On May 10, 2013, a nonny started a thread titled “You're at the wrong convention/hotel!”, all about a friend who had accidentally booked a stay in the LA hotel that was hosting DomCon that weekend. Nonny was very uncomfortable with their friend's kink-shaming and asked, “How much can a hotel control what guests might say in public spaces, as long as they aren't violating rules of the con/public decency?”

Another nonny replied, “[P]ractitioners never seem to care when they non-consensually expose other people to their sex lives.” Various people replied to this to say that this violates BDSM community etiquette.

Shortly thereafter, collar wank began, with pro-kink nonnies explaining that “being collared is a lot like getting married” and “it's a sign of devotion and love,” and Anti-BDSM Nonny replying, “I guess wearing a wedding ring like normal people do would be too much to ask.” When told to stop arguing in bad faith, they said,

“There's already a 'We're committed to each other for life' symbol. There doesn't need to be a 'We're committed to each other for life and also I like to order my partner around like a dog' symbol.”

(One reply way downthread: “Nice value judgement on people who don't want to or aren't capable of getting married. I suppose we're just not ~normal enough.”)

The long and fractious discussion covered a variety of issues:

• How collars are commonly perceived in society
• How common collars are outside the BDSM scene
• What wedding rings do and do not say about one's sex life (with some amusing snark in this thread)
• The existence of other //"systems of symbolic meaning"// in which bystanders don't consent to participate, such as the wearing of crosses.
• Whether or not "domestication" covers "ownership"
• Homophobia vs. "kinkphobia"
• Children on leashes
• Symbols vs. behavior in the context of bystander consent
• "Taking one's husband's name in marriage" wank
• WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???
• The long history of chokers, collars and chains as jewelry
• BDSM leash wank

Anti-BDSM Nonny was called a troll. Subsequently, a comment was left by someone claiming to be an NA that ended with, “Collars are for animals, not for human relationships.”

When one pro-collar nonny re-emphasized that D/s relationships are not all about sex, Anti-BDSM Nonny replied, “You're right. It's totally okay to non-consensually broadcast to everyone that you're in a relationship where one partner treats the other like garbage, because that treatment might actually be non-sexual.” Shortly afterward a call for mods went up.

Anti-BDSM Nonny or Nonnies continued to be That Much of An Asshole:

• Comparing public collar wearing to a stranger sitting beside them in a hotel lobby and telling them about organizing “dwarf-fetish meetups”
• Comparing public collar wearing to fetishists publicly wearing fursuits and “adult baby” diapers while discussing and acting out their kinks.
• “I'd also rather not know that people like being treated as sub-human and/or treating others as sub-human even if sex isn't involved.” [Thread frozen.]
• “BDSM is not a 'value.' It's a choice people make, and wearing a collar in public, which is a near universal symbol for ownership of an animal, is fucking skeevy. Yep, even when those punk/goth kids do it to go clubbing. It's gross, and damn right I'm going to judge people for doing it.” [Thread frozen after someone replied with, “Okay, fuck you.”]
• “Kink isn't sacred. From my point of view, BDSM is wrong, and people who get off on it suck for doing it.”
• “Yes, you're right, dressing without regard for society's gender norms is exactly the same thing as wearing shit that reduces you to the status of an animal.”
• “I guess it's fortunate that subs exist, to keep doms from treating non-consenting people like that.”

There were a few thoughtful comments from pro-kink nonnies. One wrote:

“My guess is that many of the people in this thread are not arguing about the sex part at all even if they say they are. I think a lot of this actually IS about the everyday aspect of BDSM. I think the gut reactions to things like ownership and slavery goes so deep that it is hard to disregard the anger even if it is consensual ownership. I also think people often associates submissives with women which make it worse because then people unconsciously mix it up with the society’s general attitude towards women.”

One nonny who wears an eternity collar stated, “This isn't my sex life, it's my life period.”

There was also a lot of snark aimed at Anti-BDSM Nonny. When one person complained, “God damn, you are so close to the edge of getting it and yet not, that it is painful to witness,” another replied, “With you on 'painful to witness' – wait, shit, does that mean they're involving me in a BDSM dynamic!?”

More snark: “Maybe their brain automatically replaces 'wearing a collar' with 'dressing full pony and pulling your dom to the wedding in a horse cart' and maybe even waiting outside grazing while they attend the human celebration.”

Anti-BDSM Nonny was also told: “It's a really, really wonderful thing that you're not into this stuff because you would be the worst, most damaging person to have a bdsm type relationship with, wow.”

When it was observed that Anti-BDSM Nonny seems to know nothing about either submission or dogs, a likely GSN chimed in: “When [Rosemary Sutcliff] writes about things like 'the proud submission of a hound', I really don't think her intended meaning is 'pitiably servile' rather than 'admirably loyal'…”

Finally, when Anti-BDSM Nonny asked, “So if I start ordering someone else's dog to go fetch my slippers, that's okay?”, Original Male Dog made an appearance: “Go fetch them yourself. I don't want any part of your creepy foot fetish. Do you have any idea what those things smell like? Ick ick ick.”

The wank even spilled over into a discussion of topping and bottoming downthread. That part of the discussion was frozen.

(Note: This was not the same wank as Kink-Shaming Wank.)