LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
I agree that it is rude, nosey, and impolite. HOWEVER, NONE of those things ranks up their with lying to other women about not having a partner, a HORRIBLE breach of integrity.
Frankly, I can't imagine having someone I considered a serious partner who I wouldn't share my passwords with. I either trust them with my life or I don't.
SimplyMichael,
Thank you for pointing out that all things are not equal. Yes committing a crime is breaking the law, but there is a big difference between shop lifting and murder.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
I disagree. An open email browser has zero expectation of privacy. It's like leaving a pink perfumed letter from his mistress on his desk. It invites speculation, most notably so if -without clicking- one is able to see the names of other women. No human adult can stop themselves from automatically reading words, why are they to blame for reading words put in front of them?
The concept that within a D/s dynamic that people won't have "natural human tendancies" is why this happens. A submissive/slave is not "required" to give up their need to be loved or honesty. The "ethical" standards in a D/s relationship are not necessarily higher than in a vanilla. Notice I said a "relationship." I'm not talking about the service only, nothing more than a slave who means nothing to master type of situation. This is in regards to relationships where LOVE enters into the equation and is expected by both parties.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
In honest, the.dark (and Sweetsub) if you glanced at the screen and saw "fuck my brains out" would you be able to completely ignore such a sentence. What about other phrases?
"Hyatt Hotel, 7:30 p.m."
"Bring condoms."
"put you on your back."
"suck your cock."
"kiss you all over."
"lick you."
"my mouth..."
"rub your..."
These phrases, and infinite others, warrant suspicion. I don't know what Goddess saw... or how far she clicked... or if she noticed he was logged in so she purposefully snooped... That information could change how I feel. This is my stance assuming the information was, truly, in plain view.
For just a moment, let's say she was snooping just for the sake of snooping. Had she found nothing, there would be two options. She could say nothing, but have the comfort of having found nothing to warrant any kind of worrisome ideas. She could have turned to him and said, "you left your email open and I read them. It was wrong, and I'm sorry, but I'm new to this and made a mistake." Once something is found, you are going to snoop more to see if maybe you misunderstood something somehow. After all, that first one violated her trust, and she wanted to know just how violated it was. One is definately more unethical than the other.
Again, let's look at an extreme example. Say you are cleaning master's room and putting away his clothes. You drop a shirt on the floor and it lands on an open box that has a sheet of paper on top that is titled "how to murder your slave and get away with it" Are you seriously not going to look further? After all, he could be just writing a story or and after all, it's really none of your business. I know most of you will counter with, "but he would be putting me in danger and I have a right to know that." But you can't quantify being a snoop, nor can you determine what constitutes "danger" for someone else. As someone else mentioned, he could be bringing STDs to the relationship now. Is that not her business either because "master" can do what he pleases?
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
I'm sorry that the guy could not be honest with you. I disagree with an earlier poster that not commenting means "agreement"...there've been plenty of times when people have said things to me that I disagreed with and my silence was not because of "agreement", it was due to me formulating an answer that was tactful but honest. This guy had a problem with vocalizing his honest opinions.
I seriously doubt that your silence had lasted days or months, rather than moments. I've read and respected many of your posts, and I don't believe that you are the type that if you needed to think about something even overnight, you wouldn't state that you were doing such.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
I am glad to see that you agree that your actions were also unethical. Someone's mail is THEIR mail, not yours. If it is a federal crime to open someone's mail, then I would say it is probably a crime to read someone's mail...and whether or not it has been left open in plain view doesn't matter.
Yea, this would be completely wrong, sorry. It is a federal crime to remove someone's mail from their mail box, not to open something left sitting on a table or read something left out in plain view. Further laws relating to the US Postal Service in no way, shape or form apply to the internet. There have been no test cases regarding the privacy rights of email other than in an employer/employee situation. To my knowledge, the expectation of privacy regarding email accounts on a home computer have not be tested by the courts and therefore there is no precedent, and ergo, no law regarding them. I am researching to see if some case shows up (which will likely be a matrimonial case) and will let you know should something turn up.
In any case, at this point, it is relatively safe to assume that since he left the account in plain view, there was no expectation of privacy from a legal standpoint.
Essentially, the concept of what she was doing being unethical technically would only apply had there been nothing to find. After all, our legal system provides for a search when there is a suspicion of unlawful behavior. Something in Goddess's mind gave her suspicion, whether it was the subject line of the email or what. The suspicion negated the ethical obligation. Like I said, had her suspicion and behavior not resulted in her finding the emails, her behavior could be reasonably questioned. However, once the incriminating information of the emails was known, her further searching was justified. Unless, of course, you are of the belief that he was justified in doing what he did, simply because he calls himself a "master."
Honestly, if you tell someone that you REQUIRE honesty from them, and they are not sure that they can be honest with you, they have a moral obligation to say so. By not saying so, he started from a position lacking in ethics and integrity, and therefore was not deserving of receiving either. And saying "trust me" is implying that you are trustworthy. Part of being trustworthy is being honest. Anyone who can't see that is likely not very trustworthy themselves.
quote:
ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957
I still say she should not have opened up the additional messages. That was snooping. Too bad really, the end result is neither one of them is trustworthy.
sweet,
To say that she is untrustworthy because she discovered her partner was cheating on her is a bit harsh. After all, he is likely to continue in his duplicitous behavior and use the "because I'm master, king, chief asshole" excuse. However, in her next relationship, if her new partner doesn't give her reason to suspect him of being dishonest, she likely won't find herself in the same position of looking at the emails.
There ARE situations where each of us would be prone to some type of snooping when we know something must be occurring behind out backs and we are desperate to find out what it is. When we take the risk of giving our hearts to someone, self preservation causes us to attempt to reduce having that risk end in heartbreak if it can be avoided.
|
RE: Opinions,please, on ethical behavior - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread