*in my arrogant and correct opinion completely based on objectively-observable facts, Right Reason, and a dash of Angostura Bitters.

So, I over-applied my reaction to (your post + the article) to just (your post). Sorry about that.

In hindsight, I think it was your sarcastic remark about faking gravitas that made me push back so hard. I’ve been blogging a really long time, and I strive for honesty. That snide insinuation (as I took it) convinced me that you weren’t offering friendly feedback.

The other thing is, when I posted the photo, I really wasn’t joking. I had not seen the linked article yet, and there are quite a few parliaments that have strict rules on who may speak when and how that may be enforced. Although there was clearly a struggle going on in the photo, I thought and assumed that she was being silenced by her fellow legislators for speaking out of turn, comparable to (but less politely than) a legislator might be removed by the sergeant-at-arms in an American legislature for ignoring the gavel of the chair. Hence, “robust procedures”, and also some responsibility for her situation.

Now, the later-added link proves I didn’t know what the photo was; and if you want to yell at me for bad political research and fact-checking on my porn blog, well, fine, but it’s not going to hurt my feelings much. Not my reason for being here.

At the end of the day, though, I think it’s important to remember that although this blog has a theme (taking pleasure in the beauty of restrained women) I don’t feel constrained to stick to the theme in every post. There are posts that aren’t light-hearted, there are posts that aren’t about consensual bondage, there’s even a post in my archives showing a woman in bondage about to be executed by one of the despotic Asian hellhole countries. I don’t return often to any of these heavier non-erotic bondage themes, but nor do I feel any obligation to ignore them or to make a pedantic and pious speech (“now, don’t be aroused by this!”) every time I go there. You’re all grownups and you can decide for yourself what to be amused or aroused by; it’s not my place.

Anyway, Julian, your distaste is your business. But it’s one thing to say “this is not the sort of thing I want or expect to see here” (useful feedback) and quite another to suggest that it’s not OK to blog a specific thing (which is how I took your first comment, and I still believe it’s the fairest interpretation.) It’s the difference between “I don’t like this” and “You shouldn’t post this”. You’re now saying something more like “You shouldn’t have posted in that tone of voice” and I’m claiming you misunderstood my tone, so it looks like plenty of misunderstandings all around — about par for the internets to be honest.

“Real-life + non-consensual = not ok, even if it’s a politician” refers to the suffocating of the politician (not “the post content”)… which is why I suggested a different tone regarding the former, in the latter.

It seems to me you took my comment more personally than it was intended; I like your blog and certainly didn’t intend an attack on you. Just expressed distaste for what seemed (and still seems) like a joke in poor taste.

I would like to think that friends can still be friends, AND point out when they think a joke is in poor taste.

I’m calling bullshit on your attempt to backtrack and deny what you said in your first post.

“They seem to have some robust parliamentary procedures in Taiwan,” struck me as making a joke in rather poor taste.

It appears that in their rush to silence her, they almost killed her…
“Some lawmakers suffocated her, and she passed out”

Damn Taiwan parliament, you scary.