Morals ethics and tolerance in BDSM

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.

Ignoring bad behavior is not condoning it. And in real life, I don't usually ignore it. Online, it really does not matter to me if someone lies.

People who have no ethics are not my friends to begin with. Those online, who I count as my friends, have a similar code of ethics as I or they would not be my friends.

Yes, I have been lied to online before. Therefore, I am very careful about who I get close to and who I allow to get close to me.

I agree with you that trustworthiness must be proven, in any relationship whether it is BDSM or just a solid friendship. But once burned, twice shy...

I may not be the best one to offer any thoughts on this, but I will give it a stab.

I define BDSM as a lifestyle, and when I try and explain it to someone who is really learning or hearing about it for the first time, I am always careful to explain that the spectrum of practices within this lifestyle is very vast, partly because like any lifestyle...there are so many different types of people.

But...if you liken it to a profession (which for some folks, it suppose it could be), you might wonder where the Principles of Good Practice are....universal concepts of "right" and "wrong" should still be underlying this all somewhere...right? Maybe? Is that too much to ask?

Is "safe, sane and consentual" just a motto? It might be asking too much for a group of people who are as diverse as us to come to any kind of conclusion regarding any universal code of ethics....i certainly would think it would be hard to create a moral fabric that would cover us all.

But in the end....the concepts that should be behind all our relationships no matter how we define them, and no matter where we fall on the spectrum....those concepts should be there...

or one would think

*wink*

just my random thoughts for today

No one has named me the defender of BDSM or appointed me to be the final judge of others. I have my own personal morals and can control my own actions; I also can choose my partners and therefore have a fair amount of control over my immediate surroundings. Apart from that, I do not burden myself with the task of solving all the woes of the world.

If someone invites feedback, I am happy to add my thoughts no matter if I am in the extreme minority; that is my chance to contribute my personal values to the overall ethics of society. In the absence of an invitation, I am content to reserve commenting on other people. It is not apathy; I just have better things to do than try to convert the world to my morals.

Tolerance is simply letting people disagree with your values or things that fall outside the standard ethics of the group. The general ethics of BDSM is said to be "safe, sane and consensual" so that leaves plenty of room for variety. I would only become intolerant and take action if I observed a situation that suggested one or more of the parties were not consenting adults.

(And it is also a good idea to be a little more tolerant on the internet to allow for innocent misunderstandings, incomplete information and the possibility that some posts might be pure fiction.)

as I've seen in other threads here, and in real time also, "safe, sane and consensual" are pretty subjective concepts.

Certainly people tend to congregate with those who share their definitions of those terms, and with those who share their morals and ethics.

I think Mr Blonde put it rather well in his post, in terms of tolerance.

Fuck a bunch of tolerance. Everyone seems so willing to be supportive of anyone who says 'BDSM', that I wonder if you even listen to each other.

Johnny Mayberry said:

Fuck a bunch of tolerance. Everyone seems so willing to be supportive of anyone who says 'BDSM', that I wonder if you even listen to each other.

Click to expand...

Tends to invite stagnation instead of growth IMO. Some statements and thoughts need challenging, others highlighting, and then some need to be celebrated.....what is disheartening to me is the concept that if someone is my friend, I have to agree with everything they say or do or I am not their friend. That to me is a sense of false friendship and far from honest.....friends should not be scared to say 'Hey, that sucks', then move on whether that means to agree to disagree, or find a common ground previously non-existant....friendship, as with kinship, does not mean you have to lie to prove your worth, quite the contrary.

Catalina

catalina_francisco said:

Tends to invite stagnation instead of growth IMO. Some statements and thoughts need challenging, others highlighting, and then some need to be celebrated.....what is disheartening to me is the concept that if someone is my friend, I have to agree with everything they say or do or I am not their friend. That to me is a sense of false friendship and far from honest.....friends should not be scared to say 'Hey, that sucks', then move on whether that means to agree to disagree, or find a common ground previously non-existant....friendship, as with kinship, does not mean you have to lie to prove your worth, quite the contrary.

Catalina

Click to expand...

I think we see that in a larger sense in communities. It seems that it is hard to criticize the specific actions of an individual without being seen as attacking the entire lifestyle. For instance, I am not a homophobe, but I would be called one if I suggested that sleeping with random strangers in semi-public places may be a bad idea.

The same seems to apply in BDSM. I cannot bring myself to encourage people in BDSM who are cheating on a spouse. I cannot support obvious abuse on the grounds of "the sub gave consent, so whatever the Dom gives them is ok." I will not relax or ignore my hard-earned ethical stance in the name of 'unity' or 'community'.

Johnny Mayberry said:

I will not relax or ignore my hard-earned ethical stance in the name of 'unity' or 'community'.

Click to expand...

As well you should not.

A Desert Rose said:

As well you should not.

Click to expand...

Well, there are some people who find ethics to be obsolete once you pick up a flogger. Th attitude seems to be that because we have abandoned traditional morality, we can abandon the ideas of integrity, respect for others, and simple honesty.

Johnny Mayberry said:

Well, there are some people who find ethics to be obsolete once you pick up a flogger. Th attitude seems to be that because we have abandoned traditional morality, we can abandon the ideas of integrity, respect for others, and simple honesty.

Click to expand...

On this, you and I both agree. But I think it is not traditional morality that has been abandoned. I think that it is a traditional (vanilla) relationship that has been.

Don't you agree? Or not?

A Desert Rose said:

On this, you and I both agree. But I think it is not traditional morality that has been abandoned. I think that it is a traditional (vanilla) relationship that has been.

Don't you agree? Or not?

Click to expand...

I think some people equate one with the other. They get into the idea that since they are not playing by the traditional dating rules, they don't have to follow any rule besides what feels good to them at the moment.

Johnny Mayberry said:

I think some people equate one with the other. They get into the idea that since they are not playing by the traditional dating rules, they don't have to follow any rule besides what feels good to them at the moment.

Click to expand...

Strange that....notice too it goes hand in hand with an outright rejection of anything traditional for whatever reason, such as marriage, which to some seems to equate to they are more cool and into the 'real' lifestyle concept if they choose to not commit in any form whatsoever. Interesting, considering de facto relationships and children out of wedlock have been around for a long time now, as have been the problems of people who avoid commitment and honesty at all costs.

Catalina

catalina_francisco said:

Strange that....notice too it goes hand in hand with an outright rejection of anything traditional for whatever reason, such as marriage, which to some seems to equate to they are more cool and into the 'real' lifestyle concept if they choose to not commit in any form whatsoever. Interesting, considering de facto relationships and children out of wedlock have been around for a long time now, as have been the problems of people who avoid commitment and honesty at all costs.

Catalina

Click to expand...

There does seem to be a rejection of personal responsibility involved, doesn't there? That anything negative involved in their choices is 'someone else's problem'.

Francisco;
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.

Johnny M:


Well, there are some people who find ethics to be obsolete once you pick up a flogger. Th attitude seems to be that because we have abandoned traditional morality, we can abandon the ideas of integrity, respect for others, and simple honesty.

===
Look, when you're in a socially deviant group that wants tolerance--e.g. no police raids-- you gotta take some obvious steps, be you a potsmoker or a flogging enthusiast, or a witch into naked lunar dances. You say: "We're no danger to society, and we don't break any laws except the 'blue laws' that don't belong on the books. We won't steal your children or take away your sisters and brothers."

This is what the 'consensual' gig is all about, floated by the BDSM advocates for a couple decades. It keeps ya outta jail. "Consent" is a defense against an assault charge; the point's pretty fucking simple. As a foundation for some kinda 'bdsm ethics' it's woefully lacking.

The other thing a deviant group must do is preserve the health and lives of its members. This involves pot smokers saying 'we don't do speed, it kills' and gays saying 'use a condom'. That's what 'safe' is about, in the BDSM slogan. Don't end up in the hospital or the morgue. Whether such a measure of protection deserves to be front and center in an alleged 'bdsm ethics' is entirely questionable.

So beyond the basic sensible stuff-- to stay outta cop stations and ERs and places of 'eternal rest'-- what is this ethics talk, as above, the "I'm SO traditionally moral you wouldn't believe it."

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. It's as if the male bum-fucker, beyond saying 'no need to prosecute us' goes on Leno and gives "The Speech" **(and see variants above):

"Jay, 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."

What do we say to The Speech-- and to the speeches above: you got your sexual tastes, which are *not* common, confused with your ethical status, which is, contrary to what you suggest. The greater ethical requirements on bumfuckers or floggers, along with their alleged rising to the occasion (see above) is just so much PR***; indeed, hogwash.

Deviates' ethics, in theory, and especially in practice, are pretty much the mucky mixture of occasional principle and rampant hypocrisy found among the other 90% of those on the planet.

J.

{Added:

**I'm sure everyone has heard The Speech. Just fill in the blank: for 'bumfucker,' put dom or gay or lesbian or polyamorist.

*** The comment on persons' (not) rising to the occasion is of a general nature; illustrious individuals on this thread are not being commented on.}

Johnny Mayberry said:

There does seem to be a rejection of personal responsibility involved, doesn't there? That anything negative involved in their choices is 'someone else's problem'.

Click to expand...

Positivity is always so easy to own, negative realities are not that easy to accept responsibility for.

C

I did not mention SSC since I do agree with you on the fact that for a major part it is marketing, very well thought out PR, an ad campaign done so good that the client of the marketing agency has started to believe in it. No argument with you there.

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.

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. Most morals have been put in place to protect society. Things like not killing, not stealing, no cheating basically come straight out of nature. Rules made by protecting the individual protecting society, or put in Star Trek terminology, protecting the many by protecting the one.

"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."

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.

Francisco.

Well Francisco, you are preaching to the choir here. I have no problem giving My opinion on tough subjects even when it will result in a backlash of vitriol.

In My mind, you have to stand for something or you stand for nothing.

I do not judge, but I sure will tell you what I think, if you are unwise enough go public about something I feel strongly about.

I have My own code of ethics and My own morality. I assume others have their own.

I do not subscribe to the BDSM "community" view anymore than I subscribe to any other "community". If I say this is a "family" I mean it is the loosest of senses with tongue firmly in cheek.

Honesty and Truthfulness

I agree Francisco that this is the fundamentally the most important aspect of the Dom/me-sub relationship.


This forum spends a lot of time beating of dominants about not being truthful and not being honest, but I find that the submissives who talk with Me are not so truthful and/or honest. They want want they want, and if they have to lie to get it, well the ends justify the means.

But remember, lying may get you the relationship you think you want, but to keep it you will have to tell the truth and be honest.

catalina_francisco said:

Positivity is always so easy to own, negative realities are not that easy to accept responsibility for.

C

Click to expand...

Well...just look at the talk here on Lit...everyone treats BDSM as a perfect lifestyle. We need to 'own' the predators and the damaged subs as well as the wonderful Doms and subs.

Pure said:

Deviates' ethics, in theory, and especially in practice, are pretty much the mucky mixture of occasional principle and rampant hypocrisy found among the other 90% of those on the planet.

J.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that is what some people who embrace BDSM hope to find, in order to mask their lousy personal behavious in a 'lifestyle choice'.
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.

Ebonyfire said:

Well Francisco, you are preaching to the choir here. I have no problem giving My opinion on tough subjects even when it will result in a backlash of vitriol.

In My mind, you have to stand for something or you stand for nothing.

I do not judge, but I sure will tell you what I think, if you are unwise enough go public about something I feel strongly about.

I have My own code of ethics and My own morality. I assume others have their own.

I do not subscribe to the BDSM "community" view anymore than I subscribe to any other "community". If I say this is a "family" I mean it is the loosest of senses with tongue firmly in cheek.

Click to expand...

I think any 'family' or 'community' only contains those individuals who you choose to include.

It may be 'clique-y', but that's just the way it goes.

First of all I would like to thank all the contributions to this lively discussion. I have enjoyed everyone’s additions and am of course heavily impressed with them all.

First I am not preaching, I am lecturing….. remember it is not Father Francisco but Professor Francisco.

Ignoring bad behavior is not condoning it. And in real life, I don't usually ignore it. Online, it really does not matter to me if someone lies.

Click to expand...

Hello Desert Rose, nice to see you again on the board. I wonder why you make that distinction, why is it that you ignore online lying and not in ‘real’ life?

But in the end....the concepts that should be behind all our relationships no matter how we define them, and no matter where we fall on the spectrum....those concepts should be there...

Click to expand...

Thank you for putting it very clear InnerDarkness, I find it a very clear and sharp definition which I fully agree with, the question that remains is of course what are the concepts that should be behind a relationship?

Tolerance is simply letting people disagree with your values or things that fall outside the standard ethics of the group. The general ethics of BDSM is said to be "safe, sane and consensual" so that leaves plenty of room for variety. I would only become intolerant and take action if I observed a situation that suggested one or more of the parties were not consenting adults.

(And it is also a good idea to be a little more tolerant on the internet to allow for innocent misunderstandings, incomplete information and the possibility that some posts might be pure fiction.)

Click to expand...

Mr Blond I have a question for you, you say that the standard ethic is SSC; this leaves a lot of room to play in. For example what is your view on cheating and lying, what is your attitude towards someone who does not follow your own code of behaviour, do you demand of your partner that they follow your code of behaviour?

Johnny Mayberry we seem to be again on very close common ground on this subject, maybe we really are long lost twin brothers

Again thank you all for very interesting contributions to the discussions. I am hoping for lively, heated, and open discussions in which we of course do not forget our manners however much we disagree.

Francisco.

I dont' even expect my blood relatives to necessarily share my values. I certainly think that we should take stands and believe in things. What I think isn't going to be what you think.

Values are personal. If I don't like yours, screw you. If you don't like mine, don't screw me.

So what if we're not one big happy family?

Furthermore, what more than simply choosing not to associate with someone do you recommend for those whose behavior I don't personally condone?

Shall we publish black lists? Shall we throw stones?

Netzach said:

Furthermore, what more than simply choosing not to associate with someone do you recommend for those whose behavior I don't personally condone?

Shall we publish black lists? Shall we throw stones?

Click to expand...

No but what about telling them your opinion, if for no other reason then to vent and to make sure that everyone knows it is not a common view.

For example let’s say, you are invited to a party. One of the more prominent members of the circle says something completely barbaric, for example he enjoys taking his partners over the edge and ignoring any safe word.

What are you going to do?
Nothing, will you not share your opinion?

Francisco.