I really have No Problems with Collars, guys...

ON COLLARS 

I’ve received a LOT of angry responses elsewhere, as well as angry emails here and on FL.  

What amazes me is that the vast percentage of the attacks aren’t responding directly to my posts.  They aren’t responding to the sum whole of what I’ve written, or even acknowledging it.  

They’re attacking details.   

And that’s what gets me.    Not the name calling.   Not the “he’s an asshole!” cross-posts attacking me personally, and my writing topics.     But if you’d really rather attack a nitpicking, mother-loving detail rather than actually engage what I’m ranting about?   

Water.   Duck’s Back.   Do the math.  

Attacking a detail in a post is right up there with “TL DR, (too long, didn’t read) and here’s why he’s wrong.”    You’re not making a salient point.   You aren’t refuting the topic.   You’re not engaging in a dialogue to change an opinion.   You’re creating a straw man, lighting it on fire, and living the fallacy.   (Ad hominem, anyone get the reference?)  

I used wearing a collar in public as an example in one of my rants.   It wasn’t the point.   I never said “burn all collars, they’re evil!”    As a matter of fact, I tried to make a simple point about public exposure and public behavior versus personal preference.   I also made a point that behavior leads to further behavior, which leads to misbehavior.  

I used the collar example because I’ve seen a community member wearing a thick-ass leather collar (with the steel rings for leashing) and one of those CafePress “slave” t-shirts while walking through a public park.   I’ve seen another person wear a “Fuck You and the Horse That Rode You” t-shirt, and I’ve seen a “Proud Bitch” t-shirt…and guess what?   I didn’t like either of those either.   My example of the collar in public was chosen because it was specific to the audience of my rant.   It was an example, not the point.  

And for the record, my daughter saw it as well.  I had to come up with a very fast explanation.   I think I managed it pretty well.   But I shouldn’t have had to.  

Do you have a right to self-expression?   Of course you do!   I never once argued for silencing self-expression – that would be slitting my own throat.  I’ve never said it was “illegal” to throw our lifestyle in the faces of others.   (Although public exposure of certain aspects of it are, depending on the state.   I leave that to lawyers to argue, I’m not qualified.)  

My argument is that doing it in that way is stupid.   And harmful.  

“And there is a difference between your Kink, and your Behavior.”

It doesn’t matter that I have the ability to explain your behavior to a child.   It doesn’t matter that I am (mostly) a fast talker who can smooth things over.   It doesn’t matter that my child will “eventually” grow up and learn about these things.   A parent should have the right to explain things to their child in their own way, or to not explain them and let nature take its course.   A child does NOT need to be smacked in the face with our lifestyle.   That’s not the law.   It’s common courtesy, and respect for others.  

And before you call me on the respect thing?   One of the most applauded responses to my rant can be encapsulated as:   “Your child's well being isn't my problem… I certainly didn't invite yours to stick it's nose into my business.   Raise them however you want - but please don't expect me to alter my lifestyle to suit them.”

TITLES ARE EARNED 

Another detail people are attacking?    In “Titles are Earned”, the example was a man who I have a great deal of respect for – my old karate teacher.   I made a point that I respected him because of his years of experience, his humility, and his skill.

And which detail was latched onto?

Age.

“Titles are Earned” is NOT an age-ist rant.  

I’m 32 for Christ’s sake, an age-ist rant would be (again) slitting my own throat!  

I don’t care what your age is.   I will say that there tends to be (tends to be, not automatically is) more maturity with age.   That has to do with having more life experiences, and having had more time to reach humility.    There are, of course, PLENTY of people who reach an advanced age without receiving maturity or wisdom.   

Again.   Not an Age-ist rant.  I’d be slitting my throat, and that really isn’t my thing. 

ON PROTECTING CHILDREN

And my last response to tonight’s flames – accusations of anti-gay sentiment.  Accusing me of anti-gay sentiment, because I’ve written a post on how public kink behavior can harm children who are witnesses to otherwise adult behavior and clothing. 

The logic goes like this.    Rant A says “you should be considerate of children, who don’t need exposure to our lifestyle”.    Translation B is taken out of context as akin to “Oh won’t somebody think of the childrens?!”   Translation B is likened to similar statements used in other groups’ arguments.   One group’s argument is selected, the “Anti-Gay Argument”, and when married to translation B, thus translation C spits out – “Oh won’t somebody think of the childrens?!, and by the way, the author hates gays.”  

Please, go read my Causist rant.   Read the parts about “the bat”.  Because I think I can see it swinging.  

Where  exactly does writing a rant that says “kink is no excuse for bad public behavior” equate to “oh won’t somebody think of the childrens?!”     And where does “won’t somebody think of the childrens?!” equate to “I hate gays”?  

Look, I know that a LOT of people use the “won’t somebody think of the childrens?!” mantra while attacking gay rights.   I also know that a LOT of people used to use it to attack civil rights and desegregation.   It was also used, at some point, to argue against the legalization of marijuana, the legalization of alcohol, and the legalization of prostitution in Nevada.  

I’m not against gays.   Caring about children being exposed to our lifestyle is not an anti-gay sentiment.

I’m not against civil rights.   Caring about people behaving badly in public is not anti-civil rights. 

I’m not against alcohol, marijuana (when legalized) or prostitution (when legalized).   Not wanting you to wear a “Proud Bitch” t-shirt in front of a kindergarten is not anti-alcohol, anti-prostitution or anti-weed.

Please stop assigning me emotions, feelings or hatreds which I have not professed.

Thank you.