Morals ethics and tolerance in BDSM
- Thread starter catalina_francisco
- Start date
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Ebonyfire said:There was a news report the other day about the serious steak deficit in Connecticut since a certain pair visited!
Damn, lucky customs didn't see the blood dripping from our luggage and investigate!!!
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Starting points; basic issues; morality and bdsm.
A moral stance involves 1) treating another as an equal; as having interests (desires and needs) that are as worthy of satisfaction as one’s own. 2) treating the other as a moral agent—one capable of making his/her own suitable choices at life’s decision points.
Area 1) The conflict position.
Assume: ‘Domination’ involves actually subordinating someone else’s interests or desires to one’s own. If the subordination is only seeming, as in a play where there is a king and a subject, there’s no (real) domination.
There’s the problem of 24/7 versus a scene or incident, but even the scene—just as when you see two boys ‘share’ a treat and one takes ¾-- where one’s desires are satisfied over another’s is prima facie, immoral. BUT…
Some problems: a) One scene where A’s desires get priority is followed by another where B’s do; that trade off, of course, implies a moral outcome. (Husband chooses the restaurant this weekend; the wife, the next.)
b) Where B gets some material advantage, the apparent immorality may not hold: B, a prostitute, is paid by A to satisfy his desires to whip someone.
c) What about where B says, “I love him”. It’s doubtful that will make A’s giving his desires priority moral in every case. Picture a self sacrificing Mom, who lets the spoiled son take things to sell for his drug habit. Though she refuses to consider herself wronged, e.g., in refusing to press charges, we may consider her to be.
Area 2) The no-conflict position.
It may be denied that the dominant person gives his own desires priority.
(Question: what makes him/her dominant, then? Holding a whip?). His and the subordinate’s are merely different, but equally due of consideration.
A good example [Johnny M’s] of this approach is to liken the dominant to a coach, and the subordinate to his/her athlete being trained. Equally, one might use, teacher/student or conductor/musician etc. as examples.
This limits the problem of conflict in desire satisfaction, but I don’t think eliminates it.
To illustrate ‘no conflict’ , one can of course say, “The coach, in making the athlete take a grueling run s/he doesn’t want to is not just imposing a desire, but helping the athlete gain his/her own desires, later, by winning.
Of course the coach’s career is dependent on the athlete’s succeeding; their interests overlap.
It’s not difficult to think of any number of problems, such as those you read about between managers/agents and actors or entertainers. (Where again it’s clear that the former’s success and money depend on the latter’s.)
One example: Flash in the pan or long run. The coach, knowing of the time limits, might adopt a ‘go for it all, now’ strategy. Heavily commit the athlete to a bunch of very public and grueling contests. (Picture a prize fighter.) The money flows in for both, for five years, then the athlete is burned out, used up. The coach may move on, on the basis of his celebrity status.
IF the athlete was not so inclined to ‘go for it all, now’, I think we can say that the coach put his selfish desires ahead of the athlete's, in this respect.
Another example: The coach may push for the athlete to be making a great many lucrative endorsements at once, yielding great amounts of cash now, but destroying future potential earnings possible if endorsements were limited.
In short, within the example chosen to favor the case of ‘no conflict’, there always can be moral conflicts.
=====
Overall: there will always be moral conflicts between the dominant and subordinate person, if they consistently play those parts. The alternative is that the dominant one do so only sporadically, i.e., give up dominating in all the cases of the types described, and act only as an equal.
My opinion is that the ‘conflict’ position is more correct, and it has ‘classic’ roots, for example in Sade.
If anyone has made it to here. Thanks for reading, and your responses are welcome.
J.
A moral stance involves 1) treating another as an equal; as having interests (desires and needs) that are as worthy of satisfaction as one’s own. 2) treating the other as a moral agent—one capable of making his/her own suitable choices at life’s decision points.
Area 1) The conflict position.
Assume: ‘Domination’ involves actually subordinating someone else’s interests or desires to one’s own. If the subordination is only seeming, as in a play where there is a king and a subject, there’s no (real) domination.
There’s the problem of 24/7 versus a scene or incident, but even the scene—just as when you see two boys ‘share’ a treat and one takes ¾-- where one’s desires are satisfied over another’s is prima facie, immoral. BUT…
Some problems: a) One scene where A’s desires get priority is followed by another where B’s do; that trade off, of course, implies a moral outcome. (Husband chooses the restaurant this weekend; the wife, the next.)
b) Where B gets some material advantage, the apparent immorality may not hold: B, a prostitute, is paid by A to satisfy his desires to whip someone.
c) What about where B says, “I love him”. It’s doubtful that will make A’s giving his desires priority moral in every case. Picture a self sacrificing Mom, who lets the spoiled son take things to sell for his drug habit. Though she refuses to consider herself wronged, e.g., in refusing to press charges, we may consider her to be.
Area 2) The no-conflict position.
It may be denied that the dominant person gives his own desires priority.
(Question: what makes him/her dominant, then? Holding a whip?). His and the subordinate’s are merely different, but equally due of consideration.
A good example [Johnny M’s] of this approach is to liken the dominant to a coach, and the subordinate to his/her athlete being trained. Equally, one might use, teacher/student or conductor/musician etc. as examples.
This limits the problem of conflict in desire satisfaction, but I don’t think eliminates it.
To illustrate ‘no conflict’ , one can of course say, “The coach, in making the athlete take a grueling run s/he doesn’t want to is not just imposing a desire, but helping the athlete gain his/her own desires, later, by winning.
Of course the coach’s career is dependent on the athlete’s succeeding; their interests overlap.
It’s not difficult to think of any number of problems, such as those you read about between managers/agents and actors or entertainers. (Where again it’s clear that the former’s success and money depend on the latter’s.)
One example: Flash in the pan or long run. The coach, knowing of the time limits, might adopt a ‘go for it all, now’ strategy. Heavily commit the athlete to a bunch of very public and grueling contests. (Picture a prize fighter.) The money flows in for both, for five years, then the athlete is burned out, used up. The coach may move on, on the basis of his celebrity status.
IF the athlete was not so inclined to ‘go for it all, now’, I think we can say that the coach put his selfish desires ahead of the athlete's, in this respect.
Another example: The coach may push for the athlete to be making a great many lucrative endorsements at once, yielding great amounts of cash now, but destroying future potential earnings possible if endorsements were limited.
In short, within the example chosen to favor the case of ‘no conflict’, there always can be moral conflicts.
=====
Overall: there will always be moral conflicts between the dominant and subordinate person, if they consistently play those parts. The alternative is that the dominant one do so only sporadically, i.e., give up dominating in all the cases of the types described, and act only as an equal.
My opinion is that the ‘conflict’ position is more correct, and it has ‘classic’ roots, for example in Sade.
If anyone has made it to here. Thanks for reading, and your responses are welcome.
J.
niteshade
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,109
Pure said:
I read it, but I am not too sure I got it. What about a situation where the desires mesh? Where both parties want the same thing? Maybe I am not catching your meaning, but I thought the whole point of being in a bdsm relationship was that both people desired something from it... the sub, or bottom, or whatever, desires the control, or the pain, or bondage, or what have you... the Dom desires the submission, the ability to control the person, to have them enjoy being hurt... whatever the relationship dynamic is, they are both there for a reason. I think that they are complimentary desires. The Dom might be fulfilling his or her desire, but at the same time, the desire of the sub is also fulfilled.
Unless I completely misunderstood... if so, I apologize.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi N,
Thanks for trying.
In a word, I'm saying that while there is some element of truth to the complementary view (area 2) , it's simply untrue that moral conflicts cannot arise in one of these situations [that is, in your words of choice, it's untrue that ALL desires can be complementary.] So the old, classic question DOES arise, 'Shall I be self-interested, or shall I be moral?"
And the 'no conflict' persons around here have given no guidance in this particular difficulty In their idealized bdsm world, the problem does not exist.
There, is that better.?
J.
Thanks for trying.
In a word, I'm saying that while there is some element of truth to the complementary view (area 2) , it's simply untrue that moral conflicts cannot arise in one of these situations [that is, in your words of choice, it's untrue that ALL desires can be complementary.] So the old, classic question DOES arise, 'Shall I be self-interested, or shall I be moral?"
And the 'no conflict' persons around here have given no guidance in this particular difficulty In their idealized bdsm world, the problem does not exist.
There, is that better.?
J.
Last edited:
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
I have no morals, I am unethical and intolerant but, God Damn I can make a hell of a pie crust.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
ADR,
/I have no morals, I am unethical and intolerant but, God Damn I can make a hell of a pie crust./
If you're serious...
I like your style. The old style libertines, Sade, Casanova, and the newer sex hounds, Frank Harris and Henry Miller had no problem saying they were outside morality--in a word, immoral fuckers.
Most of today's 'doms' want to be right up there with Saint** Theresa!
J.
**Added: I mean Mother Theresa, of course, who is not a saint yet, but is being fast tracked to sainthood.
/I have no morals, I am unethical and intolerant but, God Damn I can make a hell of a pie crust./
If you're serious...
I like your style. The old style libertines, Sade, Casanova, and the newer sex hounds, Frank Harris and Henry Miller had no problem saying they were outside morality--in a word, immoral fuckers.
Most of today's 'doms' want to be right up there with Saint** Theresa!
J.
**Added: I mean Mother Theresa, of course, who is not a saint yet, but is being fast tracked to sainthood.
Last edited:
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Pure said:
Well... no I am not serious. LOL
I am very ethical (I was a 2 time president of my Rotary club, what does that tell ya? No, don't answer that...)
But for once, I understand *exactly* what you are saying, Pure. (I graduated from college and I have even read a book or two, But sometimes you do leave me in the dark, LOL)
Thank God, my Dom has no desire to be easy or saintly with me. He loves my humor and my fun-lovingness (is that even a real word?) but He is in charge and there is never a question there. I got one hell of a scolding from him last night, as matter of fact.
Whatever you are, Dom or sub, you have to be true to yourself first. The best friend you have in the world is the one in the mirror.
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
"saint" Theresa was an immoral cunt, who should have done the world a favor and killed herself decades ago...Pure said:
I'm as ethical as can be, and I still do absolutely what I want to, as much as any libertine...I just pick my partners better.
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Johnny Mayberry said:
in the words of Des....
Christ on a hatrack JM! that lightning bold just missed ya!!!!!!!!
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Uh huh...A Desert Rose said:
I ain't scared of some Jewish war god...
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
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.
Francisco.
PS I hope you have compared me to a saint, since I am Roman Catholic and I am a Dominant. I think I will start calling myself the saintly Dom. It has a nice ring to it don't you think.
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.
Francisco.
PS I hope you have compared me to a saint, since I am Roman Catholic and I am a Dominant. I think I will start calling myself the saintly Dom. It has a nice ring to it don't you think.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Johnny Mayberry said:Uh huh...
You watch it sonny boy, or I will start praying day and night to make sure that next time it does hit you.
Francisco.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
niteshade said:You better be careful, Francisco... all this talk about twins separated at birth... you might get some backlash
That must be why he was not hit by lighting bold, since I am a saint Johnny is protected by my holy prominence.
Francisco.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Ebonyfire said:Instead of Rome, all roads eventually lead to the penis!
So that is why I keep having religious experiences?!!!
C
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Ebonyfire said:
Works for me
C
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
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. //
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. //
CutieMouse
Meticulously Flighty
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Posts
- 8,493
Bump...
