CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
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. Hmmmmmmmmm...an interesting speculation enters into the equation here then, one thaat has been discussed on the boards before. A D/s dynamic alongside a love-based relationship. Which one rules? Can they exist alongside each other (personally, I think they can which is why I search for someone to not only be my submissive but my partner) in harmony or are there going to be trouble spots along the way? Hypothetically...let's say the master insists on having passwords to all of her accounts and yet, she cannot have access to his without asking permission, is he wrong because that is unfair from a D/s standpoint or is he wrong because that is unfair from a romantic standpoint? But isn't there an inherent unfairness in the structuring of a D/s dynamic? And what if she has agreed to this rule, unfair or not? Is she allowed to overrule his "Dominant-to-submissive" command and go snooping if he leaves his account open because, after all, it was left open in plain view? And after she read one incriminating email...which she should not have read in the first place...then is it right for her to continue snooping because now she has "found evidence"? And if she finds no more, not even from the same lady? Then does she say "I'm sorry, honey" and invoke the "you have to remember, I am protecting my status in my love relationship with you and that overrules my D/s dynamic with you in which I have agreed to obey you?"
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." New to what? Being in a love relationship? or being in a D/s dynamic? Does being new justify being a snoop? See the above.quote:
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. What is more unethical? His coming on to other submissives when he had agreed to a monogamous situation? Agreed. However, you are rationalizing her actions..."well, of COURSE once you find one, you are forgiven for searching for more...you HAVE to." No...you don't. There is another choice: You can choose not to violate your own code of ethics further and decide that the one you looked at...which you should not have OPENED to look at in the first place...is enough to confront him with.
quote:
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? You said it yourself...that is an extreme example. Again, we are talking of degree of danger and the bugaboo excuse of "well, he might be bringing me STDs" doesn't cut it either. He was fucking other girls before he met her and she has decided that it is safe to be with him...why? Because the minute you enter into a partnership with someone new, you are automatically protected from what he/she did BEFORE you? Sorry...that is not how it works.
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. You are right....I WOULD state that. But there again, call me cynical or call me overly suspicious but if I were to ask something of someone and they didn't answer, I am of the bent to ask them again and when they complainingly say "Yes, of course I agree...I thought that I didn't need to answer because the answer is obvious", I tell them that nothing in life is obvious and I have no intention of entering into something wherein there has not been vocal agreement. Saves time and trouble later and denies them that little escape hatch that he tried to use.
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.I may be wrong as to whether or not it is a crime. I can tell you that from my own standpoint, it is wrong. I never opened my ex-wife's mail and I never went looking in her purse without asking her first. I was raised that something that belonged to someone else was not mine to explore. Legally, you may have no right to expect privacy regarding your mail once it is out of your mail box but ethically? In my world, you do.
quote:
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. Not from a legal standpoint, no...probably not. From an ethical one? Open to interpretation by each and every one of us.
quote:
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. Whooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...hold on a minute. You wish to invoke the law by stating that he had NO legal right to privacy and could not fall back on the law but you want to invoke the law to give her the legal right to search??? In the first place, our legal system provides for a seach by law enforcement, not private citizens. In the second place, if he has no legal rights regarding mail once it is out of the box, she has no legal rights regarding the reading of that mail.
quote:
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." Again, there are other reasons to see what she did as unethical. One of them being a right to expectation of privacy. The first note? Maybe. Searching for more in a deliberate fashion? No. She was not married to the man so she could not even claim "wifely" right as her defense. Now, I don't see where any of this justifies what he did. He agreed to something and could not abide by it. He doesn't get a free pass by pulling out the "because I am Master and this is New Law" card. But neither does his bad behavior justify her own. That's tit for tat, like little kids on a playground..."he hit me so I shoved him into the dirt". "He shoved me into the dirt so I kicked him in the nuts" while conveniently forgetting that someone had to start it. He did. She found out. As I noted earlier, it only took one note to give her ammunition to ask him for a serious discussion. This is not a case of "if 1 is good, 100 are better".
quote:
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. No argument from me here.quote:
By not saying so, he started from a position lacking in ethics and integrity, and therefore was not deserving of receiving either. Yes, he did. But please do not forget that she picked the choice that his silence meant agreement rather than making sure that it did. And again, I maintain my position that her finding that first indication that he hadn't been did NOT invoke the clause of "at this point, ANYTHING I choose to do...including more snooping...is o.k. because his behavior seems to be worse". You always have choices and laying off your choice of the more irresponsible or unethical or illegal or immoral route because someone else did something just as bad is laying off of personal thought, personal soul-searching and personal responsibility. Or don't submissives have to do that work, even when the dominant has done something wrong? Or does that work only come when the dominant is right...or has made the choices easy....or when it suits their agenda? Don't get me wrong, Dominants have to do that work too but in truth, it is work that someone makes a conscious choice to do. quote:
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. Agreed....and here we get to the crux of the matter. To me, the minute he said "trust me", he was giving vocalization to the agreement to be honest. The fact that HE could not be does not justify her further snooping.
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.Again...as shown above...I disagree. It is still the same argument...his behavior automatically excuses ANY of her behavior. While I concede the point that her behavior is not as bad nor as unethical, she herself amped up the degree of how bad her behavior was...still less than his...by continuing to snoop. If you are going to be honest and trustworthy, the fact that someone else does something which is not honest and trustworthy to you does not justify you giving up your own moral code.
quote:
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.
Plain and simple...bull. If you want to know, ask. If you find one thing, then don't go looking for more...ask. We talk about honesty and communication and all of that...why not step up and be true to what you say you are and confront rather than fall to the level that you suspect they have?
|
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