taken off but is actually becoming their skin (tho one can only guess if it will continue on in that fashion after their married.) Imagine a trekker actually wearing the uniform and the makeup and role playing a vulcan or klingon 24/7. That's what it seems they're doing and what I was wondering is by actually living those unequal roles how can it be said that they are equal?


I think most of what you've read about domination and submission must have been written from the point of view of professional dominants, who did this for a living. The rules, of course, change if you approach it as a business.

You seem to be (and I could be wrong) hooked up on the purely sexual context - and that's not the sum and substance of D/s relationships. Yes - some people are subbies only at clubs. Yes some people are doms only on the weekends. Yes, some people are one or the other only in bed.

But there's a whole spectrum.

Now I find out that, when I've been in a permanent 'dom' role in a relationship, in your estimation I'm no different from a trekkie who wears his Klingon uniform to bed...

That's how I see it, too.

One might be able to make a different argument if Ms. Maltby was the submissive one AND did all the work of the household as well, but then there probably would not be as much controversy over that, since that seems to be what many people have considered "normal" for many generations. Frankly, not only do I think Ms. Maltby might be a submissive in name only, I also think there is a very amusing and elegantly executed social satire in their lifestyle that I, for one, appreciate a lot.

That is very true. It's not necessarily a relationship *I'd* like to enter (since it's clear Maltby doesn't do *anything*, because not only does she not do housework, she most likely won't actually get a job; and I'd rather have, for the lack of better words, "proper" equality), but it is a very interesting social satire that should be appreciated. From afar anyway. :D