|
Aswad -> RE: When is enough, enough…..or where does acceptance end? (6/16/2007 10:17:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mistoferin
I have often said that there are some times when I leave here that I walk away feeling as though there is not enough hot water and soap in the world to make me feel clean again.
Wow. That seems a bit sensitive. How do you deal with watching the news?
quote:
We have taken the whole "your kink is ok/my kink is ok" thing to such an extreme that the fear of being labelled "intolerant" or "judgemental" has us at times turning our backs and keeping our mouths shut even as our stomachs turn in revolt.
The problem is that everyone has a different standard for what causes that reaction.
Mine is when consent is violated, or when pictures are stuck in my face (a subset of violating consent, IMO).
Some ministers I've spoken to draw the line at turning on the lights during sex, or not doing it missionary style, or not doing it solely for the purpose of procreation or fulfilling one's "marital duties."
Your line is apparently somewhere in between those.
But where is that line "supposed" to be drawn, and who gets to decide?
If we go by majority opinion, the bulk of the CMers are on the "wrong" side of the line.
quote:
We allow the fear of not being seen as "politically correct" to override all of our common sense.
As I've quoted in the past, "common sense" is merely the sum of prejudices accumulated by adulthood.
I'm not much for "common sense", nor am I much for "political correctness".
I emphatically subscribe to the view that capable people who make a rational decision about what to do with their lives, with a clear idea of the consequences of doing so, are entitled to do whatever they want, without external interference, as long as they do not involve non-consenting parties.
This is, IMO, a major flaw in all commonly accepted sets of human "rights": they do not protect the freedom to choose, but rather impose "universal" standards that aren't really all that universal, and declare the "rights" that follow from these well-intended but misguided standards to be "inalienable".
For instance, the UDHR article 4 states:
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
This clearly bans a certain number of people from pursuing the lives they wish to lead.
quote:
Some may say that I am trying to justify intolerance. If it is opposed to limitless tolerance than yes, I guess I am.
Don't worry. A lot of people are intolerant.
It usually doesn't become a problem for them until most others stop being intolerant.
quote:
and if someone dares to cry foul they slap that "intolerant" trump card on the table.
It's only a trump card as long as you let it be.
Of course, persisting in hassling them about choices you do not tolerate may not be productive, either.
quote:
Well you know, I really don't mind being labelled intolerant or judgmental. I much prefer it to choking down the rising bile that sometimes comes....
Again, the problem is that these things are subjective.
My bile rises when I see posts such as this one, while yours rises for other reasons.
There's no sensible place to draw the line, really, except where you can pin it down.
And, as far as I know, the only places to pin it down are (a) majority opinion, (b) international or national standards, or (c) consent. Option (a) excludes pretty much all of WIITWD. Option (b) excludes most of it. Option (c) includes all of it, including the stuff we don't like.
If you have any arguments to support some other semi-fixed place to pin it to, that's great. Let's hear them.
|
|
|
|
