And it is an attack on liberal, enlightenment values; it isn’t merely something I disapprove of (and again you seem to be getting confused between me not approving of the subculture, on which I am essentially neutral, and me disapproving of the statement they are making). They are romanticising conformity, not attacking it; they are critiquing liberty not celebrating it. You can claim they are merely roleplaying and putting that in ironic, detached quote marks as much as you like, but then it can hardly not be described as faux radicalism if you are insisting it is essentially faux, can it?

What you seem to want me to accept, and I will not, is that they are not knowingly making any kind of statement at all. It is utter nonsense to suggest that the only context that is relevant is the subculture. What you are essentially lauding is not liberalism but an extreme form of relativism with everyone living in silos surrounded by Chinese walls. No healthy society could function like that.

Once again, I would say this is roleplaying of subjugation and not actual subjugation. The key point of the roles being reversed is that it means this is not a reflection of societal misogyny. Couples in the same subculture regularly reverse the gender role, meaning it is a decision taken on a case-by-case basis, which even if you think the entire thing is a crock means it is not misogyny, just a type of relationship you disapprove of.

Sure, they have taken it out of their subculture. But the context that is relevant is that in which the decision is made, i.e that of the subculture. To say they should only express that behind closed doors (baring being explicit) is illiberal- stating one lifestyle has a right to public access where another does not.

Furthermore, if the decision to have this lifestyle is not misogynistic in the context in which it is made, then perceptions as such are just that- perceptions- and they speak more to societies prejudice than that of the couple involved. i.e, people may dislike a man being led on a leash, but they would not say it reflected societies gender roles!

These two ‘Goths’ have succeeded in challenging the black and white assumptions of the power relationships you wish to discuss by polarising commentators into spouting generalities that fit preconcieved and formulaic conclusions - they would be laughing at the crassness of this faux radical debate if they weren’t sitting smugly aloof drinking cooking brandy and consoling themselves with ironic stories of the day the world paid them some attention.

Yes, we can use their body art as a lightening rod to make political points, but this simultaneously enables them to transcend their position of non-conformist deviance and changes perceptions of their original behaviour to become an action by which their freedom manifests itself. So, the action of creating a debate out of this specific instance has liberated these individuals and subjected them to a cause.

In other words it is our choice to discuss the ‘Goths’ which is illiberal, although conversely, discussion about the correct response to them by the bus company and the reasoning behind any response is fundamentally liberal and worthwhile. Dani and Tasha’s statement has been duely recognised and noted and will stand or fall depending on the perseverance of their relationship - we should watch with baited breath (though I can’t be bothered).

However, I would like to make clear that if you were offended by one fat bastard calling another fat bastard a fat bastard, then I am indeed sorry, and I did not intend to offend you, nor insult you.

What I intended to do was turn your own words about these people into the sorts of words that could levelled at yourself, and in doing so show that I thought both were mean and unfair.

Finally, I wonder which ex-polytechnic will be the first to offer a BA in BDSM Philosopy?

I think that taking this as advertising a certain view of women is something taken by the observer of one specific incident; within the context of the wider subculture, I don’t believe it works.

But the point is that they have chosen to take it out of the context of the subculture and put it in mainstream culture. At least we agree that context is relevant here.

Ultimately, I’m actually prepared to accept that she is making an informed choice, blah-de-blah. The tone of my original article certainly would have been different had I read the YEP and Mail articles earlier which put a different slant on things. What I don’t accept is the utterly crass argument that because BDSM philosophy says this, it must be so and must not be questioned. The scope for abuse within that argument is immense and no-one would accept it in any other context. Can we not just agree that I don’t know and you don’t know?

You are missing the point with my analogy. The issue isn’t which side has the power in either traditional muslim relationships or this one. The point is, in a traditional muslim relationship the gender roles always fall the same way each time. In BDSM, it falls both ways with substantial frequency, so it cannot be classed as a structural, societal issue as some may class traditional muslim relationships. I’m not making a judgement on either, I’m simply pointing out the flaw in your calling this misogony- I don’t think its misandry when done the other way round, so…

This applies to your public statement argument also. I have seen men wearing the leash. Its not unusual. Does this also make a statement about roles in society? If changing the way around for the leash changes fundamental views about societal roles, why are they all part of the same close community?

I think that taking this as advertising a certain view of women is something taken by the observer of one specific incident; within the context of the wider subculture, I don’t believe it works.

As to empowerment, I think it is important that people are empowered- that they can make decisions for themselves and have control over their own lives. In this social context people can choose to be housewives, pets lawyers or doctors- whatever they feel is best for them. Empowerment isn’t achieved by judging individuals, but by creating a society that embraces a wide range of choices.

I haven’t questioned your right to criticise them. I have just criticised your criticisms in turn!

However, the fact is that traditional muslim relationships only have the balance of power one way, on gender lines.

That isn’t what a lot of Muslims would argue, men or women. Why should we take this couple at face value and not them?

Your entire position is based upon the concept that because the relationship is not of a manner you prefer, that she is therefore not making a truly informed consensual situation but rather a victim of abuse.

No, my position is based on the fact that she talks about herself in language which casts herself as a passive object rather than in the language of empowerment that you would prefer her to talk about.

What relevance does the public realm have?

The public realm matters because by walking around leashed in public, they are making a public statement about the role women should play in society. It ceases to be something they do together, by mutual consent, and becomes a value judgement about everyone else. It is a political act.

You question my right to criticise their values in public, but not their right to criticise mine. Why?

*You* have compared it to actual slavery. *You* have repeatedly stated that he insists on doing this, despite all evidence showing that its closer to the reverse but that “insist” is the wrong word anyway.

Why do you continue to bring up womens emancipation? This occurs the other way round pretty often. Its not simply a case of parroting wider societies gender values. I would certainly not attack traditional muslim wives in the manner you are attacking this couple. However, the fact is that traditional muslim relationships only have the balance of power one way, on gender lines. That is not at all the case here, there are many relationships with power exchange either way round. So it cannot be discussed as a form of structured disempowerment.

Your entire position is based upon the concept that because the relationship is not of a manner you prefer, that she is therefore not making a truly informed consensual situation but rather a victim of abuse. This attack on agency is fundementally illiberal.

What relevance does the public realm have? It either clashes with values of doesn’t. Given the non-explicit nature of their actions, the public nature of them isn’t at issue. If you disagree with their values argue that on its own, not that the fact they did it on a bus is what makes it open season.