Morals ethics and tolerance in BDSM

[BiBunny]

Are we really having this argument again? I'm pretty sure it's been done to death. Maybe we need a cliche thread or something.

 

[intothewoods]

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.

That's a different point. It's important not to conflate the two.

Are we really having this argument again? I'm pretty sure it's been done to death. Maybe we need a cliche thread or something.

I know. I was debating whether to post for that reason.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Are we really having this argument again? I'm pretty sure it's been done to death. Maybe we need a cliche thread or something.

it's definitely an old and tired argument, but it continues to irritate the heck out of me when people insist that "no one can really do X, they would be arrested," "no one can give up their rights, the law rules all," "you could always say no or leave," etc. it sucks having your everyday life and reality of the last 10 years taken as seriously as a two-headed unicorn.

but eh, maybe i'm just grumpy today.

 

[BiBunny]

That's a different point. It's important not to conflate the two.



I know. I was debating whether to post for that reason.

it's definitely an old and tired argument, but it continues to irritate the heck out of me when people insist that "no one can really do X, they would be arrested," "no one can give up their rights, the law rules all," "you could always say no or leave," etc. it sucks having your everyday life and reality of the last 10 years taken as seriously as a two-headed unicorn.

but eh, maybe i'm just grumpy today.

It's ok, ladies. I'm grumpy myself. I just see a dead horse being beaten sometimes and start to feel really sorry for the horse.

 

[JMohegan]

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.

If I commit to a monogamous relationship, I thereby give up the right to fuck around. Technically, my legal rights are unchanged, as you say. I still have the legal right to fuck any female who consensually comes to my bed. But because I consider myself honor bound to refrain from fucking around on a monogamous girlfriend, I consider myself to have given up that right for the duration of the relationship.

Many s-types feel the same way about various commitments they make in a D/s relationship. For example, they give up the right to say no when the D wants to fuck, beat, or order them to do the dishes. Some even give up the right to walk away from the relationship itself. Some follow through on these commitments; some don't, for various reasons - just like every other group of people on the planet.

Of course, legally the s always maintains the right to change her mind and say no, as well as the right to walk at any time, should she choose to do so. If she does, then her D is both legally and ethically bound to honor her decision. Whether he will or not may be a different story.

As for your examples involving killing and dismemberment, you're right. A guy caught doing those things is legally screwed, whether the victim declared he had permission to do so or not.

 

[RuReal]

If I commit to a monogamous relationship, I thereby give up the right to fuck around. Technically, my legal rights are unchanged, as you say. I still have the legal right to fuck any female who consensually comes to my bed. But because I consider myself honor bound to refrain from fucking around on a monogamous girlfriend, I consider myself to have given up that right for the duration of the relationship.

Many s-types feel the same way about various commitments they make in a D/s relationship. For example, they give up the right to say no when the D wants to fuck, beat, or order them to do the dishes. Some even give up the right to walk away from the relationship itself. Some follow through on these commitments; some don't, for various reasons - just like every other group of people on the planet.

Of course, legally the s always maintains the right to change her mind and say no, as well as the right to walk at any time, should she choose to do so. If she does, then her D is both legally and ethically bound to honor her decision. Whether he will or not may be a different story.

As for your examples involving killing and dismemberment, you're right. A guy caught doing those things is legally screwed, whether the victim declared he had permission to do so or not.

Bingo you understand exactly what I am saying I even agree with how you said it. You used the word many instead of most where it should have been. About the only thing if I was going to nit bit is guy caught doing those things, women can as well.

I will say it is interesting that the topic that was supposed to be about morals and ethics turned into a rights vs. Freedom discussion as they are different things. I suspect it is the group of people who figure being a dom automatically means that you can pull a train anytime you wish.

I did not really read through the whole thing to see if anyone touched on negotiation and limitations established when you are building that relationship and interaction of a dom to a sub. Then again some people seem to dom and sub the same way the view master and slave.

 

[catalina_francisco]

This is just my opinion of course and I am not saying that anyone should read or take notice of the thread, I am ranting.

I find that there is a strong opposition to the words ethics and morals by some inside the BDSM environment. It is as if because we enjoy things that vanilla’s consider being immoral that we have to be immoral. IMO a dominant needs to have morals and ethics, the power we gain over our property is of such magnitude that a dominant could easily be corrupted by it and become exactly that what the vanillas say we are.

I happen to think that honesty and trustworthiness are very important in a BDSM relationship. The trust between a Dominant and his partner has to be complete. Any submissive who has been put in a situation where the sub is completely helpless, understands the need to trust their partner. How can the submissive truly enjoy the power the dominant has if the sub can not trust him, if constantly in the sub’s mind they can not let go out of fear of betrayal of trust?

The same can be said of a submissive, how can a dominant trust their partner if they lie, cheat and do not follow even the simplest of morals and ethics?

For switches it is even worse, one moment they are completely vulnerable and the next they are in control. If their partner can not handle this or is not honest in their feedback they are steadily going towards absolute and total disaster.

I consider honesty and truthfulness to be absolutely essential for any relationship especially a BDSM one.

I believe in tolerance and I believe also in morals and ethics. Often it is seen as if they are opposing characteristics. But why should my being tolerant to others make me forget my own morals and ethics. I do not condone lying, why should I just out of tolerance condone it for someone else?

We should stand for what we believe in. It seems that just out of fear not to offend or to not be tolerant enough, we have forgotten the basics.

It would be interesting to see others thoughts on this.

Francisco.

Sheesh, makes interesting reading for me tonight...don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Cat

 

[newsubandtop]

I am sorry, guys, this thread is so long that I haven’t read you all so I am probably about to quote someone else.

Anyway, here is a simple thought: What’s more ethical than an agreement between two people that contemplates pretty much anything about each other’s needs and wants?

From what I know, BDSM promotes communication and consent in the first place. What’s wrong about one person compromising to take total/ partial responsibility upon someone else who is willing to give up control? As long as there aren’t any hints of manipulation, such relationships are based on mutual respect, so there is nothing immoral or unethical in it. I don’t like violence out or within a BDSM context but I won’t judge those who use it under the premises of a previous agreement. Each to their own.