i know there are a lot of us who enjoy the thought of public play but how far should that play go ? a few years ago i was on a metro with my (at the time ) 5 year old daughter there was a couple at the rear of the train and she was giving him oral now whilest you could not see anything as such it was obvious what was taking place , now i would not have been adverse to watching in a diffrent setting but i had a child with me and it was during the daytime and in my opinion unacceptable . so how far are other people prepared to go ?

I've done bondage on the metro, but it was at around 6am and we were the only people in the carriage. I agree, there is no excuse for not considering the outcomes for any young children who may witness it- totally inappropriate.

Very good topic Startrek.
We all say our play is with consenting partners but public play often involves non consenting others.
What is acceptable ?
Is it ok to take a male sub to the lingerie counter and make it clear the items being bought are for the sub or is that forcing others into your play scene without warning or consent ? while some may just have a giggle about it later there is always the chance someone could feel angry, violated, or just uncomfortable, who are we to say we have the right to put others in that situation ?

Is making a sub kneel on the floor on a train while a Mistress has her feet on his back, making him her footstool just harmless fun or again unacceptable behaviour.

I have mentioned these instead or the oral you were talking about Startrek as i think we would all agree what you witnessed is not on where there are minors.

yes my case was extreme but you raise some very good points that even i had not thought of Mistress Adore

Oooh, very good response Jules.

There is a fine line between challenging people's ill conceived sensibilities and causing real trauma to them, and we all have that line set at different levels.

The example you give of the lingerie counter is a good example. I personally have no problem with it, because you are only challenging the social construct that men shouldn't wear underwear designed for ladies. But who says? And why? I doubt greatly that the lady behind the counter believes every man who buys items 'for my wife', so she'll probably have knowingly sold to crossdressers in the past. Sure, this scenario is a bit more overt with the introduction of the domme, but if she thinks men don't and shouldn't ever wear lingerie she's probably in the wrong job anyway. I have no problem with reeducating people in the service industries.

Agreed Mike but as you say add a Domme and it becomes not just a gent buying underwear because he wants to but a playscene and a non consentual one, the woman behind the conter may well suspect the lingerie is not for the wife if its just a lone gent but that is just her thoughts the Domme makes it a completly different thing.
Its not about what her thoughts are about men wearing or not wearing ladies underwear its about her being forced into anothers play for their gratification with no thought to her feelings, life experiences and reactions.

I think the thing to do in those circumstances would be for the domme to go in earlier and clear it with the woman concerned- just something along the lines of 'my partner is a TV- would it be ok for he and I to come in one day when you're not busy so we can choose his underwear together?'

The domme can then gauge if the scenario can go ahead based on the response, and not let sub know that it's been prearranged. There are usually workarounds.

Room101 wrote:
I have no problem with reeducating people in the service industries.

Without wanting to get on my high horse with my third post in this place... I actually find myself feeling less sympathetic to the hypothetical participants in this scenario once it acquires a political demonstration aspect, even a non-overt one. It changes things from using someone instrumentally (a shop assistant, perhaps poorly paid, but paid to serve customers in the ordinary course of business) to an imposition of judgment on a captive audience (who, bring paid to serve customers, is poorly placed to act as an equal and autonomous citizen at the time).

Room101 wrote:
I think the thing to do in those circumstances would be for the domme to go in earlier and clear it with the woman concerned

I'm much more comfortable with the sound of that... probably because it treats her as a person to be talked to rather than at.

Once again agreed Mike but the lingerie was just an example, the same can be said for many types of public play, what seems harmless to one may have a profound effect on another.

Room101 wrote:
Oooh, very good response Jules.

But who says? And why? I doubt greatly that the lady behind the counter believes every man who buys items 'for my wife', so she'll probably have knowingly sold to crossdressers in the past.

There was an occassion when me and charlie were in doc black at the metro center. The gent who served us, realised after a short conversation that we werent just going to a nilla party, and in his words said "ooh its that saturday of the month, i take it your drawing your pension this evening."
Charlie then also said were looking for something for him. Referring to me. Bearing in mind we had just been looking at corsets. He looked at me, and i said. "i'm not a crossdresser." and he then carried on. "ok, just had to get that clear" so he must of as Room101 has said sold to crossdressers or has been aware of them in the shop. He was very savvy and very open especially as referring to Tension as drawing your pension.

Furthermore. Very interesting the amount of people out and about town who would playfully spank their partner/person they are with.