RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule?

RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

ericadragonlover -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 1:00:14 PM)
ok i know this is the singulrly most retarted question EVER ...but what is the "golden"rule? Raphael you hit the nail on the head Q: What's the definition of a True Sadist? A: Someone that ties a masochist up, takes a few practice swings with the whip, bringing it closer and closer each time... then lays it down and walks out.

Raphael -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 1:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ericadragonlover ok i know this is the singulrly most retarted question EVER ...but what is the "golden"rule? 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' See: http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 2:06:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael quote: ORIGINAL: ericadragonlover ok i know this is the singulrly most retarted question EVER ...but what is the "golden"rule? 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' See: http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm That is a Christian perspective. When I hear Golden Rule, I think of the Fibonacci Sequence (also called Golden Mean, Golden Ratio, Golden Section and Divine Proportion). So, there is more then one Golden Rule it seems. Being an atheist and a designer, the Fibonacci one suits me more ;) But getting back to the Christian perspective. I speak as one being raised as a catholic... Taken literally, that would mean ideally we should all be clones that treat each other the same, which would more often then not, put people at a disadvantage. Taken more philosophically, this could be read as treat others in the way that they want to be treated, just as you would like others to treat you the way you would like to be treated, which is primarily with respect and dignity. It isn’t about actions but rather intent if that makes sense. Interesting that this philosophy drove years and years of non-consentual corporal punishment endorsed by the catholic church… Contradictions are so very interesting :) - LA

Raphael -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 2:20:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika That is a Christian perspective. ... Taken literally, that would mean ideally we should all be clones that treat each other the same, which would more often then not, put people at a disadvantage. Well, if you'd follow the link I posted, there's plenty of evidence it's far from an exclusively christian perspective. Pretty much every ethical or moral system worldwide includes some variation on the basic idea. There is a danger of reading it too literally, as the OP may have done - but there's hardly a problem with reading it less literally, as requiring, as I posited in my earlier post on this thread, that you have to have some way to get at the other persons desires and needs and imagine you had the same, rather than treating everyone as if they were clones of yourself. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. Would you want someone treating you as if you were a clone of them? No. Then you shouldn't do that. Infinite regress ensues.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 2:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika That is a Christian perspective. ... Taken literally, that would mean ideally we should all be clones that treat each other the same, which would more often then not, put people at a disadvantage. Well, if you'd follow the link I posted, there's plenty of evidence it's far from an exclusively christian perspective. Pretty much every ethical or moral system worldwide includes some variation on the basic idea. To a certain degree, yes. But the statement posted by the OP comes from a Christian perspective. I would argue that other belief systems offer a more flexible perspective, Taoism for example which talks more of yin/yang and harmony which I find is more aligned with my perpective and leaves less ambiguity. quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael There is a danger of reading it too literally, as the OP may have done - but there's hardly a problem with reading it less literally, as requiring, as I posited in my earlier post on this thread, that you have to have some way to get at the other persons desires and needs and imagine you had the same, rather than treating everyone as if they were clones of yourself. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. Would you want someone treating you as if you were a clone of them? No. Then you shouldn't do that. Infinite regress ensues. I believe you are saying essentially what I said in my post. - LA

Lordandmaster -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 2:35:36 PM)
In all fairness, the link you posted was from a Jesuit university in Cleveland. So it's understandable that someone might have thought the Golden Rule is exclusively Christian. And I wouldn't go so far as to say that EVERY moral system in the world includes some variant of it. But otherwise you're absolutely right. Edited to add: Once again, someone beats me to the punch while I'm typing...grrr...oh, and JINX. quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael Well, if you'd follow the link I posted, there's plenty of evidence it's far from an exclusively christian perspective. Pretty much every ethical or moral system worldwide includes some variation on the basic idea.

SirKenin -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 4:24:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ericadragonlover Q: What's the definition of a True Sadist? A sadist is someone who farts and pulls the blankets over his/her partner's head.

SirKenin -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/13/2005 4:28:19 PM)
As far as the Golden Rule goes... I think it is all about treating T/them the way Y/you would want to be treated. How is that? By putting Y/your needs first, obviously. So, to follow the Golden Rule you establish what the other person's needs are, then Y/you meet them. If their needs are to serve You and be cuffed to a cross, whipped and flogged, that is what you do. In turn it is not unreasonable to expect them to put Your needs first, of being served, of satisfying Your sadistic desires.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/14/2005 5:41:50 AM)
OH, I have thought about whether to say this or not..so bear in mind that this is tongue in cheek. The alternative "Golden rule"; He(she) with the gold..makes the rules!

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/14/2005 12:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash OH, I have thought about whether to say this or not..so bear in mind that this is tongue in cheek. The alternative "Golden rule"; He(she) with the gold..makes the rules! Ain't that the truth though! - LA

SirSTRYKER -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/17/2005 8:48:16 AM)
quote: Try going further into their shoes for a moment, If you recived fullfillment from humiation would you want someone to deny that humiliation to you? Exactly My feelings as well!

Faramir -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (5/17/2005 9:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I am still having trouble resolving the moral conflict I see inherent in BDSM. Man Owner, I don't think you should be involved in the lifestyle until you resolve this conflict. Prior to finding and being able to interact with another you should know yourself well enough to not have negative feelings concerning the activity. Regardless if you are a Dom or a sub, and regardless of the specific activity. If one shouldn't be involved in BDSM until conflict over BDSM is resolved - we'd easily loose half the people out there. I know what you are saying, and certainly I find hard to imagine someone being real functional in BDSM if they are conflicted, have guilt, etc. But boy - there is a LOT of folks out there who are conflicted over this stuff.

asissyforher -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/7/2005 3:17:39 PM)
quote: If you have ever wrestled with these issues, would you please share your thoughts with me either privately or on this thread? Thanks. < Message edited by ManOwner -- 5/11/2005 3:12:07 PM > ever? yes. and i am at times still thinking on it. yes, i was abused as a child, and maybe? it is partly why "i" have trouble understanding the "play" stuff when i am personally a service servant. but! it IS the d/s lifestyle and if my Mistress wants to play and enjoy Herself? why should "i" say no? after all, i may yet some day learn how to enjoy it? right? thank you asissy

proudsub -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/7/2005 10:42:47 PM)
quote: Please forgive me if there is a thread in the archives that has already hashed out this discussion. I did the best I could to search for it and came up empty-handed. I don't recall this being discussed before. It's so refreshing to have a new topic.[:D]

proudsub -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/7/2005 10:45:00 PM)
quote: Q: What's the definition of a True Sadist? A: Someone that ties a masochist up, takes a few practice swings with the whip, bringing it closer and closer each time... then lays it down and walks out. Now that is just plain cruel.

Lepidoptera -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/8/2005 10:02:16 PM)
I think it is a terrible idea to "treat others as you would wish to be treated." Think about it. Say you are pro-life, and you work at the desk of a hospital. She desperately wants an abortion. But if you were in her your position, you would want someone to turn you away so you would not damn yourself to Hell. So you turn her away. You just did this person a terrible injustice by treating her the way you'd want to be treated. We are all different. We all want to be treated differently. I love to be humiliated and tortured, but I would NEVER EVER do that to anyone else. Obviously, THEY would not want to be treated they way I would want to be treated. Dumbass rule.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/9/2005 4:48:57 AM)
quote: I think it is a terrible idea to "treat others as you would wish to be treated." I think this could be interpreted as literal, as in the example you gave. I tend to interpret it in the larger sense which takes into account other's varying beliefs and preferences. I want to be treated with respect. So I treat others with respect. Hence I am treating other how I wish to be treated. - LA

MstrssPassion -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/9/2005 5:57:29 AM)
I never view any one persons writings to be the "BDSM gospel" or exact truth, but the following are very appropriate examples for this thread. http://www.cufsmaine.org/topten.htm copyright- By Mistress Ren Ó 2002 1) People Who Engage In BDSM Like To Hurt Each Other 3) Submissve Women Are Really ‘Victims’ Of Domestic Abuse. 4) People Who Engage In BDSM Were All Abused As Children 7) People Who Take Dominant Roles Are All Control Freaks Who Like To Control Others. I listed a few examples from Miss Ren's writings rather than copy the entire piece... (i.e. copyright) I whole-heartedly agree with Mercnbeth's post regarding that you really need to pursue a better understanding of self & your place within this way of life before you go out & engage in any type of activities. Though your writings do not come across as an abuser & you most likely are not an abuser... many red flags are popping up that are indicatory of abusers. Respect is a constant. Dominants have just as much respect for their submissives in the act of loving exchanges as they do in humiliating ones & often these exchanges are loving because you are fulfilling the desire of your trusted & consentual partner. Best advice offered by all who have responded thus far & from myself... Until you get it it would be best to not engage in any type of interactions with another person. Get involved with a local group if possible & at the very least, continue posting to forums with your questions & concerns. The fact that you have proves that you are attempting to gain better insight & understanding & that in itself is nothing to be ashamed of... it is very honorable. Best Wishes, MstrssPassion

testlimit -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/13/2005 9:44:46 AM)
I think there's a sort of misunderstanding about the "Golden Rule" morality here. It's not neccessarily refering to a literal tit for tat behaviour, but rather just an admonistion to consider others and how they might react to your behaviour. Try thinking of things in a more general light. Instead of looking at it as "I hate being submissive it's wrong for me to expect others to submit" look at it as "I enjoy Dominating, she/he enjoys submitting." I do think however you might want to watch yourself and examine your own motivations, if you're having these kinds of questions, given your stated history of being abused. As long as you keep in mind the submissives enjoyment as well as your own, you should be on pretty solid moral grounds. I think alot of people, especially in the lifestyle, take things way too seriously. Sex, in all it's forms is play. It's supposed to be fun and satisfying. That doesn't mean it can't involve pain or some of the more extreme acts that people enjoy, but if there isn't any enjoyment, even if that enjoyment is merely the satisfaction of doing something for your lover, it's abuse, not play. I read a thread last night (I'm new to the forums so it's probably an old topic to most of you) about a guy trying to point out a difference between men and women and how guys can take a "game" seriously etc etc. I think it's a fundemental flaw in how we think of things that the idea of "Playing" in the lifestyle is so often thought of as a negative. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I don't condone fakes or the like. But really what the lifestyle, what any lifestyle, should be about is what we enjoy, what we have fun doing...ie Playing.

bipolarber -> RE: Does Domming Violate The Golden Rule? (6/14/2005 9:45:12 AM)
There's only a moral conflict if you believe in the judeo/christian creedo of "do unto onthers as you would have them do unto you." This is a seriously flawed approach, and is widely regarded as a bad move. Instead, try a version of what's currently being called "meta-law". (Created by scientists working on SETI, as a standard of behavior and moral stance, should mankind ever get a first contact with aliens) Basically, it says "Do unto others as they would like you to do unto them." This means that you a) have to talk with them and find out what they need, and b) are in the moral clear by providing for them what they actually want/need, rather than pushing onto them what you THINK they want. Subtle, but staggering in it's implications.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02