Morals ethics and tolerance in BDSM
- Thread starter catalina_francisco
- Start date
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Netzach said:Sure I can share my opinion, and I will, and I don't even require payment for it.
What no money, next thing you are going to say is that we should all turn into communists.
I do feel that giving your opinion, telling people how you feel and opening dialogue is something extremely important. If the end result of a dialogue is that the parties agree to disagree at least, at the minimum mutual respect has been gained and crystallisation of own opinions has been reached.
Francisco.
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Johnny Mayberry said:
That is not true. I have never said that BDSM is the perfect lifestyle. Quite frankly the only lifestyle that interests Me is the Ebonyfire lifestyle, which includes so called vanilla, polymory, D/s and Goddess knows what else.
I do not think in terms of perfection, but more in terms of what is perfect for Me. I leave others to row their own boats, and I keep them from capsizing Mine.
s'lara
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Posts
- 2,248
This topic has circulated on other threads in different formats, but with the same opinions expressed by the same individuals.
It is very clear where everyone stands on the issue of moral ethics/standards and tolerance of what is considered unethical in BDSM.
We're not here to streamline into one school of thought. i find discussing morality in relation to BDSM, even standard normal morals (alliterate that why don't you) to be a heated, yet often frustrating debate as the degree of morality in each of us is divergent and dependent upon personal viewpoint and current life positions.
While i am not saying the topic isn't a credible subject for debate, i do find the need to circle endlessly around it counterproductive. Those who don't share similar convictions will never see eye to eye, but as its been said before, expound on your beliefs if it moves you. Listen to others expression of morality and take from it what you will. But, lets just hope the final outcome of the discussion is positive as opposed to an exasperated session of "but you just don't get it."
Cheers all.
lara
It is very clear where everyone stands on the issue of moral ethics/standards and tolerance of what is considered unethical in BDSM.
We're not here to streamline into one school of thought. i find discussing morality in relation to BDSM, even standard normal morals (alliterate that why don't you) to be a heated, yet often frustrating debate as the degree of morality in each of us is divergent and dependent upon personal viewpoint and current life positions.
While i am not saying the topic isn't a credible subject for debate, i do find the need to circle endlessly around it counterproductive. Those who don't share similar convictions will never see eye to eye, but as its been said before, expound on your beliefs if it moves you. Listen to others expression of morality and take from it what you will. But, lets just hope the final outcome of the discussion is positive as opposed to an exasperated session of "but you just don't get it."
Cheers all.
lara
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Francisco,
Thank you for your thoughts.
Pure said:
My theory: This talk comes when the deviants want something beyond tolerance: they get into PR to encourage positive admiration. The deviance is touted as a basis for the most rigorous of moral principles.
Francisco replied:
Interesting theory but not the point I am making, the point is slightly different. I am not saying that our morals should be higher then that of the rest of the world, my claim is actually that we should have normal standard morals, and that we should not use BDSM as an excuse not to have morals. Follow at least the most basics of common sense in society. [...]
We're not in disagreement over common sense, what I called the obvious steps to stay outta jails, ERs and cemetaries.
I think the above, the claim to normal, not 'lower' morals (as opposed to 'higher' not normal) is a bit of a shift of position, to a more modest one. I refer to your initial post (re 'magnitude'), and more recently that of one you say is your twin, Johnny M:
JM: I am saying that we have at least the same ethical responsibilities as anyone else. Your sexual habits don't change your duty to your sexual partners, in the most basic sense. It is the fact that some of our behaviour is more dangerous that means we have to uphold a higher standard. If a vanilla lover is neglectful in bed, it means bad sex. If a Dom/me loses focus, someone could wind up with a serious injury.
If B is the BDSM level of morality, and N is the normal level. You say, just above, here, B=N. Earlier you suggested B>N.
Johnny says, clearly
NOT B<N, which translates B [> or =] N, but his example slips back to suggesting B>N. It's his tendency, and, with all due respect, yours.
What's going on, IMO, is that the original claims are getting toned down, or there is an attempt at it, due to the exigencies of debate.
------
Pure gave a hypothetical advocate's claim to high moral ground:
"Hey it's not appreciated , but bumfucking is really dangerous if you don't really know your stuff. You can get AIDs and die, for God's sake. So we bumfuckers have to practice the *most scrupulous* principles; we do not tolerate the least dishonesty in relationships because the stakes are of "such magnitude" [to borrow a phrase]. Further, Til Oil-'n-Bumfuckers Society raises a million dollars annually for improvements at the children's hospitals."
Francisco replied,
The reverse can also be said and I would argue is actually much more common.
"Hey it's not appreciated , but bumfucking is really dangerous if you don't really know your stuff. You can get AIDs and die, for God's sake. So we bumfuckers are fucked, we are doomed to die of aids anyway. Since we are going to die, fuck the rest of the world, we will fuck with as many as we can and not use any precaution, we will give as many as possible aid, what are they going to do, kill us we are living dead as it is."
If however the bumfuckers have morals and ethics, those same morals and ethics will make sure that not only they are protected, but the rest of the society is as well.
That is an excellent point, and one I was thinking of proposing against your position. In fact, bumfuckers, though exposed to danger, do not necessarily react in a/the virtuous way. (Same with "Masters.") Some, as you say, want to endanger others; others say (I've actually heard it),
"Part of the thrill of condomless bumfucking is the risk of death. We gay males like sex _at the edge_ and the whiff of death gives the height to erotism; we 'court' death or play with it, as a bull fighter does with the bull."
Overall though, my point applies to the deviates' groups seeking acceptance, not épater la bourgeousie. And most groups end up doing so, since the police raids get damned annoying.
In all, moderation of claims, or the convergence of views (if it's real) are marks of civilized debate, but it does make rebutting you more difficult.
That's enough for now.
J.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Pure said:
My theory: This talk comes when the deviants want something beyond tolerance: they get into PR to encourage positive admiration. The deviance is touted as a basis for the most rigorous of moral principles.
Francisco replied:
Interesting theory but not the point I am making, the point is slightly different. I am not saying that our morals should be higher then that of the rest of the world, my claim is actually that we should have normal standard morals, and that we should not use BDSM as an excuse not to have morals. Follow at least the most basics of common sense in society. [...]
We're not in disagreement over common sense, what I called the obvious steps to stay outta jails, ERs and cemetaries.
I think the above, the claim to normal, not 'lower' morals (as opposed to 'higher' not normal) is a bit of a shift of position, to a more modest one. I refer to your initial post (re 'magnitude'), and more recently that of one you say is your twin, Johnny M:
JM: I am saying that we have at least the same ethical responsibilities as anyone else. Your sexual habits don't change your duty to your sexual partners, in the most basic sense. It is the fact that some of our behaviour is more dangerous that means we have to uphold a higher standard. If a vanilla lover is neglectful in bed, it means bad sex. If a Dom/me loses focus, someone could wind up with a serious injury.
If B is the BDSM level of morality, and N is the normal level. You say, just above, here, B=N. Earlier you suggested B>N.
Johnny says, clearly
NOT B<N, which translates B [> or =] N, but his example slips back to suggesting B>N. It's his tendency, and, with all due respect, yours.
What's going on, IMO, is that the original claims are getting toned down, or there is an attempt at it, due to the exigencies of debate.
------
Pure gave a hypothetical advocate's claim to high moral ground:
"Hey it's not appreciated , but bumfucking is really dangerous if you don't really know your stuff. You can get AIDs and die, for God's sake. So we bumfuckers have to practice the *most scrupulous* principles; we do not tolerate the least dishonesty in relationships because the stakes are of "such magnitude" [to borrow a phrase]. Further, Til Oil-'n-Bumfuckers Society raises a million dollars annually for improvements at the children's hospitals."
Francisco replied,
The reverse can also be said and I would argue is actually much more common.
"Hey it's not appreciated , but bumfucking is really dangerous if you don't really know your stuff. You can get AIDs and die, for God's sake. So we bumfuckers are fucked, we are doomed to die of aids anyway. Since we are going to die, fuck the rest of the world, we will fuck with as many as we can and not use any precaution, we will give as many as possible aid, what are they going to do, kill us we are living dead as it is."
If however the bumfuckers have morals and ethics, those same morals and ethics will make sure that not only they are protected, but the rest of the society is as well.
That is an excellent point, and one I was thinking of proposing against your position. In fact, bumfuckers, though exposed to danger, do not necessarily react in a/the virtuous way. (Same with "Masters.") Some, as you say, want to endanger others; others say (I've actually heard it),
"Part of the thrill of condomless bumfucking is the risk of death. We gay males like sex _at the edge_ and the whiff of death gives the height to erotism; we 'court' death or play with it, as a bull fighter does with the bull."
Overall though, my point applies to the deviates' groups seeking acceptance, not épater la bourgeousie. And most groups end up doing so, since the police raids get damned annoying.
In all, moderation of claims, or the convergence of views (if it's real) are marks of civilized debate, but it does make rebutting you more difficult.
That's enough for now.
J.
Last edited:
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
We're just here to attack pure, out of boredom. You can feel free to ignore this thread in its entirety...s'lara said:
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Nope, not a toning down in the least, although I'm sure you would like it to be so.Pure said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
JM said,
//It is the fact that some of our behaviour is more dangerous that means we have to uphold a higher standard. //
I take it this is your present position: that bdsm practicers are called upon to follow higher moral standards--e.g., in honesty-- than the 'normal' everday ones of the majority of other people.
If this is your position, then, no, it hasn't changed in a while.
I think Francisco's may have.
J.
//It is the fact that some of our behaviour is more dangerous that means we have to uphold a higher standard. //
I take it this is your present position: that bdsm practicers are called upon to follow higher moral standards--e.g., in honesty-- than the 'normal' everday ones of the majority of other people.
If this is your position, then, no, it hasn't changed in a while.
I think Francisco's may have.
J.
Last edited:
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
s'lara said:
Then don't post to it. Open discussion is never counterproductive. It may be boring and redundant, but asside from that it is amusing.
Say what ya wanta say, and bedamned to those who would try to stop and/or curb your enthusiasm.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Here's the problem, Francisco and Johnny M.
It's pretty clear that an urge to subordinate another or to inflict pain on them is self-interested. Recognizing that, F (and JM too, iirc) has even claimed to be 'a selfish bastard'.
Now you're over here sayin' "I'm as moral as the next guy; you gotta have basic respect for others, etc."
BUT most people agree there's a difference, at least some of the time, between doing moral acts and doing self interested ones, though in the case of close family and friends they overlap or coincide. It's evident in dealings with at least some non-so-close people and institutions.
To take just one example, the moral guy pays the income tax owed on his true income; the self interested guy (aka 'tax cheat') pays the tax on the sources of income that are documented (W-4s in the US) and not in cash (though taking care to be plausible).
Please enlighten me.
Or if you don't want to go public and admit that all this morals talk is just good PR to get fodder for your own ends, you can PM me and I won't tell a soul.
It's pretty clear that an urge to subordinate another or to inflict pain on them is self-interested. Recognizing that, F (and JM too, iirc) has even claimed to be
'a selfish bastard'.Now you're over here sayin' "I'm as moral as the next guy; you gotta have basic respect for others, etc."
BUT most people agree there's a difference, at least some of the time, between doing moral acts and doing self interested ones, though in the case of close family and friends they overlap or coincide. It's evident in dealings with at least some non-so-close people and institutions.
To take just one example, the moral guy pays the income tax owed on his true income; the self interested guy (aka 'tax cheat') pays the tax on the sources of income that are documented (W-4s in the US) and not in cash (though taking care to be plausible).
Please enlighten me.
Or if you don't want to go public and admit that all this morals talk is just good PR to get fodder for your own ends, you can PM me and I won't tell a soul.
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Self interest (as in individualism) can very often be a very moral and ethical thing.
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
You are a rude cunt, with your little insults and innuendo. Fuck you, I don't need PR, I have what I want in life, and don't need to impress people here.Pure said:Here's the problem, Francisco and Johnny M.
It's pretty clear that an urge to subordinate another or to inflict pain on them is self-interested. Recognizing that, F (and JM too, iirc) has even claimed to be
Now you're over here sayin' "I'm as moral as the next guy; you gotta have basic respect for others, etc."
BUT most people agree there's a difference, at least some of the time, between doing moral acts and doing self interested ones, though in the case of close family and friends they overlap or coincide. It's evident in dealings with at least some non-so-close people and institutions.
To take just one example, the moral guy pays the income tax owed on his true income; the self interested guy (aka 'tax cheat') pays the tax on the sources of income that are documented (W-4s in the US) and not in cash (though taking care to be plausible).
Please enlighten me.
Or if you don't want to go public and admit that all this morals talk is just good PR to get fodder for your own ends, you can PM me and I won't tell a soul.
I act in my self-interest with my submissive...and I make sure she is acting in her self-interest in her submission. It can be looked at as a more intense version of a coach/athlete relationship, in which the physical pain and hardship that the coach inflicts is for the ultimate, long-term benefit of the athlete. While the coach may be acting in his own interest(money, fame, self-satisfaction, etc), he must also keep his athlete healthy and growing in the strengths and skills of the sport.
In the same way, while my wishes always come first, there is a larger plan at work, which benefits us both in this relationship.
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Johnny Mayberry said:
And in helping the athelete become better, again, the coach is making himself look better too. The athlete... hey, he might go pro and be famous, too!
It's about individualism and becoming the best you can be at whatever that is. It becomes a ripple and touches the lives of others, hopefully in good and profound ways.
I love your analogy, JM.
And yes, I guess I am trolling you... sorry. (Not something I usually do.)
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Troll away, ADR...it makes me feel special!A Desert Rose said:
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Ebonyfire said:Grumble, grumble, Johnny gets all the best trolls.
I've trolled after you forever... you already know that. ;-)
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
And never acted on it...how strange...A Desert Rose said:
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Johnny Mayberry said:And never acted on it...how strange...
And you know this.... how? Maybe I have, and maybe I have not....
;-)
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
*throws ethics out the window*A Desert Rose said:
Now, where were we? Cash, in small bills, or did you have something else in mind?
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Johnny Mayberry said:
If you're asking me... I like bright, shiny, sparkly things. Diamonds come to mind first.
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Actually, I was expecting you to pay me...A Desert Rose said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Johnny M
I act in my self-interest with my submissive...and I make sure she is acting in her self-interest in her submission. It can be looked at as a more intense version of a coach/athlete relationship, in which the physical pain and hardship that the coach inflicts is for the ultimate, long-term benefit of the athlete. While the coach may be acting in his own interest(money, fame, self-satisfaction, etc), he must also keep his athlete healthy and growing in the strengths and skills of the sport.
Not a bad analogy, JM. But that point was addressed in my post already.
...cunt...
Fuck you,
----
Try to stay cool, JM; fits of pique and temper are not befitting a dominate master of your imposing stature and impressive capacity for creative insult.
I act in my self-interest with my submissive...and I make sure she is acting in her self-interest in her submission. It can be looked at as a more intense version of a coach/athlete relationship, in which the physical pain and hardship that the coach inflicts is for the ultimate, long-term benefit of the athlete. While the coach may be acting in his own interest(money, fame, self-satisfaction, etc), he must also keep his athlete healthy and growing in the strengths and skills of the sport.
Not a bad analogy, JM. But that point was addressed in my post already.
...cunt...
Fuck you,
----
Try to stay cool, JM; fits of pique and temper are not befitting a dominate master of your imposing stature and impressive capacity for creative insult.
