Morals ethics and tolerance in BDSM

[Stella_Omega]

this is not bloved's thread.

 

[BLoved]

this is not bloved's thread.

You should thank CutieMouse:

Bump...

Bumping a seven-year old discussion with nothing to add was her idea.

Then you can thank yourself and your friends for allowing your obsession with me run riot over page 5.

I did not make this thread mine ... you did.

 

[Xelebes]

this is not bloved's thread.

 

[CutieMouse]

You should thank CutieMouse:



Bumping a seven-year old discussion with nothing to add was her idea.

Then you can thank yourself and your friends for allowing your obsession with me run riot over page 5.

I did not make this thread mine ... you did.

Actually, I bumped a several year old thread because every once in a while I scout 100+ pages back into the BDSM archives and bump something; I've been doing it for years. Sometimes I bump because I miss the insights of an old poster, sometimes I bump because I think the old thread might add interest to current discussions on the board, sometimes I bump to remind myself to read/add to the thread, myself.

I bumped two threads the other day over the course of roughly 45 minutes, shortly before going into work. Then I watched you throw a hissy fit because you couldn't comprehend the difference between a poster bumping two old threads over the course of a morning (one relevant to the current discussions of ethics & BDSM that has been of interest lately), and you posting 24 threads in 30 minutes.

I may or may not add to the discussion here; I bumped this one to offer another view of the subject of ethics and BDSM - I didn't think you would mind so much, given that you have commented on the need for a community to have more than one point of view to consider...

 

[Seurat]

You should thank CutieMouse

.

I have. Two or three times now, I think. As I did, CM (and others) thought that you had something to say which deserved to be heard, whether or not we agreed with none, some, or all of it. Note: I speak for only myself, and say 'we' only out of what I have observed.

Attempts to help you post in a way in which would promote discussion were met with personal attacks and vitriol. Further attempts were met with more attacks and accusations. Your replies finally succeeded, and members who would most likely have been very accepting of your views began to react just as you said they had been previously. 88 pages of obsession, you say? Looking back through that thread, I see that nearly half of the posts are yours.

You created your own self-fulfilling prophecy. You came in saying that the world was against you, then threw rocks at everybody and everything in sight until some people started throwing back. Then claimed, "see? I told you so!" Any of the hostility you have seen seems to have been a direct result of your own attitude and actions. Care to object? FloggingMolly set up a poll which asked about your message with regards to how it was delivered. Of the 26 people that commented on how you delivered your message (disregarding the agree/disagree factor), only one said that you delivered it well.

Now, I am at the point where I can't see the message because the deliverer is busy hitting me about the head and neck while I try to read. Your own actions have determined to me that, regardless of whatever you may have wanted to say, you have tainted it.

Not the people that posted about you. Not the people that tried to help you put your post in non-antagonistic words. Not the people that brought up old threads for discussion in order to compare and contrast your works. None of them has, to me, undermined what you were trying to say. Only you.

So, do I thank CM? Did, and will most likely in the future. I even offered to buy her a coffee, which I don't drink. If I were you, I would thank her, too. And Etoile, and Stella, and Satin, and anybody else that has replied to any of your posts at any time in a rational manner, because they were only trying to help. Don't bother quoting anything they said after you started throwing rocks; you undermined the validity of your presentation arguments long before that.


As of now, I think you kicked the good Samaritans in the balls enough that you no longer get the oil.


So, if you want to now take this post apart line by line and comment on each sentence as to how it shows me to be a demon from the casual community, when you know absolutely nothing about me and my presence outside of what I have posted on these boards and Lit, I am sure you will. Just as I am sure that you will follow up each line with something disconnected from the sentence, posted in one line bullets. Make sure that you add in all of my comments attacking you personally while you're at it. If anything I have said can be slightly misconstrued, be sure to avoid the original quotes and contents and thereby twist it.

Or, as you have done so often in the past to CM, myself, and the others that simply tried to help you post in a non-confrontational way, you will simply ignore me and this post, and look for an easier target.




~smiles~, right back at you.

 

[pierced_boy]

This a great thread and topic

Francisco commented as in the quote at the end.

It's pretty hard to argue with an idealized picture. I'm reminded of what's said to be the views of Japanese owners and managers of big businesses: There cannot be a conflict between the owners/managers and the employees for their needs are both being fulfilled in interdependent fashion. It's a family. EVEN were there a situation where say, some workers were (seemingly) unfairly docked in their pay, that money can be presumed to go to the good of the company and hence ultimately to benefit those very 'unfairly treated' persons.

Similarly if one considers a farm family, in ideal terms: Suppose an eldest son in a farm family complained of unfairly being made to work till midnight, the father might well point out that the harvest required those man hours, right then; and the benefits will accrue to all, including the 'overworked' son.

Returning to the Japanese case, I don't doubt that if there were a discontent, the managers would reply along your lines; Managers and workers 'choose' one another to satisfy the respective needs of each, and choice must be done carefully. Not all persons are suitable members of the family, and so, if unhappily placed, they would best--by mutual agreement, not through firing-- leave and look for a company where they do fit in.

This may be thought of as an 'organic' --or some would say, fascistic--view of large business organizations, like the Sony and the IBM 'families.'

In general, it's only actual cases that may be looked at, with actual people, if one wants critical analysis. We have to look an actual factory where there's huge overtime and a siphoning of money, not to company betterment, but to entertainment for the executives. We can then say, of those *actual* executives that they've placed their interests ahead of those of the employees

Similarly, we have to look at actual "dom/sub" relationships with actual people, to see morality or lack thereof. These would not always work in the ideal ways you attribute to your model. There might really be an 'unfair' punishment that didnt 'work for the best' or 'teach all persons valuable lessons' or 'reveal the sub's hitherto unknown resources'-- these being the kind of smoke blowing phrases that can occur in discussing a purely ideal situation.

Post hoc, a 'benefit' can always be imagined for a sub, let's say one who perishes through strangulation in the dom's home-designed suspension apparatus: We say: He had learned what he could in this life and, in cosmic terms it was time that he move onto a higher plane, though we all shall miss him. OR, For some sensitive souls, an early death is most merciful (Keats, Shelly, etc.) and here the Master is profoundly grateful for the opportunity to assist this one.

J.


//F: There is no conflict situation Pure, in fulfilling BDSM relationships all the parties involved get their needs answered that is the whole idea behind BDSM. Even in those situations where the submissive is challenged, or treated unfair, it is fulfilling the needs of both. Even in correcting behaviour and having to give punishment there is no conflict. In effect if there would be the relationship would end very soon.

Of course for the relationship to work there needs to be parties involved which are very compatible which is why the process of choosing your partner is so important. It is when the partners are not compatible that it goes wrong. //

I read this and though of asking Pure to revisit it and discuss the issue further. Sniping from posters will make that hard and swamp real information so lets stay on topic

I was reading some Wilde today and one character says "Conscience and cowardice are the same thing, Basil. conscience is the trade-name of the firm. That is all."

This got me thinking about what Pure was meaning in the above quote and how we would act without conscience , that is if we were not cowards to our nature. If the assertion is true at all (Wilde's and/or Pure's). I hope i have got this across

H

 

[Seurat]

Now that that is off my chest,...

I think that if you are going to discuss morality and ethics, and why they may be different in a BDSM relationship, the biggest factor you have to contend with is the subjugation of another person, either through mental or physical domination. A sub, by allowing themselves to be dominated, is giving up some of their inherent rights in order to achieve some other goal. If that goal is pleasurable, the sub could be considered to be doing it for ethical and moral reasons. If subjugation is done do to personality disorders (i.e., the person in question suffered trauma as a child and now feels the need to proport that trauma as the status quo), then there is certainly a case for calling it an abusive relationship. The Domme, regardless of intent, could be considered an enabler, and therefore an abuser.

This not only applies to BDSM relationships, but to any person to person(s) type interaction. The abuser doesn't have to be willing or even cognizant of their position as an abuser.

As for the dominant being an abuser, I think that we can all see that scenario all too readily. But keep in mind that one bad apple doesn't ruin the whole damn bunch. It is easy to find an example that contradicts the norm.

Now, get back to the discussion at hand. I need to gather up something for breakfast and expect things to be back on track by the time I return.

 

[intothewoods]

What about tolerance?

 

[eastern sun]

I think that if you are going to discuss morality and ethics, and why they may be different in a BDSM relationship, the biggest factor you have to contend with is the subjugation of another person, either through mental or physical domination. A sub, by allowing themselves to be dominated, is giving up some of their inherent rights in order to achieve some other goal. If that goal is pleasurable, the sub could be considered to be doing it for ethical and moral reasons. If subjugation is done do to personality disorders (i.e., the person in question suffered trauma as a child and now feels the need to proport that trauma as the status quo), then there is certainly a case for calling it an abusive relationship. The Domme, regardless of intent, could be considered an enabler, and therefore an abuser.

This not only applies to BDSM relationships, but to any person to person(s) type interaction. The abuser doesn't have to be willing or even cognizant of their position as an abuser.

As for the dominant being an abuser, I think that we can all see that scenario all too readily. But keep in mind that one bad apple doesn't ruin the whole damn bunch. It is easy to find an example that contradicts the norm.

Whose right is it to make this case? And under what circumstances?

I know that abuse victims do (often) unwittingly bring about continued experiences of abuse in their lives. And I believe that every individual has the right to choose not to engage in, perpetuate, and/or support those relationships.

But, having tried to save a bipolar friend from an abusive relationship, only to discover that she really had more strength, substance and happiness with the partnership in place (she returned to him over and over and over again), I had to rethink my own assumptions that I know what's best for other people. And that commonly held rules of morality and ethics are always true in all cases.

 

[BLoved]

Whose right is it to make this case?

In my opinion it is the responsibility of both partners to ensure the other is acting on a valid ethical basis.

In other words, the sub is not acting on some self-destructive urge and the dom is not acting on some urge to harm another.

Anyone can have an opinion, but the bottom-line is that only the judgment of those involved will affect the future of the relationship.

That is not to say that those involved will always exercise good judgment, only that no one else has the power to make the relationship work/fail.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

In my opinion it is the responsibility of both partners to ensure the other is acting on a valid ethical basis.

In other words, the sub is not acting on some self-destructive urge and the dom is not acting on some urge to harm another.

Anyone can have an opinion, but the bottom-line is that only the judgment of those involved will affect the future of the relationship.

That is not to say that those involved will always exercise good judgment, only that no one else has the power to make the relationship work/fail.

This still isn't Bloved's thread.

 

[Netzach]

Whose right is it to make this case? And under what circumstances?

I know that abuse victims do (often) unwittingly bring about continued experiences of abuse in their lives. And I believe that every individual has the right to choose not to engage in, perpetuate, and/or support those relationships.

But, having tried to save a bipolar friend from an abusive relationship, only to discover that she really had more strength, substance and happiness with the partnership in place (she returned to him over and over and over again), I had to rethink my own assumptions that I know what's best for other people. And that commonly held rules of morality and ethics are always true in all cases.

Agree. I think someone has to be functioning *pretty seriously deep* into la la land to no longer be the best expert on their own lives. Operating far outside of fairly common definitions of reality - because right or wrong, they're no longer navigating that reality successfully enough to get by. It takes a lot for me to pull the plug on a person's own agency.

There's a lot to be said for forms of catharsis that may not make perfect sense to everyone else around you. There is sometimes release in something no shrink is going to sanction. I think assuming everyone different is somehow vulnerable and better off not being different is folly.

 

[JMohegan]

I think that if you are going to discuss morality and ethics, and why they may be different in a BDSM relationship, the biggest factor you have to contend with is the subjugation of another person, either through mental or physical domination. A sub, by allowing themselves to be dominated, is giving up some of their inherent rights in order to achieve some other goal. If that goal is pleasurable, the sub could be considered to be doing it for ethical and moral reasons. If subjugation is done do to personality disorders (i.e., the person in question suffered trauma as a child and now feels the need to proport that trauma as the status quo), then there is certainly a case for calling it an abusive relationship. The Domme, regardless of intent, could be considered an enabler, and therefore an abuser.

This not only applies to BDSM relationships, but to any person to person(s) type interaction. The abuser doesn't have to be willing or even cognizant of their position as an abuser.

I agree with the last bit quoted here, but disagree with the notion that the goal of the s-type determines abuse. I consider abuse to be defined by the effect of behavior on the abused. Effects such as: sustained injury, deterioration of ability to thrive or function productively in society at large, and material reduction in overall happiness and well-being.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ah, all I can add at the moment is I am still overjoyed to be owned by one who is so wonderful in so many ways.

Catalina

 

[RuReal]

rofl I laugh at some of the things said in here because some people live in a strange BDSM world. A Sub, slave and so on never gives up thier rights and for one to think so tells me that one is in a strange BDSM universe. You give up a level of control yes, but your rights never and guess what.... gasp control can be taken back.

Morals and ethics exist in BDSM and for a lot of people they are not so different than what happens in other relationships.

What is different are the rules followed. I find it interesting that some people use morals and ethics is just related to how you conduct yourself sexually or about your sexual identity. It has nothing to do with that.... I repeat again nothing. I am in a BDSM relationship and a shit load of people I know are as well. People I associate with have great morals and ethics if they didn't I would not associate with them because I am that type of person.

Some people make mistakes in moral judgement once in a blue moon and I have seen that of late this summer. I will say the people I have seen it from are no real surprise to me.

Good luck for those that thing BDSM is some form of anti Moral/ Ethical beast.

 

[catalina_francisco]

rofl I laugh at some of the things said in here because some people live in a strange BDSM world. A Sub, slave and so on never gives up thier rights and for one to think so tells me that one is in a strange BDSM universe. You give up a level of control yes, but your rights never and guess what.... gasp control can be taken back.

Morals and ethics exist in BDSM and for a lot of people they are not so different than what happens in other relationships.

What is different are the rules followed. I find it interesting that some people use morals and ethics is just related to how you conduct yourself sexually or about your sexual identity. It has nothing to do with that.... I repeat again nothing. I am in a BDSM relationship and a shit load of people I know are as well. People I associate with have great morals and ethics if they didn't I would not associate with them because I am that type of person.

Some people make mistakes in moral judgement once in a blue moon and I have seen that of late this summer. I will say the people I have seen it from are no real surprise to me.

Good luck for those that thing BDSM is some form of anti Moral/ Ethical beast.

I guess what I get from this though is what is often said here, in that just because you or I are into BDSM, does not mean that our way is the only and right way, nor that someone elses is wrong and not BDSM because it differs. As to control, I guess that also is a personal choice which can reflect a persons morals and ethics. For myself, if I have made the choice to give up my rights as seen in the mom and pop world, and I give control over to another, for me that is something I can no longer take back on a whim as it goes against my morals and ethics to be so whimsical and unreliable....which is why I thought long and hard about it before I took that step. Yours may differ.

Catalina

 

[RuReal]

Ok I am going to be a pain because I am like that. Your rights are actually not really yours to give away in North America. The government has made that pretty clear.

If you wanted to and provided someone permission to put a knife through your heart and kill you. No matter how you recorded the fact that you wave your rights and have provided your permission for this person to do that guess what would happen to that person. At best you give someone control and limited permission to do things to you, but you never give up your rights.

I have yet to see anyone really purchased or sold who could not choose to walk out of it legally. Just some food for thought because I do believe that BDSM is different for a lot of people, but one still lives in a country and there are laws and Rights as assigned.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Ok I am going to be a pain because I am like that. Your rights are actually not really yours to give away in North America. The government has made that pretty clear....

I have yet to see anyone really purchased or sold who could not choose to walk out of it legally. Just some food for thought because I do believe that BDSM is different for a lot of people, but one still lives in a country and there are laws and Rights as assigned.

what one can do legally often has very little to do with what one can do in reality.

 

[catalina_francisco]

what one can do legally often has very little to do with what one can do in reality.

So true, hence the deaths through DV daily, and the slavery being found in many countries throughout Europe, and also in Australia of late. Try telling those people they had rights and the law was behind them all the way.



Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ok I am going to be a pain because I am like that. Your rights are actually not really yours to give away in North America. The government has made that pretty clear.

If you wanted to and provided someone permission to put a knife through your heart and kill you. No matter how you recorded the fact that you wave your rights and have provided your permission for this person to do that guess what would happen to that person. At best you give someone control and limited permission to do things to you, but you never give up your rights.

I have yet to see anyone really purchased or sold who could not choose to walk out of it legally. Just some food for thought because I do believe that BDSM is different for a lot of people, but one still lives in a country and there are laws and Rights as assigned.

You're not a pain, but like many who do not feel 24/7 TPE is a reality because it isn't for them, you tend to bring up extreme examples such as murder to try and justify your argument. It is understandabe as it is difficult to get your head around when it is something you could not contemplate doing yourself, but hey, while I have no time for non-consensual violence, I know there are some who have no problem with it and although it is against the law, it exists.

You also like many, only think in terms of what is legal and OK in your own neck of the woods. Thankfully, we do not live in the US where suppression is so rife...still could be better here, but we do have a long reputation for being more tolerant and forward thinking than the US, UK and Oz and for us, BDSM and SM practices have long been legal so it is a start. As for the extreme example you gave, surprisingly a lot of people get away with doing just that outside of the guise of BDSM and no amount of quoting the law and how impossible it is to do does not stop it happening. More is the pity as the world would be much better if the only violence which existed was the kind where consent was granted. Scary thing is, the law itself admits it cannot stop the everyday violence in our communities.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

So true, hence the deaths through DV daily, and the slavery being found in many countries throughout Europe, and also in Australia of late. Try telling those people they had rights and the law was behind them all the way.



Catalina

that's the sad and very real side of the equation those who make the "it's not legal" argument fail to consider.

 

[catalina_francisco]

that's the sad and very real side of the equation those who make the "it's not legal" argument fail to consider.

It is scary when you see the number of cases being discovered of late because like the tip of an iceberg, I suspect it is only a small percentage of those who are living this reality against their will with little or no hope of being rescued simply because they have no way of letting anyone know, no contact with the outside world.

Catalina

 

[intothewoods]

I think the people who are making that argument are thinking of consensual slavery only.

 

[RuReal]

I could have used slavery asI know it does exist. I also don't live in the US nor would I. Here let me give you another example. You said murder was too far so let's go for something a bit more tame since you brought it up slavery. The limit is not just a US thing at all, and it is outside of the law then again lots of things are, but what time of dom, top or what ever are you if you have to shiver in fear of the law.

Or even better yet Why don't you cut off a finger or two and see what happens. I mean I have seen pictures of people sticking knives into thier subs and there is nothing wrong with that. If it is planned out and the players know what they are doing. I would like to see how many do things like that without it being agreed to by the sub.

As much as you would like to argue things and claim I do not know because I don't do 24 by 7 I call bull shit.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I think the people who are making that argument are thinking of consensual slavery only.

and unfortunately those people don't seem to realize that even within the confines of consensual slavery, legal rights do not always equate to actual abilities.