RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you outside the sexual?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you outside the sexual?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you outside the sexual?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:19:29 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

There is also this theory that a woman needs two guys - not just one.
First is Alpha - he is kind of domineering asshole, promiscuous, muscular, strong, macho, etc - and she is most attracted to him during ovulation - because this is a reflex caused by evolution, namely, such types of guys usually provided the genes which are most beneficial for the survival of their children.

Second is Beta - he is loving and caring guy, who will be provider for her and her children, who will make her feel safe, loved and cared for.
She is most attracted to him in other phases of her menstrual cycle. Actually, because of him being too nice, his genes aren't particularly useful for the survival
of the children, because if the children are too nice, they are more likely to perish in the wilderness.

The most ideal situation is when she is able to find a guy who has characteristics of BOTH types.

Such guy will make her enjoy ultra hot sex, sometimes with kink involved and will provide best genes for her children, while at the same time being loving and caring, good provider etc.

< Message edited by SocratesNot -- 5/31/2010 3:21:12 PM >

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

Post #: 121

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:22:17 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

Intimacy can definitely achieved without kink. Many people inside and outside BDSM lifestyle are very intimate with people who don't share any of their kinks,
and with whom they never engage in any kind of D/s or BDSM play.

You keep switching back and forward between concepts.
I've never said that kink is needed in order to fulfill a need for intimacy between people. Just like I have never said that kink is needed in order to fulfill a general need for safety, or that kink is needed for a general sense of self-esteem.

My argument is that kink is needed in some people to fulfill a specific partner/relationship orientated fulfillment of such needs.
There is a distinct difference between what most people need from a partner versus what they need from a friend, or a family member, and humans will never seek to fulfill their needs on the different levels with all different people and with all different types of relationships in the same way.

Sure I can be friends with somebody who isn't into BDSM. I can share intimacy with them.
As I said: I can even serve them on a platonic level and find a sense of satisfaction in that.

However, that's not what we are discussing here, we are discussing what is needed in order for a person to find fulfillment on a very personal, partner-orientated sense of intimacy, and more specifically, what is needed for certain people to find their need for sexual intimacy fulfilled.

You can go stand on your head and argue till your socks slip down that when our needs are fulfilled by a person on a level that would make it plausible for somebody to be friends with them, that automatically means that such a person would also be able to fulfill the needs one would have of them as a partner instead of a friend.
But the fact of the matter is that that is simple not the case.
What most people expect in a partner is MORE then what they expect in a simple friend, even though the needs we would have towards a friend need to be considered before we would ever more to considering them to be a partner.

This doesn't mean however that those needs rank higher in the pyramid, it simple means that the expression of those level of needs expresses itself in different fashions towards different people depending on the type of relationship we expect to have with them.
The more intimate you become with somebody, the more important it becomes that said person fulfilled ALL our needs, on every level of the pyramid.

You also seem to be stuck on the generalized terms for the categories of the pyramid, and seem to keep equating the need for "safety" as implying physical safety.
This is not the case and if you would look at the actual pyramid again you will see that a sense of "moral compatibility" "security of resources" "security of a harmonious family situation" and so on all also fall under a need of "safety".

If a man has no inclination to be dominant in the specific way I need him to be dominant, then my sense of "moral security" is not fulfilled, and therefore my sense of "safety" is not fulfilled with him.
This doesn't means that everybody I'm friends with needs to fulfill that need of "moral security", I can defiantly be friends with somebody who has a different system of morality then my own, it just means that I could never come to depend on such a person to fulfill my need for "moral compatibility" and as such could never consider them anything more then a friend.

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 122

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:30:14 PM

Jeffff

Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

There is a theory that people should go outside on do things . Meet people, hang out, go fishing.

SN, you need to get away for a bit.

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 123

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:32:35 PM

Jeffff

Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

This is where I spent this morning. No kink, no bdsm, no theory... it was nice.... try something like it dude.....really

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to Jeffff)

Post #: 124

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:36:09 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

Jeffff,
I actually enjoy spending time in nature. However these days the weather is horrible, and I also enjoy this discussion. I'm sure it won't hurt me.

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to Jeffff)

Post #: 125

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:36:30 PM

UniqueRaven

Posts: 1237
Joined: 9/30/2009
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline

i just mixed together dark chocolate chips and rice chex and called it "trail mix" (that makes it healthy, right?).

i love dark chocolate chips.

About to go do some yoga. Yay for getting out of the house!

_____________________________

"My life has no purpose, no direction, no aim, no meaning, and yet I'm happy. I can't figure it out. What am I doing right?" ~Snoopy (Charles Schultz)

My blog is at http://takinghishand.wordpress.com

(in reply to Jeffff)

Post #: 126

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:43:44 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

If a man has no inclination to be dominant in the specific way I need him to be dominant, then my sense of "moral security" is not fulfilled, and therefore my sense of "safety" is not fulfilled with him

So you are actually saying that he is immoral or unethical if he is not willing to dominate you in BDSM sense?
Or maybe he is too ethical for you?

I actually think that such discussion doesn't make any sense.

I agree with you that in a relationship BDSM do satisfy many different categories of needs
from all the levels of pyramid, however, I also think that BDSM is not essential for their satisfaction.
Or maybe it is, for some people. I'm not sure. It is complicated.

But there is one thing that is more important - some people value the needs from upper levels of pyramid MORE than the needs from lower levels of pyramid.
As I already said, there are artists and poets and monks who are willing to starve themselves for weeks in order to achieve self-actualization.
For them, self actualization is subjectively more important than food.
But objectively, the need for food still stays at the bottom of the pyramid as the most important need,
because if they eventually don't stop starving themselves - they'll die.

< Message edited by SocratesNot -- 5/31/2010 3:45:17 PM >

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to UniqueRaven)

Post #: 127

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:46:08 PM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

Jef4, you did not go to that river this morning. That river is in England.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to Jeffff)

Post #: 128

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:48:19 PM

UniqueRaven

Posts: 1237
Joined: 9/30/2009
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
As I already said, there are artists and poets and monks who are willing to starve themselves for weeks in order to achieve self-actualization.
For them, self actualization is subjectively more important than food.
But objectively, the need for food still stays at the bottom of the pyramid as the most important need,
because if they eventually don't stop starving themselves - they'll die.

Holy Man Claims to Have Lived Without Food, Water for 70 Years

_____________________________

"My life has no purpose, no direction, no aim, no meaning, and yet I'm happy. I can't figure it out. What am I doing right?" ~Snoopy (Charles Schultz)

My blog is at http://takinghishand.wordpress.com

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 129

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 3:52:27 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

Holy Man Claims to Have Lived Without Food, Water for 70 Years

If we exclude those who are holy, my claim is still true. BTW, this is either utter bullshit, or supernatural miracle, or some unexplained scientific mystery, none of these three
things apply to theories that try to explain needs and behavior of ordinary people.

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to UniqueRaven)

Post #: 130

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 4:13:43 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

So you are actually saying that he is immoral or unethical if he is not willing to dominate you in BDSM sense?
Or maybe he is too ethical for you?

Euhm, no I can't remember saying that, or even implying it.

I'm saying that if a man isn't comfortable with dominating a woman on every level -emotional, physical, psychological, providing, nurturing and so on- that he has a different moral system then my own, and he thus has a different moral system then the one I need to fulfill my need for moral security.

Whether somebody is ethical or not has got nothing to do with which system of morality they operate under, but rather with how well they are able to operate within the limits of the moral system they set out to apply for themselves.

If somebody has an opposing moral system then my own, and acts accordingly, they might be unethical when I try to apply my sense of ethics to them, but it is perfectly possible for them to be ethical within their own system of morality.
Seeing that my own system of morality does not allow me assume that my ethical system applies to everybody, I will never judge somebody to be unethical just because they don't have the same moral system as I do.
Instead, I will only judge a person to be unethical if they fail to live up to their own self-imposed system of morality.

A need of moral security means that one has to live in such a way that one is able to operate under one's own sense of morality.
Seeing that my moral system dictates that I deffer to my primary partner in all ways, I can only live with a sense of moral security if my primary partner has a system of morality that dictates of them that they take control and exert responsibility over me.

If I would be with a man whose system of morality dictated of him that he was submissive to me (like a female supremacist for instance) our systems of morality would be in conflict with each other, and would thus prevent us both from having a sense of moral security... no matter how much we might get along as platonic friends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

I agree with you that in a relationship BDSM do satisfy many different categories of needs
from all the levels of pyramid, however, I also think that BDSM is not essential for their satisfaction.
Or maybe it is, for some people. I'm not sure. It is complicated.

Again: how essential certain things are to satisfy certain needs from different levels of the pyramid depends on what type of relationship you are discussing.
The lower the level of intimacy, the lesser the importance the relationship itself has to overall satisfy the general needs of a person to be fulfilled.

When it comes to self-esteem, for instance, the approval of a co-worker is less important then the approval of a friend, the approval of a friend is less important then that of a family member, and the approval of a family member is less important then the approval of a spouse.

The higher the level of intimacy a relationship has, the more important it becomes that said relationship fulfills all, or nearly all our needs, over all levels of the pyramid.
If a relationship fails to fulfill certain needs, or certain levels of needs, then that will automatically put a break on the level of intimacy that relationship can actually achieve.

If a partner fails to fulfill certain of our needs, that doesn't mean that we are incapable of finding a general sense of fulfillment for those needs in other ways, but it does mean that the level of intimacy we can have with that partner will always be limited by their incapacity to fulfill our needs.

< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 5/31/2010 4:15:41 PM >

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 131

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 4:24:11 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

Ishtarr, you explained it very well and you seem very intelligent.

OK, I think I understand your point now - if someone is your partner - he must be able to fulfill all of your needs, or else, the relationship will be lacking in some ways
or maybe even impossible.

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to Ishtarr)

Post #: 132

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 4:27:57 PM

leadership527

Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
However, he can be the head of the household, the perfect protector and provider in traditional sense without any BDSM or kink involved.
This is what actually happens in most households.

How interesting that you'd say this. Not that I'm quibbling mind you... but your description fits me to a T. The only odd thing is that those who have more experience in BDSM-land than me seem to think that Carol's and my relationship does fit under the umbrella. Bear with me, I'm making a point here.

In your BDSM = Kink. In other people's heads, D/s is a part of BDSM is not kink (although it can certainly be turned to kinky pursuits). But if you're one of those who is wrapping up your entire gestalt under the umbrella of kink, then that would explain why you insist it must somehow be rooted in sexuality. Just understand that there are two camps on this. In some camps, BDSM equals kink. In others, pure D/s is included.

_____________________________

~Jeff

I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me
I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 133

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 4:31:07 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

There is yet one thing that I disagree with you Ishtarr.
I would be able to tell that someone is unethical, even if he perfectly adheres to his own moral system.
For example Nazis thought that it was virtuous to kill Jews, Gypsies and to do many other horrible things.
They perfectly adhered to their own ethics.
However, I think their ethics was twisted, and so they were IMO evil.
So, I believe that there is some sort of natural or universal ethics, and in order to say that someone is ethical, he has to, not only adhere to his own moral system,
but also his moral system must be in accordance to universal ethics and morality.

Such universal ethics would only cover the most fundamental things such as stating that it is wrong to kill or harm other people, especially if they haven't
done anything wrong .

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 134

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 4:51:38 PM

IronBear

Posts: 9008
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Beenleigh, Qld, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii

Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you outside the sexual?

For me, the whole D/s thing has no value outside sexual overtones. Just curious if most others are similar ...

Substitute M/s for D/s and my reply is a resounding YES. Both the Victorian and Gorean Lifestyles are not slave dependent although suitable slaves do make life easier and far more enjoyable. Remembering that in both these lifestyles the primary orientation of a slave needs to be "service" as in Domestic Service. BDSM as far as the SM aspect is not part of the integral format but is an add-on for the pleasure and enjoyment of the Master/Mistress and of course hopefully for the slave. I'm haoppy to have collared one or more pure service slaves with no sex or BDSM play because I would hopefully have access to or have also collared a lass who enjoyed the forms of "play" I do.

For me it is all about the lifestyle and living it to the fullest finances allow at any one time.

_____________________________

Iron Bear

Master of Bruin Cottage

http://www.bruincottage.org

Your attitude, words & actions are yours. Take responsibility for them and the consequences they incur.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

(in reply to pompeii)

Post #: 135

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 4:55:06 PM

BitaTruble

Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

I agree with you that in a relationship BDSM do satisfy many different categories of needs
from all the levels of pyramid, however, I also think that BDSM is not essential for their satisfaction.
Or maybe it is, for some people. I'm not sure. It is complicated.

Let me try to explain it this way.

Himself and I utilize the various letters of BDSM in various ways and, well, we're old and do not add in D/s as part of BDSM although they do hold hands very well together, you can have one without the other quite easily.

So, for *us* BDSM = bondage, discipline, sadism & masochism - all activities or mind sets in which activities are played out in some way (mental or physical) for a particular result.

M/s & D/s to *us* are about relationships and do not fall under the BDSM umbrella. I can engage in BDSM activities with a variety of different people, different genders with or without compatibility in other areas and have a delicious time in so doing. It is much more difficult for me to have a sustainable M/s or D/s relationship without having compatibility in several key areas including education, life values, family, finances, spirituality etc.

Himself and I *use* BDSM for fun & entertainment .. but we also use it for other things .. exploration, endorphin charge, catharsis, exercise, building & growth and yes, as a prelude or the aftermath of sex, etc., etc. For example, if I have been left alone for a long period of time, bondage (The big B in BDSM) is like getting hugged for me. It makes me feel safe, secure and connected. If I need a good crying jag to relieve stress, being at the cracker end of a buggy whip or even a nice OTK session can help accomplish that pretty much guarenteed if my frame of mind is in that place. A desire to get off on intoxicants is well satisfied by an endorphin trip into subspace .. no beer required. ::grins::

Or, we can just use bondage to keep me still.. add a blindfold and some ear plugs and the combination of stillness, blindness and deafness really lets your mind go places that are otherwise difficult to ascend in the day to day chaos of life. Are these things essential to my satisfaction? Hmm.. well, let me put it this way. There is surviving which, of course, is a good thing.. then there is thriving, which is a grand thing. BDSM allows me to thrive rather than just survive. Other things do as well .. children, family, friends, a great vacation .. but not quite the way that BDSM does in part to its easy accessibility and in part to being fortunate enough to have a man in my life that enjoys the simple pleasures of BDSM but appreciates the complexities of it as well and will utilize what he needs to in order to accomplish his goal of the moment or allow me to go where I can and maximize my own potential for thriving rather than just surviving.

Just a few things to ponder on if you're of the mind.

Celeste

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 136

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 5:02:17 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

OK, I think I understand your point now - if someone is your partner - he must be able to fulfill all of your needs, or else, the relationship will be lacking in some ways
or maybe even impossible.

Thank you, and yes, that's exactly my point.
Although I do not think that most people ever find a partner that truly fulfills ALL their needs, in order for somebody to be a partner, they do have to come pretty close, at least in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

There is yet one thing that I disagree with you Ishtarr.
I would be able to tell that someone is unethical, even if he perfectly adheres to his own moral system.
For example Nazis thought that it was virtuous to kill Jews, Gypsies and to do many other horrible things.
They perfectly adhered to their own ethics.
However, I think their ethics was twisted, and so they were IMO evil.
So, I believe that there is some sort of natural or universal ethics, and in order to say that someone is ethical, he has to, not only adhere to his own moral system,
but also his moral system must be in accordance to universal ethics and morality.

Such universal ethics would only cover the most fundamental things such as stating that it is wrong to kill or harm other people, especially if they haven't
done anything wrong .

Well this is kinda off topic, but okay.

First of all, universal ethics don't exist. There is no possible ethical system that applies to all people, in all context.
Even an ethical system of "natural laws" can only exist if one defines the context in which the natural laws apply, and define situations in such a narrow way that the ethical system basically becomes impracticable on a general level.

Take the example you used: "killing is wrong".
So what about killing in self-defense?
And what if killing in self-defense actually creates a situation in which the greater good of the group/community is endangered?

Killing babies is wrong, right?
Now, imagine this: a group of Jews is hiding in a back room in WOII. The Nazis knock on the door to investigate the house. A baby that is with the group of Jews starts crying, and if not silenced will alert the Nazis and get everybody killed.
The only way to shut the baby up is by smothering it.

Is it ethical to kill the baby?
Is it ethical for the mother to kill anybody trying to kill the baby?
Is it ethical to kill the mother who is trying to defend the baby?
Is it ethical to NOT kill the baby if that means you sign a death sentence for everybody else in hiding, including the baby and the host family?

In order to come to a universal ethical law we have to define the context extremely narrow to be able to apply it in all context, among all people.
The closest I've gotten to seeing a description of a universal ethical law is: "people have an intrinsic right to desire to seek their own fulfillment" and a definition like that is so broad that it almost becomes meaningless.

Even the "golden rule" doesn't apply as a universal ethical system, because it is perfectly possible for Hitler to follow the golden rule and still wish to kill the Jews, because it's possible for him to wish that it would become the rule that everybody wished to kill the Jews, including the Jews themselves.

You claim that the Nazis weren't ethical because their ethical system is wrong in your opinion.
But the problem with that is that in order for one to be ethical, it's not necessary that they adhere to any specific for of morality, but only that they adhere to a certain group-accepted sense of morality.
Therefore, withing their territory and their time, Nazis were perfectly ethical when following a Nazi rhetoric
It is only when they are viewed from the ethical system of another group that their morality becomes unethical.

Because of this, there are two distinctly different ways to determine if something is ethical or not:
- A person can be judged ethical in relationship to your own personal sense of ethics.
- A person can be judged ethical in relationship to their own personal sense of ethics.

It's impossible to determine if a person is ethical or not without first defining in relationship to what you judge them to be ethical or not.
And because it's impossible to define a set of general, universal ethics without absurdly limiting the context, it is impossible to judge somebody to be ethical or unethical in relationship to a general, universally accepted sense of ethics.

If you can come up with a universal sense of ethics that would apply in all contexts, with all people, I'd love to hear about it, because I've been working on this stuff for quite a while now, and as of yet, I've truly been unable to find even one universally applicable ethical rule that isn't either impractically broad, or impractically limited.

< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 5/31/2010 5:33:12 PM >

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 137

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 5:19:37 PM

eponavet

Posts: 406
Joined: 8/18/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

Well this is kinda off topic, but okay.

First of all, universal ethics don't exist. There is no possible ethical system that applies to all people, in all context.
Even an ethical system of "natural laws" can only exist if one defines the context in which the natural laws apply, and define situations in such a narrow way that the ethical system basically becomes impracticable on a general level.

If you can come up with a universal sense of ethics that would apply in all contexts, with all people, I'd love to hear about it, because I've been working on this stuff for quite a while now, and as of yet, I've truly been unable to find even one universally applicable ethical rule that isn't either impractically board, or impractically limited.

No need for me to post...Ishtarr took the words out of my mouth...well, out of my word processor.

Although i don't think i would have been able to articulate it as well...

< Message edited by eponavet -- 5/31/2010 5:21:33 PM >

_____________________________

~ You are a child of the Universe, no less than the trees and the stars. You have a right to be here, and whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should ~

(in reply to Ishtarr)

Post #: 138

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 5:29:57 PM

eponavet

Posts: 406
Joined: 8/18/2006
Status: offline

On topic though, for me, D/s can exist outside the sexual and i prefer it if it does. It adds to my interpersonal relationships, enhances them and helps me feel fulfilled. I can have fulfilling intimate relationships without much, if any sexual kink, but i cannot have them without D/s in some form. I have learned that i can adapt, and enjoy, different styles of D/s - for me, there is no particualr "way" i need to be dominated. I just need to be dominated. Period.

_____________________________

~ You are a child of the Universe, no less than the trees and the stars. You have a right to be here, and whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should ~

(in reply to SocratesNot)

Post #: 139

RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you o... - 5/31/2010 5:52:03 PM

SocratesNot

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

BitaTruble, thanks for explaining me in depth how BDSM makes wonders for you.
I'm glad that you are thriving in it, not just surviving.

Ishtar,
when it comes to defining ethics, we must do it in such way that we do not come in contradiction with intuition and common sense.
Even without reasoning, we know by our intuition and common sense that some things are wrong.
This feeling is nearest we can come to universal ethics.
Another close approach is Kant's categorical imperative:

quote:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Would you like to establish universal law by which it is OK to kill a baby in presence of her mother in order to make her silent, in order to avoid being
noticed by Nazis?
I think you would answer "no", and there are many reasons.
First, if you killed the baby, probably, the mother would get very angry and it could cause HER to become even more loud than the baby,
and then the Nazis would even more easily notice your group of hidden people.
What comes next?
Killing even the mother?
This would cause even more fighting and violence inside the group, and not only that the Nazis would be able to notice your group,
but also it's quite likely that many would die in fighting even if Nazis don't notice you.
Even if the mother wasn't in the same room, killing the baby would most likely cause fighting and therefore,
Nazis would notice them anyway.

So, killing the baby in your example is clearly wrong.

Your example about Hitler and Jews "who also wanted to be killed" is also wrong, because he would never succeed to persuade most of the Jews that they need to die.
There were some self-hating Jews, but they were extreme minority.
Also, I don't understand how did Hitler adhere to golden rule, which clearly says "Do unto your neighbor what you want them to do unto you!"
Did Hitler want Jews to kill him? No. So, he broke the golden rule.

My general opinion is that there IS universal ethics, but this universal ethics is probably hard to define.
There are however many ways in which we can try to come as close to it as possible,
and it includes combination of things such as golden rule, categorical imperative, etc, combined with reason, intuition and common sense.
My other opinion is that moral relativism is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, because, by accepting it, we actually allow anyone to do whatever he / she wants.
If a serial murderer has his own twisted ethics by which it is OK to kill people, for reasons only known to himself, by accepting moral relativism, we would be able to say
that he was perfectly ethical, while it is clear that he isn't.

< Message edited by SocratesNot -- 5/31/2010 5:53:48 PM >

_____________________________

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. - Aristotle
Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend. - Aristotle

(in reply to eponavet)

Post #: 140

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you outside the sexual?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Jump to:

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

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125