River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby putasockinit2 » Wed May 07, 2014 7:48 am

Found this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... trage.html
'Too many friends and not enough true friends'
The Kanye of tugs ;) :lol:
Stuck between wanting to quit and wanting to stay...

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby NoMeansYes » Wed May 07, 2014 8:02 am

Not something I find offensive (then again I wouldn't being both male and interested in bondage), though I can understand the sexist connotations, especially if you've no interest in being gagged. Someone described it as "assault" in the comments section which did seem a little over-board :lol:

My advice to them would be: Try it - you just might like it after all. :big:

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Wed May 07, 2014 7:16 pm

It is a little sexist, but it's also a joke. People really overreacted to it. An "atrocity?" Seriously?

You also know if this had been aimed at women to use on men most of these people wouldn't have said a thing.

Also, does that site really call its female readers "Wonder Women?"

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Vakira » Thu May 08, 2014 1:10 pm

It is quite misogynistic plus is enforces a man's belief that if his partner says anything he doesn't want to hear, she's basically just talking crap.

If I had a boyfriend and he bought one for me, I'd be kind of hurt, because it's like "You just need to shut up and look nice"

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Thu May 08, 2014 2:52 pm

If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging', he wouldn't apply this gag to her face, he'd save time and money by applying his fist instead.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby gaggednbarefoot » Fri May 09, 2014 5:45 am

Solution. Can be used by either partner on the other . I wouldn't object to wearing one during east Enders if she wears one for the football. Accusing having us bund and gagged is tge only wY we'd watch football or eastendErs. Better still bound gagged and blindfolded to watch. Hmmear plugs would help too

Just a modern version of a scolds bridle really.
Tie me up, take my shoes and socks and tickle my feet.

Avatar thanks to Jason Todman

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Fri May 09, 2014 6:09 am

A lot of scolds bridles had spikes that could inflict damage on the tongue and inflict pain in that manner.

Used a lot of the time on women suspected of witchcraft, and guess what happened to them all too often.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby gaggednbarefoot » Fri May 09, 2014 8:16 am

hey I wasn't offering to wear a scolds bridle, just to be tied up and ball gagged during eastenders
Tie me up, take my shoes and socks and tickle my feet.

Avatar thanks to Jason Todman

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby sarobah » Fri May 09, 2014 8:15 pm

Kyle wrote: You also know if this had been aimed at women to use on men most of these people wouldn't have said a thing.

Do we really know this, or are you just making it up?

skybird137 wrote:If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging', he wouldn't apply this gag to her face, he'd save time and money by applying his fist instead.

I suggest what you mean is...
If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging' and thought this gag was appropriate, he is probably a violent scumbag who will apply his fist instead.



Vakira wrote:It is quite misogynistic plus is enforces a man's belief that if his partner says anything he doesn't want to hear, she's basically just talking crap.
If I had a boyfriend and he bought one for me, I'd be kind of hurt, because it's like "You just need to shut up and look nice"

You have this exactly right.

What the “you can’t take a joke” crowd are missing is that this “anti-nag gag” implies non-consensual bondage. I don’t expect members of this forum to condone that in any shape or form. If you do, you do not belong here.

[Edited in response to skybird137's comment, below.]
Last edited by sarobah on Fri May 09, 2014 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Fri May 09, 2014 9:33 pm

If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging' and thought this gag was appropriate, he is probably a violent scumbag who will apply his fist instead.


That was exactly what I meant, Saborah. Anyone who is prepared to use force to keep their other quiet is certainly not going to bother with this thing.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby sarobah » Fri May 09, 2014 10:23 pm

Fair enough. I get your point.

skybird137 wrote:A lot of scolds bridles had spikes that could inflict damage on the tongue and inflict pain in that manner.
Used a lot of the time on women suspected of witchcraft, and guess what happened to them all too often.

This is true as well. It's easy to make jokes and it's okay to fantasize, but we must always keep in mind that there is and always has been a dark side to bondage.
There is a line that is not to be crossed, and that is where violence and forcible restraint are condoned.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Vakira » Sun May 11, 2014 9:55 am

sarobah wrote:
Kyle wrote: You also know if this had been aimed at women to use on men most of these people wouldn't have said a thing.

Do we really know this, or are you just making it up?

skybird137 wrote:If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging', he wouldn't apply this gag to her face, he'd save time and money by applying his fist instead.

I suggest what you mean is...
If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging' and thought this gag was appropriate, he is probably a violent scumbag who will apply his fist instead.



Vakira wrote:It is quite misogynistic plus is enforces a man's belief that if his partner says anything he doesn't want to hear, she's basically just talking crap.
If I had a boyfriend and he bought one for me, I'd be kind of hurt, because it's like "You just need to shut up and look nice"

You have this exactly right.

What the “you can’t take a joke” crowd are missing is that this “anti-nag gag” implies non-consensual bondage. I don’t expect members of this forum to condone that in any shape or form. If you do, you do not belong here.

[Edited in response to skybird137's comment, below.]


Hi, thanks for coming into this discussion.

Just finally to all of you, equality doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone the same, so it isn't fair to say "I'm okay with that, you should be too".

Please try and see this from a female perspective, particularly insecure ones, it could come across as a hurtful comment about us an reinforce things we already worry about.

You don't have to get all up in arms about it with us, but if you just TRY and understand without making us feel bad for reacting at all, that goes a long way. xxx

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Sun May 11, 2014 12:08 pm

People can get offended if they want. It doesn't mean we're all going to agree it's offensive. I agree it's in poor taste, but there are a lot of things done in poor taste no one says anything about.

As Skybird said above, no one is going to use this to shut someone up. If they're really going to do that, it's going to be done another way.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby gaggednbarefoot » Sun May 11, 2014 12:29 pm

Let me clarify.

i do not like the "Anti-nag-gag" it is a scolds bridle(without the mutilationpart) designed for a man to shut awoman up agaiinst her will.

I'f it were sold as fun to keep your partner quiet with his/her consnt " then tah fits the ethos of thjis board, my playtimes and TUGs in general. mutual consent for fun.
Tie me up, take my shoes and socks and tickle my feet.

Avatar thanks to Jason Todman

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Sun May 11, 2014 12:34 pm

As Skybird said above, no one is going to use this to shut someone up. If they're really going to do that, it's going to be done another way.


If? Don't you mean when? What planet are you living on Kyle, because it doesn't seem to be the rest of us. I heard people twist the truth before, but trying to pretend that domestic violence suddenly doesn't exist so that you can have some hope of winning your argument has got to be quite the most disgusting thing I have seen. This even beats the 'Jump in the fire' stuff.

Anything that in anyway condones what these scumbags do or suggests that it is okay, should not be acceptable in modern society.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Sun May 11, 2014 12:38 pm

Attacked by someone you just agreed with, for agreeing with them, you see something new every day...

All that stuff about pretending domestic violence doesn't exist, I have no idea how to respond to, because I have no earthly idea where you drug that out from.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Sun May 11, 2014 12:50 pm

Attacked by someone you just agreed with, for agreeing with them, you see something new every day...


Agree with me? I wasn't condoning the item, I am against it. You have ignored everything else that I have said and tried to pretend that I am on your side.

I am not on your side.


All that stuff about pretending domestic violence doesn't exist, I have no idea how to respond to, because I have no earthly idea where you drug that out from.


If they're really going to do that


Putting the 'if' in is like saying it might not happen, and pretending it's not happening.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Sun May 11, 2014 12:55 pm

skybird137 wrote:
Attacked by someone you just agreed with, for agreeing with them, you see something new every day...


Agree with me? I wasn't condoning the item, I am against it. You have ignored everything else that I have said and tried to pretend that I am on your side.

I am not on your side.


All that stuff about pretending domestic violence doesn't exist, I have no idea how to respond to, because I have no earthly idea where you drug that out from.


If they're really going to do that


Putting the 'if' in is like saying it might not happen, and pretending it's not happening.


So I'm ignoring things you've said, but you're clearly adding things to what I've said to try to make your own point.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Sun May 11, 2014 1:13 pm

So I'm ignoring things you've said, but you're clearly adding things to what I've said to try to make your own point.


No, I just extrapolated the inference when you said "If they're really going to do that."

Now, if you had made the point clear that "if" meant "when" and that you are clearly against such actions or anything that can in anyway be seen to condone such behaviour then I would stand corrected. ~That hasn't happened though.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Sun May 11, 2014 1:36 pm

skybird137 wrote:
So I'm ignoring things you've said, but you're clearly adding things to what I've said to try to make your own point.


No, I just extrapolated the inference when you said "If they're really going to do that."

Now, if you had made the point clear that "if" meant "when" and that you are clearly against such actions or anything that can in anyway be seen to condone such behaviour then I would stand corrected. ~That hasn't happened though.


If you are trying to make a point about taking your earlier comment out of context, it has been noted.

If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop. Not only because I didn't remotely say anything close to that effect, but because it also makes your own attacks on me about misreading you look very strange and hypocritical in nature.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Sun May 11, 2014 1:50 pm

If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop. Not only because I didn't remotely say anything close to that effect, but because it also makes your own attacks on me about misreading you look very strange and hypocritical in nature.


The last post wasn't trying to insinuate anything.In fact, I was giving you a chance to clearly state your position.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Sun May 11, 2014 2:06 pm

skybird137 wrote:
If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop. Not only because I didn't remotely say anything close to that effect, but because it also makes your own attacks on me about misreading you look very strange and hypocritical in nature.


The last post wasn't trying to insinuate anything.In fact, I was giving you a chance to clearly state your position.


I pretty clearly stated what I meant above. If someone really doesn't understand what I said and asks for clarification, I'll explain myself to them. If someone wants to attack against something I never said, I don't feel any responsibility to reply to that.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby skybird137 » Sun May 11, 2014 2:24 pm

The comment doesn't state your position in general, it just states your position about what I said, concerning that your line gave the inference that it isn't happening.

If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop.
You seemed to have taken the long way around to suggest that it is "when" and not "if".
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby Kyle » Sun May 11, 2014 7:12 pm

I didn't address the "if" and "when" thing at all, because I still have no idea where in the world you came up with that idea from anyway, and the more you talk about it, the less sense it makes to me. I feel like I should apologize to Putasockinit2 for helping to contribute to the major derailing of this thread for discussing it this long, especially since nothing came out of it.

Re: River Island and the 'anti-nag gag'

Postby sarobah » Sun May 11, 2014 11:12 pm

Kyle wrote:I feel like I should apologize to Putasockinit2 for helping to contribute to the major derailing of this thread for discussing it this long, especially since nothing came out of it.

I will add that I am not attacking the "anti-nag gag" per se... and certainly not putasockinit2 for posting about it.
Seen in the right light, it's :lol: . It is also sexist, and my "contribution" to the debate was in reaction to any insinuation that objecting to the implicit sexism is worthy of :roll: or :x .

While I am not pointing the finger at anyone here... The phrases "can't take a joke" and "political correctness (gone mad)" should be stricken from the language. (Would I be out of place in suggesting that there is a use here for the :gag: ?)
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.