The Golden Rule and BDSM

[eastern sun]

I was raised to use the Golden Rule as a yardstick to measure my behavior.

But it's not that simple in these BDSM relationships.

For instance, I believe in mutual respect in long-term D/s relationships. But does that mean I always want to be treated with respect? Do I obey my husband, because I believe he should obey me? Should I hit him, because I want him to hit me?

And what about s & m relationships? Does the sadist inflict pain, because s/he wants pain? Does the masochist receive it, because s/he wants to give it?

I'd been thinking about this, before it was brought up in the "ethics" thread. I don't think it means we should throw out the Golden Rule. I still think it's a valuable yardstick. But . . .

What do you think? How do you apply the Golden Rule in BDSM?

 

[Netzach]

If I liked being hit and M liked hitting me, I would be hit by him. It's really not that far off. Do unto others if they were appreciative of that kind of thing?

 

[intothewoods]

The golden rule kind of applies better to friendships, business relationships, interactions with strangers, etc. than romantic relationships, doesn't it? I mean, it shouldn't, but sometimes we're so comfortable with our partners that they are the only ones who become the recipient of our stress.

Do unto others rests on equal treatment, but D/s relationships aren't equal. I don't get to demand anything from him. And of course, you want to be respected, but then you kinda don't, right? I mean, that's always a difficult balance.

 

[eastern sun]

If I liked being hit and M liked hitting me, I would be hit by him. It's really not that far off. Do unto others if they were appreciative of that kind of thing?

Yes. That's kind of my thinking. Do unto others what they want done unto them. And then the reverse would be . . . do unto me what I want done to me.

Hence . . .contracts, checklists, agreements, communication, etc.

Kind of like the lover who keeps asking "do you like it when I . . .?" "is this ok with you?" while they're in the middle of the act. Giving me the chance to say, "well, if you could just do it a little harder" or "a little faster" or even the bold "surprise me, honey" But all that actually drives me crazy, makes me want to run away.

I actually prefer not knowing what's coming, and talking about it afterwards. If talking seems necessary.

And then there's still this whole unspoken realm where we are all reading each other's behavior. Someone is asking to be hurt, and I don't trust that it's coming from a healthy place. So I don't do what they want. And maybe even tell them to question themselves.

Am I using the Golden Rule, then? Or some p/maternalistic impulse to take care of them, that presumes to know them better than they know themselves?

Sometimes I think a much better yardstick of our own behavior is to look at what we find most objectionable in others, and then see whether or not we're doing it ourselves.

 

[eastern sun]

The golden rule kind of applies better to friendships, business relationships, interactions with strangers, etc. than romantic relationships, doesn't it? I mean, it shouldn't, but sometimes we're so comfortable with our partners that they are the only ones who become the recipient of our stress.

Do unto others rests on equal treatment, but D/s relationships aren't equal. I don't get to demand anything from him. And of course, you want to be respected, but then you kinda don't, right? I mean, that's always a difficult balance.

When it comes to stress, I agree with you, but am willing to concede that we would all be happier if we were able to avoid taking it out on those nearest and dearest. Hence, the importance of "stress management," etc.

I view my D/s relationship as a pairing of equals, with different needs, desires, temperaments, etc. that happen to mesh more harmoniously when the power exchange is in place.

It just isn't possible to balance specific behaviors on each side of the equation.

And that's what makes it hard to apply the Golden Rule as a yardstick.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Golden Rule really falls apart when people mistake the little details for the Big Stuff.

How would I like to be treated? With respect and tolerance. That's the biggie, and it's a very general biggie, and says nothing about the other ways I want to be treated-- some of which I do not want to do for you in return, let's face it.

 

[eastern sun]

The Golden Rule really falls apart when people mistake the little details for the Big Stuff.

How would I like to be treated? With respect and tolerance. That's the biggie, and it's a very general biggie, and says nothing about the other ways I want to be treated-- some of which I do not want to do for you in return, let's face it.

This makes sense. But do you think the Big Stuff still applies in situations where it's not reciprocated?

I mean, that's what I thought the Golden Rule was all about. Doing the Big Stuff in spite of others' behavior. It never offers a promise of reciprocal treatment.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Honestly, I *do* expect to be treated with respect and fairness as I would also treat him.

I expect to be respected as a human being (most of the time) and as a valuable contributor to the partnership.

I expect to be treated with fairness, in that I'll be treated fairly within the structure of the relationship, that his wishes will be clearly stated, that changes to the rules and structure will be explained, and if need be, discussed, and that he'll uphold the promises he has made.

I expect myself to respect him at all times, and to show that by serving him to the best of my ability, and deferring to his decisions.

I expect myself to treat him with fairness, in that I will let him know what's going on, and give him the full feedback on where I'm at so that he can make informed decisions, that I'll not make unreasonable requests or make demands.

And that's just the things that I can think of a stupid o'clock.

I think the Golden Rule does apply, but more in principles than deeds. And the things you do to uphold those principles differs, depending on your D/s orientation.

I'm probably blathering, but that's what I took the q to mean.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

This makes sense. But do you think the Big Stuff still applies in situations where it's not reciprocated?

I mean, that's what I thought the Golden Rule was all about. Doing the Big Stuff in spite of others' behavior. It never offers a promise of reciprocal treatment.

You know, I had never thought of that.

But I do think to expect that reciprocal treatment is a 'normal' thing.

 

[eastern sun]

Honestly, I *do* expect to be treated with respect and fairness as I would also treat him.

I expect to be respected as a human being (most of the time) and as a valuable contributor to the partnership.

I expect to be treated with fairness, in that I'll be treated fairly within the structure of the relationship, that his wishes will be clearly stated, that changes to the rules and structure will be explained, and if need be, discussed, and that he'll uphold the promises he has made.

I expect myself to respect him at all times, and to show that by serving him to the best of my ability, and deferring to his decisions.

I expect myself to treat him with fairness, in that I will let him know what's going on, and give him the full feedback on where I'm at so that he can make informed decisions, that I'll not make unreasonable requests or make demands.

And that's just the things that I can think of a stupid o'clock.

I think the Golden Rule does apply, but more in principles than deeds. And the things you do to uphold those principles differs, depending on your D/s orientation.

I'm probably blathering, but that's what I took the q to mean.

Isn't it funny that we want to add that (most of the time) qualifier? I'd say the same thing, by the way.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Isn't it funny that we want to add that (most of the time) qualifier? I'd say the same thing, by the way.

Doesn't most of life come with one qualifier or another?

I could have thrown a few others in a various points.

But yeah, for me it is a (most of the time) because I tend to find a little decontructing and dehumanising not only hot at times, but cleansing in a way as well.

But to be treated like that always? Yuck.

 

[eastern sun]

Doesn't most of life come with one qualifier or another?

I could have thrown a few others in a various points.

But yeah, for me it is a (most of the time) because I tend to find a little decontructing and dehumanising not only hot at times, but cleansing in a way as well.

But to be treated like that always? Yuck.

I like that word.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I like that word.

Sometimes I do consider myself lucky that my wiring and proclivities lend themselves to being able to hit that big reset button every once in a while.

 

[Netzach]

I do function on a reciprocity thing when it comes to switching though, the question of me switching.It's impossible for me to take seriously as an authority someone who can't trust me to handle him/her at my own whim for a scene or seven. Really? Me? I'm so terrifying? I'm so incompetent that you can't trust me? Your ego is more dainty or more highly valuable than mine is? A potential partner who won't hand him/herself over to me but expects the reciprocal is someone who can't cope with me as I actually am.

When it comes to the inverse, this doesn't apply. I'm perfectly content to deal with people who have NO desire to exert control over me. When someone proposes being in charge though, this is my non-negotiable. Those who look at me and fail to see that me.on top. is the main theme in my attraction and sexuality aren't really as attracted to me as they might think they are.

 

[LearningSub]

deleted

 

[Stella_Omega]

Those who look at me and fail to see that me.on top. is the main theme in my attraction and sexuality aren't really as attracted to me as they might think they are.

Tell me about it. Because anyone who doesn't notice that is really blind to other subtleties as well.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

You know, I have thought about this a number of times. I was introduced to something called the "Platinum Rule" a couple years ago, and I think it is more applicable in D/s relationships than the "golden rule"

The platinum rule is this:

"Treat others the way they want to be treated."

Because you are right.. I don't want to be treated the same way my Dominant partner would want to be treated. And I wouldn't want to treat them the way I wanted to be treated.

Really, really thought-provoking thread, Eastern Sun

Seconded. The Golden rule works for strangers, acquaintances, friends, parents, and non-SO family. People with whom your relationship is based on mutual respect. The Platinum rule is the only way to go with romantic relationships.

 

[Soumis]

I don't think this is going to be well received.

Seconded. The Golden rule works for strangers, acquaintances, friends, parents, and non-SO family. People with whom your relationship is based on mutual respect. The Platinum rule is the only way to go with romantic relationships.

It's probably the semantics that are bothering me about this, or at least, I hope it's the semantics bothering me about this.

The way I'm reading much of this thread is that mutual respect isn't a fundamental part of a bdsm relationship, and that just rubs me the wrong way. I'm not letting someone who doesn't respect me beat me, or tie me up, or set me on fire. Nor could I respect someone who doesn't respect me. Respect is about recognizing the value in another human being. About acknowledging their worth and your own. Bdsm without respect to me sounds like abuse. If a PYL can't respect a pyl than why should the PYL in question respect their limits? And vice versa. A pyl who doesn't respect a PYL is putting themselves in a unhealthy relationship, one I hope a PYL would be weary of.

I think the perspective of the vanilla world is that bdsm is an unequal exchange. I didn't think as many practitioners thought of it that way.

 

[BLoved]

I was raised to use the Golden Rule as a yardstick to measure my behavior.

But it's not that simple in these BDSM relationships.

For instance, I believe in mutual respect in long-term D/s relationships. But does that mean I always want to be treated with respect? Do I obey my husband, because I believe he should obey me? Should I hit him, because I want him to hit me?

And what about s & m relationships? Does the sadist inflict pain, because s/he wants pain? Does the masochist receive it, because s/he wants to give it?

I'd been thinking about this, before it was brought up in the "ethics" thread. I don't think it means we should throw out the Golden Rule. I still think it's a valuable yardstick. But . . .

What do you think? How do you apply the Golden Rule in BDSM?

Treat others the way you would be treated were the situation reversed.

In other words, when it comes to ethics treat my beloved the way I would want to be treated if I were the submissive and she the domme.

 

[Netzach]

Sometimes respecting someone entails respecting their need not to feel respected.

 

[trojan_man_co]

clearly the golden rule when it comes to BDSM leads to golden showers...

he or she who desires to piss on another must respect there right to wish to piss on him or her back...

 

[Dearelliot]

Geez...I thought the golden rule was "the guy with the gold makes the rules"...

 

[Soumis]

Sometimes respecting someone entails respecting their need not to feel respected.

I see a difference between that and thinking someone isn't deserving of respect to begin with.

Goes hand in hand with using derogatory terms to me. Sometimes they push the right buttons, sometimes the wrong ones.

 

[FurryFury]

I tried the golden rule. It didn't work well because my partner likes things differently than I do. Now I use what I like to call the platinum rule, which is, do unto others as they would like you to do to them, provided you know them well enough to know, WTF that would be.

 

[LearningSub]

deleted