I wonder what "Dating My John" should say when people ask "so... how did you two meet?"
Not the truth, I assume.

@2: "I wonder what "Dating My John" should say when people ask "so... how did you two meet?""

Answer: "At work." And if further details are demanded, "None of your goddamn business." would do as well.

It's amazing how some incredible LTR's can blossom and develop!
Congrats, Dating My John, and all the best to you and yours.

Dan, I'll be looking for American Savage---is it available in Village Books in Fairhaven? By the way, I LOVED reading your interview with Nicole Brodeur in Sunday's Seattle Times.
All the best.

@3: Works for me!

DMJ

I won't go into too much of my personal experience but I'll say that I have every reason to wholeheartedly agree with Dan.

Get it girl.

@ 2

"Through a friend. Some weather we've been having, right?"

@2 online.

It's probably true, but not quite in the way someone would assume. I guess you'd have to pick a dating site just in case someone asks.

@3:

Like most things in life, it depends. For most situations, "at work" will do. For those few, known GGG situations, it should be OK to say "during crazy hot sex".

If the end result is as good as it sounds, where you start doesn't mean as much.

Peace.

I disagree with SLAVE entirely. If other people noticed that they were doing D/s in public, then they were not subtle enough. Performing sex acts, even symbolic sex acts, in public so that people will notice is involving other people in them, usually against their preference. I wouldn't want to see a boyfriend grab his girlfriend's breasts or thighs in public either.

But I suspect that's what SLAVE and his dominant partner like about it. Why else draw attention to it in the gym? Why else draw attention to their status with the conspicuous use of capital and lowercase letters?

So no, you're not subtle enough, guys! Save the shoe-tying for when you're alone.

I automatically advise divorce for anyone who feels compelled to describe a Significant Other(s) as amazing in the opening sentence. I see nothing amazing about any of the partners presented for our edification (barring significant editing), and, after spending yesterday evening being triggered, I'm not in any mood to make an exception to a perfectly working policy now.

Otherwise, I might have approved of the first LW, who seems to have had an admirable handle on his situation (practising for July and August).

The second LW just gets a big FTWLTSOTTITSOTTL.

The third is a retread, and I didn't like her the first time around.

@9: I was really addressing the potentially judgmental, assuming they were aware (and disdainful) of DMJ's occupation. It should be OK to say exactly how they met, but you know how some people are when things get non-traditional.

@11: FTWLTSOTTITSOTTL?

@ 11, agreed about the third LW. I'm sure Dan had way more AMAZING letters he could've chosen, as many people's problems seem to start with, my S.O. is AMAZING! ...but...

;)

& The second LW, not subtle enough, as has already been pointed out.

LW1: If you aren't doing sex work any more, he isn't your John. I could see the possibility of various complications if you were still doing sex work (is sex with him a freebie? wanting you to get out due to jealousy issues/savior issues/etc?) but if you have both moved on from that phase of your respective lives, sex work has ceased to be a complicating factor, so why look back?

And hey, people hook up with people they met at work all the time, and most of the time, the HR department discourages it. Sex work is one of the very few careers where sex with the clients is perfectly okay.

I'm sorry, SLAVE, not playing bondage scenes out in public is not the same as being subtle. I'm cool with your relationship, but if people are noticing, then it's not as subtle as you think they are. This guy isn't observing you closely, he's casually spotting it. And he's probably not the only one.

Just because you're not doing the B and the M doesn't mean they're not seeing the D and the S.

@12 for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like

@16: I'm not sure what you mean.

@17:
@16 answers your question from @12, regarding the abbreviation @11: FTWLTSOTTITSOTTL

I decided a little later on to go with FTWL..., hoping that it will be familiar enough.

Ms Hopkins, I am actually going to recuse myself on LW1. I've nothing in particular against any individual sex worker, but sex work as a profession being so tilted to female practitioners (even in "ideal" situations in which there is no male oppressor pulling their strings) strikes me as contributing to Beauty Culture in which a President of the United States can say it's obvious that a certain [is this the right statewide office?] Attorney General was clearly the best-looking of the fifty in the country (because she was the only woman; I forget how subtly this was hinted, or perhaps crudely underlined). It is almost exactly similar to Name Changing After Marriage - one would not tell an individual woman who chose so that she was Doing Feminism Wrong, but the general trend of So Many Women and Almost No Men changing surnames is clearly Not A Good Thing.

Thankfully, due to my not being a feminist, a position on sex work is not required of me, and I can be supportive enough of sex workers to cover.

@Ven

Sorry.

I'm with 10 et al: If I can tell you're playing out a D-S scene, then you're not subtle enough. Same goes for cuckoldry or anything else: the rest of us are not to be drawn into your scenario because it's hotter for you if the humiliation aspect gets turned up by involving an audience. We didn't volunteer. Keep it subtle enough that people don't notice, or dial it back.

Also, since when is not hitting people in public an example of careful consideration for avoiding triggering the abused, rather than a basic standard of human behavior? News flash: if you knew for a fact that no one in the room had been in an abusive relationship, it would not be okay for him to start hitting you.

Finally, I am fed up with the "I'm enclosing a picture so you can see he is hot!!!" excuse. You don't justify crappy behavior with hotness, and you don't justify it with "but partner is unhot so it's okay" either.

The third letter is the only one Dan answered. I hope Siouxsie picked up a nice consulting check this week.

You know, not everything in a D/s relationship is sexual, a lot of it is purely emotional. To a 24/7 D/s couple who love and respect each other like any normal couple does, the sub tying the doms shoelaces is probably to them more akin to holding hands than humping...

Dear DMJ:
Don't tell how you met to people if you think their reactions will interfere with your happiness. Many people lie (or, if you prefer, "gild") their How We Met stories, so why on earth should your former profession deny you that useful tool to which others are entitled?
You're happy. He's happy. Things are working wonderfully. In a world where such things are rare I suggest you revel in every second of it.

@10, @15, @21:
I don't think kinksters should be any more restricted than the vanilla set when it comes to public displays of affection. Tying a shoe is no more provocative than a peck on the cheek. Get over yourselves.

Your argument is just a variation of the old homophobic classic: "I don't care what they do in their bedrooms, but walking hand in hand in broad daylight? I shouldn't have to see that!"

@6:
:-0 ---> ;-)

@11 - Sounds like you could use a hug.

DMJ,

"How did you two meet?"

"He paid me to have sex with him."

Sex work is a noble and ancient career. If you don't believe it should be accepted in our society, then why should anyone else?

@10 I agree with @26 get over yourself.

I'm sorry but tying his shoes in public is not some hot humiliation scene being played out or some crazy non too subtle sex act. Its also not harming you in any way to see it played out.

Just as it does not harm you when I fix his coffee or he orders for me in a public restaurant.

I am not pushing my kink at you and if you are watching that closely to see the subtle interactions we have I have to wonder what are you doing or not doing with your time?

Hm, I don't know, I've known vanilla couples where the guy tied the girl's shoes - would that be okay with you guys? I agree with @26, I can't see a lot of sexual innuendo in this.

@26 changed my mind, and now I agree with this view. Anybody who does anything affectionate in public is "involving" others in their relationship. It is pretty intolerant to say vanilla PDA is okay, but kinky PDA is not. If we vanilla kids are ignorant of what is roughly equivalent to hand-holding or hugs in a kinky relationship, that's our problem, not theirs.

Agree with @26. A little light d/s action is way less irritating and invasive that some dude leering at strangers' tits. Which they do all the time. And which we're apparently supposed to tolerate bemusedly because they're "wired that way".

You said we were doing some "not-nearly-subtle-enough, semipublic Dom/sub" scene, but that's not accurate.

It's completely accurate. you're living it 24/7 with your hot Dom. Good for you. The letter writer noticed and was freaked out enough to write to Savage Love to see if he was decoding it correctly. you've confirmed he was. The two of you have involved him in your scene without his consent. Technical foul at the very least.

@26 I think you're cutting too much slack. This isn't the equivalent of a peck on the cheek. It's more the equivalent of a tongue kiss (the hovering and cleaning up the equipment more than the shoe tying). That's not really appropriate in most circumstances or places.

@37 I'm sure if a straight guy was doing this with his vanilla girlfriend, you wouldn't bat an eye.

I am dating my escort, she is the most amazing girl to me. I don't like the term "John" or "Escort" maybe client and provider are better. No matter what you call them if there is chemistry between 2 people who cares how they met. People will always be judgmental no matter what. I like girls outside of my race and background and not that long ago that was frowned upon. Maybe someday if we become enlightened there would be no negativity for this type of a relationship.

I agree as long as he isn't trying to change you or you change him, go for it. Doesn't mean it will work out or last forever, you can be married 10, 20, 30 or more years and relationships fail. But if you love him and he loves you, go for it, don't stop.

@10: playing footsie under tables; customers paying for condoms, lube, strawberries and cream at check out; that subtly flashing outfit for an evening function; that saucy giggle in an overheard phone conversation; shopping as foreplay ... SEX is ALL around you, now feel free to freak out.

@26 The guy didn't just tie the other guy's shoe in public. The guy tied the other guy's shoe in public in such a way that an observer said "Hey, I think that's D/s," and the observer turned out to be right.

We need to check our false equivalence again. A non-D/s person doing something like tying a shoe for a partner isn't usually behaving in a sexualized way or giving off a leering or sexualized vibe. It sounds like these guys were.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are D/s couples out there who can perform D/s acts in public subtly, but this isn't one of them.

@38 Depends. If the vanilla girlfriend wasn't lifting or otherwise exercising but just wiping down his equipment and then he pointed to his untied shoe and she tied it, I'd certainly think it was odd. And if it were reversed, I'd assume he was paying for the privilege.

The context of the original letter was that they were regulars and that this was ongoing and disturbing the writer and other members of the gym. If that context is correct, and SLAVE seems to confirm it is, they're over the line (and I would say the same thing about a boy/girl couple--I've complained to my gym when we had a spate of people in street clothes hanging out not working out with other people, and action was taken).

SLAVE and his bf don't get to tell other people how to react to their interactions. And neither they nor you get to decide what other people are comfortable with.

@38: No, if a guy was mopping down the gym equipment and tying a woman's shoes for her (and she wasn't clearly incapable of doing it, or there was a reason like helping each other with skates) and generally waiting on her slavishly while she did X, I'd bat an eye. Or roll them. And not call her vanilla. Even if they considerately held back from the dom smacking the sub around in public.

I'm with 37: just as there are shades of acceptable vanilla straight behavior (if it's the gym, cafe, etc you can hold hands and briefly kiss, but no grinding) that applies quite reasonably to same sex couples, multiples, etc, the standard should be that bystanders pick up "A and B are a couple" but not "A and B like to have sex naked, so they are getting naked in public to demonstrate this. It's natural! People shouldn't be hung up about it!"

Basically comes down to whether you consider DS a kink (something people do) or something they are. And frankly I consider it a kink. You can dial it down out of the house. You don't need to announce, at work or restaurants or the gym, "I like to make my partner crawl around in a slave collar! And smack him/her around!!!" whether explicitly or implicitly. It is not analogous to having the other half of your social unit recognized as your same sex partner.

@26: I'll see your "it's just like when people didn't want gays to hold hands" and raise you a "it's just like when people complain that if gays marry then people will marry inanimate objects too!" Holding hands is not actually the same thing as tying shoes. They're physically different. They're emotionally different.

@26:

I agree completely. For those two people, expression of affection has a dom/sub component.

There are types of behaviour/touching that are entirely inappropriate in a public setting, but a peck on the cheek, holding hands, or tying a shoelace is hardly crossing any lines.

The only point I disagree with is her assertion of subtlety. It wasn't subtle, but then why should it be?

I agree with @43 that basically, watching two strangers engage in this "subtle" D/S stuff is quite different from watching people (straight, gay, poly, whatever) hold hands or peck each other on the lips. When I see people do these things, all I know about them is that they are likely romantically involved. Maybe this is as far as their relationship has progressed sexually. Maybe they go home, strip off their clothes, and have wild kinky sex involving flogging and diapers. I don't know, I don't care.

When I see someone point to their shoe and their partner tie it, slavishly, I know they're into D/S stuff, and since they're bringing this in public, and presumably part of the thrill of this exchange is the humiliation for the sub, I feel involved in their sex life, and way more informed about it than I want to be. A same sex couple holding hands is just announcing that they're a unit. This D/S scenario is announcing way more.

(Also, for the record, seeing any gender configuration do this would raise an eyebrow for me.)

I rarely post because I prefer to read the responses. I did develop a relationship with a sex worker at one time. I was married and looking for something extra. This had nothing to do with my wife I just wanted something new. (I think this really scares women) We met and after sex we found that we really connected on more than just a physical level. She was smart, funny and could have done any number of jobs but, she preferred sex work. We ended up friends and did things friends do ie getting dinner, talking on the phone, etc. I would always pay her for sex though because that is how she made a living. If I were single, I would always wonder if she were sleeping with someone else. (she is a sex worker so why wouldn't she) The relationship was complex and lasted for years until she moved away.

I met my current husband of 2 years when I was an independent sex worker. When people, other than close friends, ask how we met I tell them through a friend. This is true as our first meeting was a duo with another sex worker.

I rarely post because I prefer to read the responses. I did develop a relationship with a sex worker at one time. I was married and looking for something extra. This had nothing to do with my wife I just wanted something new. (I think this really scares women) We met and after sex we found that we really connected on more than just a physical level. She was smart, funny and could have done any number of jobs but, she preferred sex work. We ended up friends and did things friends do ie getting dinner, talking on the phone, etc. I would always pay her for sex though because that is how she made a living. If I were single, I would always wonder if she were sleeping with someone else. (she is a sex worker so why wouldn't she) The relationship was complex and lasted for years until she moved away.

@46 Why are you assuming it's about humiliation? There are a lot of D/s people out there who aren't into humiliation at all. For them something like tying a shoelace is a small, affectionate gesture that reinforces their relationship. Like hand-holding is for most people. Just like being gay isn't all about "teh butt-seks" being D/s isn't all about humiliation and sex either.

@38: Quick thought experiment, then. Say the first reaction that comes into your mind, as I describe various scenarios;

1) Woman and man. Man points to shoe, woman ties it.

2) Woman and man. Woman points to shoe, man ties it.

3) Woman and woman. Woman #1 points to shoe, woman #2 ties it.

4) Man and man. Man #1 points to shoe, Man #2 ties it.

@16, 18, 19:

Thanks. It seems like sometimes the acronym is more of a hassle than the phrase.

46: "I feel involved in their sex life, and way more informed about it than I want to be."

This. It doesn't matter whether they're informing the audience that they're strictly into straight vanilla him-on-top sex, have occasional three ways with the third in full-body clown makeup, or have sex only in ways demonstrated by penguins. (To cite that guy from a few weeks back.) Maintaining some sphere of privacy around yourself, and respecting it around others, is a basic rule of managing to live together in groups.

Does it dramatically "hurt" me to know that the two have a D/S relationship? No, just as it doesn't "hurt" me to know that they only have sex in diapers or in full clown makeup. But it's more than I wanted to know or should be forced to know. If you want a slippery slope argument from the LW, if they first called out to the coffee shop "Yo, anyone have any past physically abusive relationship? Trauma from that? No? Okay! *dom smacks sub to ground while screaming obscenities*" I would not be drastically "hurt" by this public display. But I would find it sure as hell inappropriate and gross, and something that should not have involved a bunch of innocent bystanders. And no, objecting to that is not exactly the same as someone saying they don't like seeing interracial couples hold hands in public.

@26 -- I'm not taking issue with them doing it. Only taking issue with SLAVE's insistence that nobody could possibly know that they're doing it because they're just so goshdarn subtle about it.

I'm pretty sure PHM's husband wants to watch his friend(s) fuck her, but is scared to ask.

What @55 said. 1. These guys aren't subtle. We know this because the LW noticed enough to write about it. 2. These guys probably don't want to be subtle. We can infer this from SLAVE's insistence that they are already being subtle enough in the face of evidence that they are not subtle enough.

I thought a couple of friends of mine were engaging in a political act of sexual defiance by their rather vigorous PDA session during Pride in San Francisco. I asked them if this was the case and they told me no, they were drunk, it was a party in the streets, passers-by could always NOT LOOK, and making out with your boyfriend/girlfriend was one of many inalienable rights available to all couples. So now, unless we're talking a street-corner blowjob while I'm waiting for the light to change, I just walk on by without comment or judgment. I don't feel unduly involved in anyone's sex life just by seeing them interact with some intimacy/affection in public. There are lines, of course- but shoe-tying isn't crossing one of them.

Ms Driasis - Kind of you. I always understood it was clearly unintentional.

Dr Sean - It's tempting for me to think that there are probably members of that gymnasium who were tortured by brothers or other savages (I nearly typed Savages, but that seemed just a bit too apt) and forced to perform subservient acts along a similar line, but I shall focus instead on where such a tell would fall on a scale of offensive behaviour if shorn of context. If you are going to focus on this being unprovocative (and, given SLAVE's having somewhat less subtlety than Tammy Faye Bakker, I envision the scene as being much more like those PDAs that practically invite the called response, "Get a room!"), it helps if the conduct isn't inherently offensive. I shall stand by giving this an FTWL... but, if I were to be annoyed, it would be the pointing that would annoy me, conduct that is only saved by the context not just of a relationship but a relationship with a particular tilt involving such things as power and consent.

Blending in another recent letter, I can imagine being less put out if I were to see a tickle top give his bottom a tickle that you would assign the same degree of casual that you do the pointing/shoe tying. Even though the relationship itself could well be a good deal more thorough in the power dynamic than many D/S relationships, the tell wouldn't be an inherently abusive act.

By the way, is it really the place of a straight male to compare abuse that is only rendered acceptable by a consensual relationship built around a power tilt to ordinary same-sex affection? You remind me of certain politicians comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, paedophilia or what-have-you.

@IPJ, @DRF: The guy didn't just tie the other guy's shoe in public.

Um, yes, that's exactly what he did.

Tying another person's shoes is acceptable public behavior. Ever been to a preschool? Any interpretation or offense you bring to that behavior is yours and yours alone to deal with, for example, by directing your attention elsewhere.

And, etiquette around sex and affection in public is matter of cultural consensus, not something to be dictated by whomever is the most sensitive or easily offended. If the agreed upon rules don't lead to at least some people being offended, than they're probably the wrong rules.

@58, the point that you @45 (Hex) and @38 (puddles) are either missing or willfully ignoring is that the context is not passing by someone expressing PDA on a street corner or in a cafe. This isn't about the shoe tying. The context is violating the standards of behavior in a shared space among people you share the space with on a consistent, ongoing basis.

I can also tell you from personal experience that if you ever want a crowd of kinksters to part like the Red Sea, get down and perform some boot worship. Power Exchange freaks people the hell out. Possibly because it does turn mundane tasks into highly sexually charged ones. That's why I only do it in kinky spaces where there's implied consent on the part of the observers. Doing it elsewhere is rude. SLAVE and his Sir are being rude to their gym mates. That's what I object to, not the PDA.

@60, so the workers at Meteor Entertainment should have just looked elsewhere rather than creating the Bro-sie the Riveter poster? Or maybe they should have just quit? Or not been so sensitive about having under-boob hanging over their workspace?

And I refuse to believe that you can't differentiate between tying the shoes of a preschool age child and tying the shoes of an able-bodied adult in a gym while not working out yourself and wiping down the other adult's equipment for him.

@ven: PTSD is a horrible thing, and my heart goes out to those who have suffered through an event (abuse, car accident, grisly battle scenes) that has deeply traumatized them.

Yet, I think asking society at large to eliminate all of the otherwise innocuous things or behaviors that might trigger someone's particular sense of trauma would have obviously disastrous consequences. There certainly need to be safe, therapeutic environments for the traumatized, but the goal of PTSD therapy is to help the patient overcome the trauma, not to reshape the rest of the world around it.

if I were to be annoyed...

We're all entitled be annoyed by things, but we are not entitled to a world that is free of things that annoy us.

is it really the place of a straight male

Speaking of things that are annoying - statements like that one. Don't like my ideas? Then reject them based on their merit.

Speaking of trauma at the gym, here's a story from last night. There was a middle-aged guy just hanging out the locker room. I heard him trying to pick up a younger guy before my workout, and after my workout, there he was, having never left the locker room, using the exact same pathetic line on someone else.

I get undressed, wrap a towel around my waste, turn around to hit the shower, and there he is, having sidled up 2 feet behind me, 10 lockers away from his own, suddenly naked except a pair of white socks hiked up as far as they'd go (somehow, that detail was the worst), smiling and making a big show of applying his deodorant. I don't know how to type my disgust.

What was that we were talking about? Oh right, shoe tying.

@61: He. Tied. His. Shoes. How is this a violation of shared space? This was not boot worship. It's somewhat indicative of a power dynamic, but in execution it's less overtly sexual than the PDA you have no problem with. So unless he was licking the logo off his gym shoes, I don't see what the big fucking deal is.

LW1: I met my husband at work, too. He was a little nervous about dating a coworker when I started the full-court press, but then he figured, we were both contractors with specific end dates to our employment periods - worst thing that happened is, contract ends, we never see each other again. Instead, we got married.

Go with your intuition.

Last letter- ATKS; and here I thought it was going to be "all that kinky shit". Oh well.

Dr Sean - If someone is going to claim, "we aren't doing anything triggering," as SLAVE does, quite clearly, then the door, as any competent cross-examiner will tell you, has been opened. Tell SLAVE to go back and delete that part of the letter.

As far as annoyance, I continue to stand by FTWL... in response to this. If I had a dime for every time I saw something offensive about which I haven't the energy or inclination to be annoyed, I'd be living in a villa in the east of France.

You have my permission to be as annoyed as you please with your gym person; I won't even say that Those Who Go To Such A Place May Find Some Nasty Things To Face. I am not a feminist, but I know that that would be Victim Blaming. I am sorry that you were so victimized, and I entirely agree that same-sexer men, in an ideal world, who wear white socks pulled up to the highest possible extent deserve to have their Gay Cards (or Bi Cards) revoked.

You were talking about shoe tying; I was talking about pointing. In fact, I invite you to try it. When next in company with Mrs Sean (and preferably Miss Sean as well, as you want to teach her that all men are not Neutred Disney Princes), point to your untied shoe and demand that she tie it. Is there any context other than a relationship with a very unequal power dynamic that can render that conduct anything other than highly offensive?

And you wonder that it would give offense for you to declare so blithely, "Your argument is just a variation of the old homophobic classic:"? You are comparing inherently offensive conduct with inherently affectionate conduct that some misguided people now find offensive and which was once deemed generally offensive (actually, rather worse). You lack the standing to make a positive declaration on the matter.

Now had you said that it FELT exactly like X to you, I might have replied that it wasn't very nice of you, but you would not have been flaunting Privilege and I should not have questioned you for trying to define someone else's oppression.

A while back, there was a thread elsewhere in which someone tried to defend certain Proposition 8 supporters as Totally Not Homophobic. They wanted to dismantle marriage as a cornerstone, not expand its powers by including more people in the institution. Their plan was *better* for all the poor, misguided or selfish same-sexers who wanted marriage because it would benefit their lives now. The poster defending the P8 supporters was very sincere, and managed to evade all sorts of points that didn't suit her, but in the end couldn't get around that it wasn't the place of straight people to define homophobia and that, if same-sexers experienced a certain action as being homophobic, the onus was on the Totally Not Homophobic P8 supporters to make their case instead of expecting that they could just play the TNH card and expect to be showered with cookies.

SLAVE, as countless others have said (I got bored after the first 4 and decided to write my response anyway) Dan implied you weren't subtle enough and you seem to disagree. The expanded version of Dan's sentence was 'not subtle enough to escape notice' and by definition, you weren't. You were noticed. Now some might argue that you weren't doing anything sexual. That people need to let you do harmless displays of affection in public. And for what it's worth, as far as things go, yours is pretty harmless. It's about as harmless as someone walking down the street with their hand resting on their girlfriend's butt. Or possibly drifting from the cheek down and to the inside.

Now some folks would say the butt caress... that's NOT harmless...that it' needlessly provocative, mysogynistic, possessive, etc...and they'd also be right. So think about that, or have your top think about it. Some people are ok with PDA, regardless of its s&m content, while others are not ok with it. You weren't subtle enough to slip under the original writer's radar, you won't be subtle enough for the next guy either. But you're being just as oblivious as that frat boy who thinks that people bothered with him groping his GF's butt are fragile wimps.

p.s. I'm all for BDSM, but I leave the needle kits, collars and rope home and don't bring them to the gym.

@60 and @65 And saying "Hello" is acceptable public behavior. And looking at someone is acceptable public behavior. What is not acceptable is leering and slobbering and staring. It's not just what someone says or does; it's also the way he or she says or does it.

Again, this wasn't just a guy tying another guy's shoes. According to the original LW, it was clearly identifiable as a not-subtle-enough D/s scene.

People shouldn't have to put up with other people's sex lives at the gym, whether it's two people kissing or a shoe-based D/s scene. No you can't just look the other way if they're standing in front of the only ab machine. Not unless you don't want abs.

Well done Dan. The hysterical policing of kink in this thread -- not tolerant reminders to "tone it down a bit", but shrill "don't FLAUNT it in my face!!!" --- is the direct result of your reducing BDSM into just something that one does.

@70: SLAVE: "... we're not doing anything hardcore in public—no verbal abuse, no hitting, nothing that might be triggering for someone who has been in an abusive relationship...we don't see why we should have to keep it completely hidden. So, yeah, I tie His shoes."
The power dynamic he's talking about is not just a sexual component of their relationship, it's a MAJOR characteristic of their relationship. So I don't think the case can be made for pure sexual exhibition here. And as long as he's not getting dragged along by a leash, I don't see why shoe-tying or weight-wiping constitutes "inappropriate". Shit, I've never done anything remotely BDSM in my life, but I wouldn't be offended by what's being described here. I mean, they're assholes just for being identifiable to those who are paying attention?

@vem: I am sorry that you were so victimized

No, you've misunderstood. My reference to being traumatized was not serious, and "victimized" is not a term I'd ever be comfortable applying to myself, in any situation, even one that genuinely traumatized me.

You are comparing inherently offensive conduct

The pointing and shoe tying is no more "inherently offensive" than homosexuality. All too often, people attribute their subjective reaction to something as reflecting the Natural Order of Things. That's homophobia in a nutshell, and something similar is going on here.

As for power imbalances, they are as intrinsic to human social structures as they are to packs of dogs. Sure, such imbalances can be abused, but they can also be beneficial (teacher/student, parent/child, employee/intern, d/s). Besides, show me a group without leadership, and I'll show you a group that get's nothing done (Occupy anyone?). Your iPhone wouldn't exist but for a corporate dictator.

DMJ, if this guy is so amazing, why did he have to pay for sex?

@DRF: What is not acceptable is leering and slobbering and staring.

If someone wants to be stared at by his partner in the gym while he's doing his workout, why the fuck should I care? Same goes for shoe tying.

People shouldn't have to put up with other people's sex lives at the gym, whether it's two people kissing or a shoe-based D/s scene.

Depends on the intensity of the kiss and the specifics of the scene.

@75 seandr: I agree!
By the way..........I know it's a whole new edition of Savage Love here and May 22nd's Shorties is history, but I have to know: did I piss you off? It wasn't intentional.
If I did, my apologies.

You and I seem to read eye-to-eye on a lot of things, and that's why I sought your feedback in particular.

seandr @73:
"All too often, people attribute their subjective reaction to something as reflecting the Natural Order of Things. ...

As for power imbalances, they are as intrinsic to human social structures as they are to packs of dogs."

All too often.
Btw, most of the research on dominance in dog packs has been done with captured wolves in heterogenous groups in zoos, or in dogs in big packs in shelters etc.

Research on stray dogs in urban and rural areas showed that the dogs usually only roam in "groups" of two to three individuals, with very different power dynamics than in those forced larger packs which put the animals under a lot of stress.

(Sorry for the lack of citation. I read that in a book that my brother had lent to me and I had to return to him.)

@74

Not everyone who pays for sex "has" to pay for sex.

Dr Sean - Actually, I suspect the couple in question IS toning it down; my guess would be that, if they were in private, Master would do more than just point.

(I have no cellular telephone of any sort. My feelings are rather like those of Fred Couples, who doesn't like answering the telephone because there's always somebody on the other end. People would call me on it.)

[The pointing and shoe tying is no more "inherently offensive" than homosexuality. All too often, people attribute their subjective reaction to something as reflecting the Natural Order of Things. That's homophobia in a nutshell, and something similar is going on here.]

The first sentence needs a rewrite. Homosexuality isn't conduct.

That's not my subjective reaction. It is my understanding that in most modern societies people are not enslaved, and that displaying one's ownership of an enslaved person is a good deal worse than Not Considered Polite Conduct, a label which might be applied to those who make a rather too enthusaistic PDA. But mainly, I am trying to establish a scale, as per my earlier post. Recall the Ericas, who have a relationship, if not similar to this, then on the spectrum. Mr Erica smiles at Ms Erica as a way of commanding her to load the dishwasher in his preferred method, or something of that sort. Somewhere else on that scale we place the conduct of Hyacinth Bucket, who frequently stands unencumbered as she waits by the door to a car, room or building for her henpecked husband Richard, who is often carrying a large load at her behest, to open it for her. A large part of me wants to treat the pointing as a running gag that belongs in a Britcom, but I shan't. You're fine about the message. Had you contented yourself with saying that people should just get over other people living in 24/7 D/S situations, I'd have no quarrel with you. Had Master displayed his ownership of Slave with a different gesture on the benign end of the scale, you'd be on much more certain ground telling people to get over the gesture, which happens to be an action only acceptable in the context of an extraordinary relationship regardless of the composition of the performers of the gesture. You don't report making such a gesture yourself to Mrs Sean in front of Miss Sean and a dozen of her friends, or to your secretary or intern (to whom it might be considered acceptable for you to bark out a request for coffee). But I am not trying to establish pointing as the absolute worst end of the scale. Still, even Corporate Overlords generally behave in something resembling an acceptable manner, or what can be passed off as a legitimate attempt at such.

I actually think it might make a rather entertaining skit to see a Claudia Clueless witness this scene and react taking it entirely at face value, intervening to rescue the abused party and berate the abuser.

As I should not march in unasked and DEFINE X as racism to people of colour or Y as sexism to women, I still think it reasonable (if a shade persnickety) to ask a non-same-sexer not to make a bold, privilege-laden and sweeping statement DEFINING Z as homophobia before a group consisting of a fair number of same-sexers. Even if I entirely agree with your definition, just your historically having held and having exercised the power to define it goes a long way to making this look like White Knightery at best. Just make it subjective, and you're fine, as then you are not DEFINING other people's oppression for them. I can assure you that there are at least as many same-sexers capable of defining homophobia for themselves as there are people who, as Emma Woodhouse indignantly tells Mr Knightley when he is astonished to learn that Harriet Smith has declined Robert Martin's proposal, would consider Harriet to be not just pretty but beautiful (as Ms Cute doubtless could tell us without checking, this number equals ninety-nine out of a hundred - though I rather like "an" hundred with a pronounced H; there's a cachet to it).

Sorry for being (overly?) rigourous; this is one of those areas where I am less inclined to be lenient to those with whom I tend to be mainly in agreement.

Cockyballsup: 1. Stop stating that like it's fact, unless you were there and are also a mind-reader you really have no idea what you are talking about. 2. Stop pretending non-kinky people don't do this all the time. Usually when two people hold hands or kiss in public it is in part because they enjoy the activity in question and partly because it shows the world what their relationship to one another is.

I met my husband in basically the same way as DMJ.

I told my family, and I tell anyone who asks, that we met while I was fixing his computer (I was doing freelance computer repair before I found a better faster way to make money). My grandmother got a pleasant anecdote about how he kept breaking things on his computer so he'd have an excuse to see me.

We still aren't sure what we'll tell our kids, but if that's the worst problem we have, I'll count myself lucky.

I met my husband in basically the same way as DMJ.

I told my family, and I tell anyone who asks, that we met while I was fixing his computer (I was doing freelance computer repair before I found a better faster way to make money). My grandmother got a pleasant anecdote about how he kept breaking things on his computer so he'd have an excuse to see me.

We still aren't sure what we'll tell our kids, but if that's the worst problem we have, I'll count myself lucky.

And what would be wrong with "being in service to Richard Gere for eternity"???

I'm part of a 24/7 D/s Couple. I have 2 thoughts on SLAVE's letter and the responses. Firstly, our power exchange is not a "scene", nor is it foreplay or sex. It's how our relationship works day to day, and how we show love and respect to one another all the time. Any interpretation to the contrary is wrong and also not my problem. Second, if I'm in public, and what I'm doing isn't illegal? I am good. I will not have my behaviour dictated by the most uptight person in any given room. If you're to delicate to watch a shoe being tied in a way that implies an extra layer to a relationship, perhaps you should stay home.

@griz: No, you certainly haven't pissed me off, I just wasn't sure what you were asking me and didn't have anything especially interesting to add in that case. I think you're fabulous!

@86 'nuff said. :)

@cockyballsup: They get their jollies from innocent bystanders' witnessing of their master/slave situation.

I don't believe that's the case here. As others have said, for some people D/s goes beyond sexuality, encompassing nonsexual interactions as well. In this case, you are attempting to police thoughts based on an inflated sense of your powers of clairvoyance.

But even if there were sexual undertones, if someone is getting their "jollies" from a consensual interaction that stays entirely within the bounds of socially acceptable public behavior (e.g., no visible hard-ons), and that interaction doesn't directly involve you, than you've got nothing to complain about.

If sexual undertones are such a problem for you, I take it you don't get out dancing much.

@cockyballsup: Wow, I can't even remember the last time anyone called me "obtuse". Please clarify for me; How exactly is holding hands or kissing in public or any other example I made "rude", "obnoxious possessive" or "involves innocent bystanders"?

@87 seandr: Thanks! I think you're fabulous, too!

@21 IPJ: "You don't justify crappy behavior with hotness."

Um, yes you do. One does. Everywhere, all the time. EricaP had a great example of this awhile ago, where she confessed she was more willing to believe the false cover story of a good-looking hook-up than of one who was less cute. (Full points for self-awareness.)

It's all summed up in Barney's crazy/hot scale if you've never seen it. When discussing men, substitute "insensitive" for "crazy".

Why would anybody rule out someone that seems to be a good match for such petty reason? The only I would be worried about is if she has seen him at his worst. If he is the type of prick that says fucked up thing when he gets mad and tries to through the sixth month escort gig in her face, so long loser, but if he doesn't and she isn't the type who always makes up some dumb excuse when the right person comes along, then don't start being the person who makes up dumb excuses when someone good comes along

Sounds like they need to be a lot more obvious if they wrote after being disappointed they couldn't get anyone to ask if they mind if he masturbates for the shoe tying show

If you mention more than once to your GF and it makes sex hotter, you are going to have sex with his friends while he watches unless you are one of those people who makes up dumb excuses to sabotage your own life. If you honestly want to do it but are too afraid, maybe you don't deserve to do it, but if you really are racking your brain trying to figure out a way that'll work without admitting you want it. The next time he has any friends around, start acting a little off-kilter, and when he asks you what is the matter, pretend you are mad at him and will never forgive him for talking you into role playing as his friends because now when all three of you are together you get the good kind of hot flashes that make you almost cum in your pants when his friends shoulder barely grazed you. But make sure you add that it you are fine and not turned on at all when it is just his friend and you, but when he is also there you cannot stop thinking about all the dirty things he is going to tell you he wants to see you do.

But I hope you have a lot of money set aside, because sex is going to start taking up a lot more of your time. Whatever you do, don't call in sick to work more than one day a week, cause even at that it only takes two months til the fire you, but hey, if sex is so great that having to much of it starts interfering with your life in negative ways, try getting any sympathy for that hard luck story

@75 Depends on the intensity of the kiss and the specifics of the scene.

That is exactly what I've been saying. Judging by the tone of the original letter, these two guys were being too intense and imposing their sexuality on other people who were just trying to get some exercise.

You seem to have misunderstood my looking vs. staring analogy. Looking at someone is okay. Staring at someone is not. A man saying "Hello" to a woman is okay, a man leering and slobbering at her is not. One guy tying another guy's shoes is a relatively neutral action. One guy tying another guy's shoes while radiating a D/s vibe is not. It's not just what people do; it's the way they do it. Judging by the original letter, SLAVE and his partner need to work on their acting or keep it out of the gym.

@DRF: Judging by the tone of the original letter, these two guys were being too intense

The tone of the original letter was one of curiosity - Hey Dan, was that some sort of D/s thing I saw?

Staring at someone is not.

Staring at someone who doesn't want to be stared at is not OK. Staring at someone who does is just dandy. You are conflating two entirely different scenarios.

One guy tying another guy's shoes while radiating a D/s vibe is not.

Sorry, but I disagree.

@98 If the gay guys are just talking to each other, then nothing; it is the observer who was the problem. If the gay guys are engaging in a sex act of any kind, then they should take it somewhere else. If the gay guys are hitting on each other so brazenly that it becomes difficult for others to ignore, then they should definitely take it somewhere else.

This is more like the difference between a sexually involved couple having a conversation in public and a sexually involved couple having a loud conversation in public about which sexual practices they enjoy.

OMG! Who cares if the two guys are slightly getting off in public with the shoelace tying (which apparently they weren't)? Who cares even if they had boners (which they didn't)? Not like they're whipping it out or masturbating in public. Get over it, folks.

I think PDAs are cute, and shoelace tying is in the PDA category, not line-crossing non-consensual exhibitionism. When I was a teen and alone I didn't like to see PDAs (intensified the loneliness) but now that I've been happily partnered for a couple of decades I just think it's nice to see people in public enjoying themselves: gay, straight, lesbian, young, old, hot, not, whatever. If that includes holding hands, tying shoelaces, kissing, whatever, it all just makes me smile. Buddhists talk about vicarious joy -- life's short, it's just nice seeing people enjoying themselves. If you don't like it, go to Saudi Arabia. I hear they are very into the whole sexual propriety thing.

@100 you are sooo overthinking things. Do you think everyone in a relationship says "Oh, PDA x would indicate affection, but PDA y would be an overt sexual behavior intended to coerce others, and/or a public indication of our preferred sexual roles." Geez.

Good thing none of you live near Vondelpark! (Google it, sex-negative SLOGgers).

@delta35: Thank you. I've been trying to argue the same thing here, but apparently shoe tying and weight wiping in public gives some people the vapors. I personally don't give a shit and can't imagine why anyone else would. People witness a couple's power dynamic in public every day, whether they're arguing or convincing each other to buy something. It is not a necessarily or wholly sexual dynamic. SLAVE indicates that, in fact. If that's still too much to handle, carry smelling salts at all times in case you can't avert your eyes fast enough. Perhaps you'll land in the arms of the uptight man of your dreams! And then quickly run inside and close the blinds.

Ms Delta - What, all venues are equal?

I am not on the opposing side; I just don't like to see what's basically a winning hand overplayed.

There is a trace of Don't Be Yourself; You'll Make Our Group Look Bad To The Normals in some of the anti- comments which strikes me as worse than the shoe-tying. As I said before, this whole scene reminds me increasingly of Keeping Up Appearances. But the pointing is just beyond the Pale. Then again, it isn't anywhere near as beyond the Pale as, say, Martha Stewart being Martha Stewart in public. But even that gets an FTWL...

However, in a rare spirit of Reconciliation, I have a compromise that might make everybody happy (except perhaps Slave, but he has doubtless voluntarily abdicated his right to the pursuit of happiness already, and we need not be concerned on his behalf here). I propose that Master cough instead of point. Coughing is a perfectly acceptable gesture; everyone here could cough in a bank or a church or De Boers or Chuck E Cheese with perfect equanimity. Then, whenever Master coughs, Slave has the responsibility of checking to see what if anything needs attention. I actually think this could be more enjoyable than pointing.

I actually admire Mr Pants' determination not to be dictated to by others, but suggest to Mr Pants that he and his partner probably have some rudimentary consideration for others on their own (which might well contribute to their not wanting to have appropriate conduct dictated).

@cockyballsup: It does involve me.

If "involve" means you happened to catch a glimpse of two people in public engaging in socially acceptable behavior that may or may not be a turn-on for them, then queue the world's tiniest violin.

a gym is different from a dance club

Much of the world's dancing does not happen in clubs. You'll definitely want to stay out of Volunteer Park this Sunday. There will be people shaking their money makers on city property (gasp!), some of them possibly even hoping you'll notice.

@ven: What does FTWL mean? Google is no help.