There are short leashes (addressing the safety issue) and frankly I don't think they're objectively any more obnoxious than a big honking wedding/engagement ring set. I'd call flaunting sexually inexplicit (imo, leashes fall therein) D/s stuff in "general public" merely a question of taste than oppression-perpetuating or supportive of misogyny. (Incidentally, wedding rings imply you're in a (state and state-accepted religion sanctioned) SEXUALLY EXPLICIT relationship! They also get caught in machinery and office equipment quite easily!)
I'm aware that masochism and sadism were both named after men with, ahem, a questionable grasp of the concept of "consensual" but to say that visible fem-dom play caters to misogyny seems absurd. You might as well say I'm catering to people's ability to stereotype manhating dykes by wearing pants to work every day. People can superimpose whatever preconception they have onto me.
I've heard a lot of "bad image for the ________ community" type stuff before in other contexts. I think you're going overboard with this item. I don't personally feel that wearing a leash constitutes public play. I also think the consent issue is fuzzy when it comes to public sex, and that people might be far more damaged by, say, seeing a short-tempered parent belt his or her kid. I am not personally inclined to push the envelope even with PDAs (although I have engaged in public same-sex kissing and plenty of people probably assumed it was for shock value or were heartily offended).
Back to the playing into misogyny: plenty of "normal" guys are inclined to try to foist kink or lesbian sex onto their female partners in a borderline coercive way for their own entertainment. I don't think visibility of consensual kink relationships feeds into this. It might create an opportunity to actually educate people - yeah, that's a little TOO optimistic.
For the record, I'm not D/s or nor into wearing leashes or using them on my partners (let alone in public). I also question the deep understanding of nuances etc. of a large portion of the "hardcore lifestyle community." However, I'm not spelling that out to preserve anyone's good opinion of me. It's merely to clarify that I'm not posting defensively.
no subject
I'm aware that masochism and sadism were both named after men with, ahem, a questionable grasp of the concept of "consensual" but to say that visible fem-dom play caters to misogyny seems absurd. You might as well say I'm catering to people's ability to stereotype manhating dykes by wearing pants to work every day. People can superimpose whatever preconception they have onto me.
I've heard a lot of "bad image for the ________ community" type stuff before in other contexts. I think you're going overboard with this item. I don't personally feel that wearing a leash constitutes public play. I also think the consent issue is fuzzy when it comes to public sex, and that people might be far more damaged by, say, seeing a short-tempered parent belt his or her kid. I am not personally inclined to push the envelope even with PDAs (although I have engaged in public same-sex kissing and plenty of people probably assumed it was for shock value or were heartily offended).
Back to the playing into misogyny: plenty of "normal" guys are inclined to try to foist kink or lesbian sex onto their female partners in a borderline coercive way for their own entertainment. I don't think visibility of consensual kink relationships feeds into this. It might create an opportunity to actually educate people - yeah, that's a little TOO optimistic.
For the record, I'm not D/s or nor into wearing leashes or using them on my partners (let alone in public). I also question the deep understanding of nuances etc. of a large portion of the "hardcore lifestyle community." However, I'm not spelling that out to preserve anyone's good opinion of me. It's merely to clarify that I'm not posting defensively.