God bless the bus driver in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire who drew the line when this prattling freak (age 25) and his geek girlfriend-on-a-leash (age 19) tried to get on the local bus.
The driver said No Doing: "We don't let freaks and dogs like you on."
Perfect.
If you claim to be a "human pet," then perhaps you will have to live by pet rules. And the pet rules are simple: No dogs are allowed on the bus!
Of course, these bits of boot-scrape are living on the dole, living in public housing, and planning to start a family.
Planning to start a family? Of course they are. Where is the RSPCA spay-neuter program when you need it?
My objection to this kind of nonsense is not simply visual: these freaks are requiring the public to participate in their voyeuristic sado-masochism.
There is no reason for the public to tolerate this.
Yes, people can do whatever the hell they want in private, but in public spaces the rules can be laid down, and it's a simple-enough rule to say the public will not subsidize human degradation by allowing freaks to parade geeks on a leash on the public bus.
My bet is that everyone in Dewsbury has bought the bus driver a round or two.
And they should; it's high time the world began to push back against the colonization of public space by thugs, vandals, and freaks.
These public spaces -- our parks, subways, libraries, and schools -- are a monument to civilization, and yet they have been degraded to the point of abandonement because we have not made clear that certain kinds of behaviors, activities, and presentations will not be tolerated.
It's time to push back! It's time to fence out uncivility and degradation and reinforce social norms as regards music volume, personal hygiene, intoxication, and other kinds of offensive conduct that drives the public from tax-payer financed public spaces.
.
17 comments:
Hi Patrick,
I hear you, but these aren't the first young people to make bad fashion statements or lifestyle choices.
I've made plenty of both. (My wife maintains I could still use some work.)
When I was in high school, I dated a witch for a while---a very nice girl who fancied herself possesed of supernatural powers. It was kind of fun.
I seemed relatively normal compared to her, if you overlooked my obsession with falconry and the fact that I spent my lunch hours trying to kill piegons with homemade boomerangs on the school ballfield.
Or the fact that I wrote love poems and published them in the school paper. And I shunned organized sports. I wore my Members Only jacket waaaay past the end of that fad--hell, it was sharp!
You never know how people are going to turn out.
I'll see one of my high school friends this week when I go home to Georgia. Mac was into new music and weird art, wore strange clothes and had wild hair. He was a counter-culture figure, and still is. But today he is also a well-known business mogul who lives in a huge custom home in my parents' upscale neighborhood; he has a couple good kids and a great wife. He was always a good egg, though at a distance you might have wondered.
All I'm asking is, Who knows how the girl on the leash will turn out someday? Who can say?
I heard of this freak who lives in Virginia and takes his dogs out to go to ground and actually digs to them and sometimes kills the animals they find. Now that is a freak!
Goofy fashion? yes. Freak? that's a matter of opinion. Besides, who wants to hold hands in this world where we are constantly reminded some pandemic is knocking on the neighbor's door? Leash isn't such a bad idea.
I once looked worse than they do. I'm still ugly but I think I turned out ok. Didn't I?
Weird and odd I am more than OK with. I have a guy at the gym who wears a tutu (no, not a kilt) into the changing room and I have even showered with him without incindent. I am OK with mohawks, tattoos, bones in the nose, etc. People can do what they want. But when folks are asking others to participate in their bondage-sadomasochism stuff (which I how I view parading around someone on a leash), I draw the line. Call me a Republican, but I think choke chains should be kept in the bedroom next to the handcuffs :)
As for this girl turning out OK, that might happen. Probably will. On the other hand, this may be the beginning of the next Manson Family. Either way there is not much we can do, but I think we CAN (and should) throw them off the bus -- same as if they were playing loud music or were carrying a monkey on their shoulder.
Patrick
Republican!
Ordinarily I'd be foursquare on the side of the freaks- the broad sweep of human variation is as important to cultural evolution as variation is to biological evolution- but I've got to come down with Patrick on this one.
It's ethically wrong to involve someone else in your sex life without their consent. Whether it's asking family, friends, or strangers to go along with your master/slave routine by trying to claim it a "lifestyle", flashing women in the park or peeking in on them from the bushes, or even groping your partner under the table a family dinner (using them to get a "taboo" thrill), it's just differences of degree in the violation, not of kind.
Take off the leash and it'd be fine. As for how they'll turn out, I think the "on the dole, planning to start a family" says a lot more for those odds than the bad fashion or the BDSM play. Most of the freaks I know who indulge themselves in such behaviors are hardworking souls.
I read that article twice and did not see any indication this was a sexual, much less S&M, behavior. The woman refers to herself as a pet but there is no mention of "bestiality". The neighbors are into S&M in a big way. But beyond a few visible bruises once in a while, they are like everyone else. Leashes, or whatever they use, are kept in the bedroom.
People like these in the article tend to go for a shocking image and are probably not into S&M. I've been hanging out with "freaks" for the past 25 years and rarely are any bad. Mohawks, piercings and tattoos are commonplace so you have to come up with something you don't see everywhere if you want to be "different". Give it a while, leashes will catch on quick.
Strange? yes. Freaks? that's your pinion. Banned from the bus? ridiculous. Great idea for Halloween? you bet. although i will probably dress in drag again this year.
Hey Gabboon, you've been on here 3 times commenting. Seems a bit obsessed, LOL. For the record, however, S & M and D is not bestiality. Different things. And it has nothing to do with mohawks and tats either. Maybe you need to study up on this ;)
P.
They look like brother and sister to me!
Just the latest in (some) young peoples' endless quest for somehow having both "Look at me - I'm a freak!" and "Don't look at me, I'm just as normal as you!" simultaneously.
I'm aware S&M is not the same as bestiality. I was referring to the assumed sex with a "pet".
Not obsessed with this. you write good stuff most of the time. But this one you've turned into a personal attack based on an assumption that this is sexual behavior that you would rather not see. Very similar to your pals at HSUS claiming you hunt for personal lust for blood and violence. I'd like to think you're better than that.
This couple leashed together infers no more than any couple stepping on the bus hand in hand.
I live in California. Honestly, the picture didn't even raise my eyebrow, much less my blood pressure.
Heh! What Gina said.
If you think this is "just like holding hands," then you really are ill-informed about B-D-S-M.
A leash is there to establish dominance (same as it is for dogs) and it is used in this situation (where verbal communication could otherwise do the job) to humiliate the person wearing the collar and the leash. This is humiliation as part of a sexual game.
If we want to suppose that this is "just kids in Halloween costumes," then that matters not a whit, as the offensive expressive conduct of this leash is about equal with someone getting on the bus and loudly repeating "NIGGER-KIKE-FAG-CUNT. NIGGER-KIKE-FAG-CUNT. NIGGER-KIKE-FAG-CUNT."
The fact that some people on the bus would shrug at such language does not mean our public buses have to tolerate such behavior.
And in this case (good!) they have not.
Now, for the record, I have no problem with folks playing any kind of sexual game they want behind closed doors, but I DO have a problem with the public being forced to participate in it, which is what is going on here.
Ditto for racial, ethnic, and other slurs which require me to either knock someone in the jaw or appear to acquiesce and "normalize" racis, sexism, etc.
To be clear, what I object to is not private behavior between consenting adults but the lowering of public standards of social conduct.
And yet that is most certainly occurring. As Dr. Gail Salts notes (see >> http://gailsaltz.ivillage.com/love/archives/2008/04/public-humiliation.html ):
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
"We have become increasingly desensitized to the taboo of exhibitionism and to the taboo of sadism. Sadism and masochism are also parts of human nature but usually kept in check by a community that wants to keep each other safe and moral. Today, watching sadism has become in vogue, whether watching a chef torture wannabes or watching the humiliations and razor-sharp criticisms of American Idol, or everyone going to the boxing match to see the knockout, not the fancy footwork.
The risks are that the next generation will have an even harder time keeping the more primitive aggressive drives and wishes in check.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
Which of course, is already happening.
People seem STUNNED that kids are beating the crap out of each other in order to film it and load it up to Youtube.
People seem genuinely CONFUSED as to why more and more people are shooting up our public malls, and why more and more female teachers seem to have no compunction about having sex with 12-year old boys.
Here's a hint: It might have something to do with the social message that we are sending out today.
And that social message is that "there are no real rules of conduct in public places" and that there are no consequences to violating any such rules, either real or imagined.
Now of course, there are degrees of offensive conduct.
On the one hand we have folks who say we should be OK with mild stuff like French-kissing in public, singing hymns out loud on the subway, and screaming "stupid- nigger-mother-fucker" into the cell phone (REPEATEDLY) while having a "conversation" at Starbucks.
These are, for the record, what I experienced THIS WEEK, here in Washington, D.C.
On the other hand, we have some folks claiming a right to engage in even more extreme examples of offensive behavior.
Peter Singer, of Princeton University, for example, says there is no reason society should not allow people to fuck dogs, sheep, goats and cattle. Yes, that's right. Read it yourself here >> http://www.slate.com/id/1007408/ .
I would be curious as to your thoughts on this issue.
You see, as shocking as dog-fucking might seem to *some* people, Peter Singer thinks there is nothing really wrong with it. I mean it's no different than sodomy, right?
To which I would add that if we are going to allow dog fucking in private, then I think we HAVE to allow dog fucking in our public parks as well. After all, we allow people to play *other* games with their dogs in the park. Why kind of fascist would draw an arbitrary line prohibiting dog-fucking in the park?! If you do that someone might call you a Republican (Heaven forefend!).
In fact, some some people argue we should draw NO lines on public behavior at all unless it has an immediate impact on public safety.
Public nudity? Why not? The body is a beautiful thing, and it is entirely natural. Teachers should have a right to come into second-grade classrooms completely starkersl; it's a good way for an 8-year old to learn anatomy!
You want to blare the radio at 100 decibels in the park? Why not? Who is to say any one level of noise is too loud than another? Besides, we have car horns going off all the time. It's all the same thing.
Want to wear a T-shirt that says "Fuck the Judge" into court? No problem. It's the right of free speech, protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Want to masturbate in front of children at the park? And why not? It's a perfectly normal activity that people do everyday, and there's no reason it should be done behind closed doors as if it's abnormal or wrong. If parents or children object to public masturbation, then that's *there* problem. These prudes need to learn to be less sensitive.
Panhandling in the park? That's perfectly fine too. In fact, it's a Constitutionally-protected free association and free speech civil liberty. So what if the old ladyies feel they are running a gauntlet in order to get to the corner store -- that's *their* problem. These old ladies need to be less fearful; we have to stop coddling them!
Are the bums sleeping on all the park benches? Good! The park benches are there to be used. Where does it say folks cannot sleep on them? They are designed for sleeping! Who is to say people without homes cannot sleep on park benches? Fascists!
Now Gabboon, you are free to go down this logic road if you want. Lord knows society has. In fact, it is BECAUSE it has gone down this logic road (beginning in California in 1965) that this naion is now as messed up as it is right now.
Let us not kid ourselves that this kind of thinking has no consequences, eh?
We once had beautiful city parks built for the common man that people felt comfortable being in.
Not anymore.
In our largest cities many of our parks have been abandoned because we have allowed freaks and psychos to colonize them. And so, instead of taking our kids to the park to play with other kids from the neighborhood, we have to carpool them to "Gymboree" classes or to Chuck-E-Cheese.
Our big cites, like New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, were built with massive stone public libraries, grand train stations, ornately landscaped public parks with fountains, bandstands, and sculptures. These public places were not built for the Rockefellers, but for America's common working poor. The marvel of America was that everyone was equal in Central Park or in Penn Station, at the Reflecting Pool on the Mall or in MacArthur Park.
But then something changed.
Something wicked this way walked.
And that wicked thing was called "cultural relativism".
The hippies (my people) said we had to relax. So what if people had long hair, weird clothes, and smoked a lot of reefer? So what if some folks sold their bodies for sex? How was that different from marriage? So what if crazy people were jungled up on the sidewalk? Who was to say that their reality was wrong and ours was right?
Good points, and so we let the rules slip.
And, in short order, folks who wanted to go to the park found they had to run a gauntlet of panhandlers. The park benches were crowded with people sleeping on them, and radios blared in the subway. Maps were obscured by graffiti that was left up as "expressive art." Drug dealing, drunkenness and insanity were described as a "lifestyle choice" that society had no business interfering with.
And to this day, California -- where all this nonsense started -- has one of the weakest public transportation systems in the country. After all, why should anyone pay to support public transportation and public parks which no one uses because no rules are enforced?
Of course, not everyone was quick to salute cultural relativism.
The far left liked the concept because it seemed a quick road to free sex and pot. The far right liked it because they no longer had to pay taxes to help the mentally ill, and they could see business opportunities in the rise of gated communities.
A lot of folks in the middle, however, were not so sure.
They asked questions and they occassionally raised objections. When they did so, however, they were told to "step off." They were told they were being too narrow and rigid.
"Relax man. Everything is going to be cool."
But of course, it wasn't. Not always.
And so, when problem arose, the left simply embraced their own version of "Love it or leave it."
If middle class folks with "hangups" didn't like living in communities without social norms, then they were free to buy their way into a gated community (in California) or a co-op on Central Park West (in New York).
If people didn't like the incivility of the public buses and the local subway system, then they could go hire a taxicab or drive to work in a car or SUV.
If parents didn't like the fact that their children were scared of the homeless men crowding up on the corners near the Elementary and Junior High Schools, then parents could walk their kids up to the school door every day, or else they could send their kids to private school.
What was happening here was both odd and ugly.
The new word from the civil rights community was that the poor folks and middle class had *fewer* rights than the rich. Rich folks could buy their way into safety and civility, but poor people and the middle class did NOT have a right to a disturbance-free trip on the public bus, did NOT have a right to a sense of safety for their children in public schools, and did NOT have a right to keep vagrants and gun-packing gang members out of public housing development where they lived.
The left was clear on this point: Private transportation, private communities, private landlords and private play areas for kids *could* set rules and establish limits governing conduct.
*Public* spaces could not.
The result was thatt folks at the bottom of the economic ladder had to choose between living in misery or buying their way out of it.
"This is your fucked-up commumnity: either love it or leave it," was the new motto of the ALCU.
And so pubic spaces became degraded, and support for investments in public spaces eroded. America slid a little closer to the toilet. Instead of raising taxes for public schools and public libraries, we now raised taxes to subsidize private sports stadiums where the rules of social conduct could be enforced.
Where did it all this start?
I think where it all started was when we began to argue over whether it was OK (or not) to toss B-D-S-M exhibitionists, and drunks, and people playing loud radios, and people cursing and yelling racial epithets, and people who are wearing FUCK YOU T-shirts, off of our public buses.
You can argue, as it was argued in 1970, that "we all have to relax and not be so judgmental."
Right. The problem there is that some of us remember what a lack judgment got us.
Bottom line: You have to draw a line somewhere, and I would suggest we need to draw it at the sidewalk.
You can fuck your dog in the privacy of your own home, and yell any kind of gutter-slur you want as well. But not on the bus. Not in the library. And not in our parks.
P.
And to this day, California -- where all this nonsense started -- has one of the weakest public transportation systems in the country. After all, why should anyone pay to support public transportation [...] which no one uses because no rules are enforced?
The automobile and the suburbs drove a stake through California mass transit's heart before the hippies were born. [And no, GM never bought up all the Red Cars.]
Having said that, tons of people ride the SoCal Metro. I've used it [and BART, up north] a bunch of times, and honestly can't recall any rudeness or rule-breaking. Should admit, though, that my eyes are always tight shut for the endless minutes it takes BART to cross underneath the Bay.
As Rob Tier notes at >> http://www.popcenter.org/problems/panhandling/PDFs/Teir_1993.pdf :
"The cities of the United States are rapidly losing their public spaces. From Atlanta to Seattle, from San Francisco to New York City, people are abandoning
their urban areas out of a perception that street disorder is rising, making cities no longer welcome places to live, work, or voluntarily spend time.
Not all urbanites are giving up. Many City Councils have been convinced to adopt new and innovative controls on anti-social behavior to maintain minimal
standards of public conduct and to keep public spaces safe and attractive. These ordinances range from prohibitions on camping in parks to restrictions on lying
down on sidewalks."
Or to put in as willaim Fain does at >> http://www.aiacc.org/site/docs/civility.pdf :
"I asked our office researcher, Katherine Rinne, to compare the amount of public park space in Los Angeles to other cities. She came back with was an astonishing result. Los Angeles has approximately half as much space devoted to public parks as Boston and San Francisco, one-third that of Seattle, and one-quarter that of New York City. It became apparent to us that Los Angeles, often described as a “garden
city,” is in fact a city of private gardens, consisting of private backyards with barbeques and frequently a swimming pool. With such a focus on the “private,” this city’s “public” has been relegated to third- or fourth-tier importance, with token gestures to place-making as found in suburban malls, fake main streets like the Grove, or entertainment connectors like City Walk in Universal City. We seem to be dominated by
a culture of “hyper individualism,” at the expense of the social interaction that promotes a high degree of civility."
Hyperindividualism and street disorder leading to abandonment of public spaces. Is this the only reason for the decline of urban cores? No, but it is a very real part of it.
P.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The sexual deviancy is your assumption (pervert!). I just see a couple looking for a reaction. They certainly got it. And more than they deserved.
"Now, for the record, I have no problem with folks playing any kind of sexual game they want behind closed doors, but I DO have a problem with the public being forced to participate in it, which is what is going on here.
Ditto for racial, ethnic, and other slurs which require me to either knock someone in the jaw or appear to acquiesce and "normalize" racis, sexism, etc."
now all this is silliness in itself. I'm a skinhead. Half by genetics, the other half by laziness (easier to shave the rest off than take care of it). I am a well recognized symbol of racism (another practice best left in the bedroom) and often people react to me in this way, just as you do to the couple in the article. Yet I am not a racist, actually far the opposite, just a balding man too lazy to groom himself.
Until you've spent time in this couple's bedroom, you're judging a book by the cover.
We will have to disagree. If it's not sexual conduct, it's offensive expressive conduct that gives a big wink to the subjugation of women. I do not consider that a laughing matter nor one that the public has to subsidize with tax dollars.
P.
Post a Comment