RE: Hiding behind domination (Full Version)

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



Message

agirl -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 10:37:37 AM)

There's a bit of a difference here. If you're doing what you're told to do and you believe in the rightness of your Master/Owner/Husband/Best Friend's decisions, then that's all well and good. But what if you KNOW it's wrong,  with no mitigating factors other than you were TOLD to do it? I thought THAT was the question. If you understand, and take on board the rightness of the decision and agree with it, then surely you're not viewing it as *wrong*? Just trying to understand your POV here.

agirl





agirl -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 10:45:55 AM)

You're correct, though Julia. If Synergy TOLD you to *do* something you KNEW to be wrong concerning your Um, you'd still see it as *wrong* no matter how he put it to you. Tough decisions aren't quite the same as something that you KNOW is wrong. I agree with Chewsie that sometimes we have to make very hard choices but it's not quite the same  thing.

I can concieve that I might have to do some things that might be very difficult but I can't make myself not feel badly about it unless I can *see* the rightness of it.......which would make it *not wrong* by that point.

If you see what I mean......

 



LadyChef -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 10:48:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Can you justify doing something that you know is wrong by saying you were only following instruction? Do you feel that it absolves you of your responsibility in it?


No to the first, no to the second,and check this out: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm



DominicsJoy -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 10:56:18 AM)

I read your question and agree with others... it is very vague. To me I see Oliver North (for some of you young pups, he was what passed for a "war hero" to some), and think of the cop out... only following orders answers (at least when he remembered, that is).
Just because a submissive obeys does not mean that she needs to leave all of her judgement at the door. To do so would be silly in the extreme. I obey, but I also have a brain. If one day Master were to tell me to hurt another to please him- it would bring into question a personal conflict and that delimma would have to be addressed. Just because I serve does not mean I have no mind.

Master's girl- joy
(Take notes Mr. North).



BeingChewsie -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:14:28 AM)

Maybe it is different. I have done things I didn't agree with, would never have chosen to do on my own, but I know without a doubt that he makes the best decisions for our family and relationship. That knowledge trumps anything else, even my own personal feelings.


quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

There's a bit of a difference here. If you're doing what you're told to do and you believe in the rightness of your Master/Owner/Husband/Best Friend's decisions, then that's all well and good. But what if you KNOW it's wrong,  with no mitigating factors other than you were TOLD to do it? I thought THAT was the question. If you understand, and take on board the rightness of the decision and agree with it, then surely you're not viewing it as *wrong*? Just trying to understand your POV here.

agirl






MadRabbit -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:21:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

In a purely theoretical context for the purposes of logical discussion, would you not need any personal absolution in doing something that was deeply morally wrong to another entity?



No, I wouldn't need any personal absolution for obeying R. There are thousands of possible scenarios that would make him issuing an order that harmed/hurt another person or animal the best and perhaps only option he had at the time.

quote:


Would obedience in service to your Master absolve you of any feelings of guilt for these misdeeds commited by your hand?


There would be nothing to absolve me of. I said above and in my first reply, I don't need personal absolution for obeying him. I wouldn't feel guilty for obeying. I believe in the rightness of his decisions and his authority to make them. He doesn't make decisions that impact me or our son without considering all his options and possible outcomes. From there he makes the best decisions he can with the facts in hand at the time for all of us.

quote:


Or would you leave the relationship and find a new Master?


I wouldn't leave him, I'm his wife, his property, his life-mate. We have almost a decade together. Leaving the home and life we waited our lives for..not an option for either of us. It isn't like calling up LL Bean an ordering one in a different color and size.

Clipped because the rest was not applicable because it was contigent on me leaving him and things occuring after that.


Well, unfortanely I don't know how to reply to this because you didn't really answer my questions.

All these answers are based on him making the right decision and not the wrong one. Well, of course, there won't be any reason to feel guilty if he makes the right decision.

So apparently, your obedience is based on the contigency of him doing the right thing.

However, my question was under the pretense that he made the wrong decision which lead to a misdeed under his command and if you would feel absolved of that personal guilt.

Hence, saying "No, I won't feel guilty because he always makes the right decision" isn't an answer to a question that is posed under the situation that he had made the wrong decision and a misdeed because of that poor or malicous judgement was commited.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:25:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Can you justify doing something that you know is wrong by saying you were only following instruction?


yes.  just as easily as justifying doing something this slave knows is right by saying she was "only following instruction".  for this slave, surrender to Master's authority IS what is right.  NOT following His instructions would be doing something this slave knows to be wrong.

quote:

Do you feel that it absolves you of your responsibility in it?

this slave ultimate responsibility is to Master.  to follow His lead, not internally or externally debate or justify the potential morality or immorality of His instructions.
 
justified to a particular cultural, judicial, socially-accepted or religious sense of morality, sure, yeah, hiding behind the dark evil cloak of Domination that Master dons every morning while He instructs this slave to commit all manner of evil immoral nastiness is this slave's safe, happy place...but don't tell the witch-burners where this slave is hiding, ok?[8|]  thanks!!!...[;)]



Zarius -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:27:25 AM)

Greetings everyone

Ahhhh never give a marine an objective or task, for they never ask "how to" they only "do"....


Something like this was brought up by a slave I know, where she said she was forced into doing something against her will, when she was uncollared, attending a gathering that she was totally free to leave at any time... I simply stated, at what point did "free will" leave you?.... to me it is quite simple, you have free will.... use it...


Your reality may vary

I wish you all well

Zarius



charlotte12 -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:28:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Can you justify doing something that you know is wrong by saying you were only following instruction?


yes.  just as easily as justifying doing something this slave knows is right by saying she was "only following instruction".  for this slave, surrender to Master's authority IS what is right.  NOT following His instructions would be doing something this slave knows to be wrong.

quote:

Do you feel that it absolves you of your responsibility in it?

this slave ultimate responsibility is to Master.  to follow His lead, not internally or externally debate or justify the potential morality or immorality of His instructions.
 
justified to a particular cultural, judicial, socially-accepted or religious sense of morality, sure, yeah, hiding behind the dark evil cloak of Domination that Master dons every morning while He instructs this slave to commit all manner of evil immoral nastiness is this slave's safe, happy place...but don't tell the witch-burners where this slave is hiding, ok?[8|]  thanks!!!...[;)]


It might be fun to be captured and interrogated though [;)]



MadRabbit -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:33:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

Obviously, it's not.  Consider, then, that the person who uses such logic isn't willing to accept responsibility in the first place, though.

Consider another form of logic though:

A man dons a costume that allows him to blend into a crowd.  He sneaks into a house, with the express intent on putting a bullet through a powerful man's skull from a half mile away.  He does so, and sneaks away.

This is murder, ne?  Except when performed by a U.S. Marine sniper.

It's the same activity.  The Marine isn't personally responsible for this act; his commanders, and the US government bear that responsibility.  In a court of law, the man would be guilty of manslaughter (simple 'causing the death of another); it would be his commander guilty of murder.  The commander, the sociopath, whomever knows that if I send a person out to kill for me, I am literally using that person as a human weapon.  That person does have a will; but if I know full well that I've paid this man to pull the trigger, it is my will that bears the responsibility.

An insanity defense would be a powerful defense for a slave in such a trial.  A smart defense lawyer would simply show how the slave is no different than a soldier at war, taught to do exactly and only what she was told to do.

We know the difference, of course; which is why I still say that the dominant and slave bear equal responsibility for their actions.

Regards,

Stephan


I'm actually really glad you mentioned this Marine example as an argument. It was the good argument that I couldn't really think of a counter to when I was thinking about this over coffee this morning.

However, for me it doesn't quite do it.

We have two seperate lines of logic that are both pretty solid and both can be compared to a slave.

So if A can be compared to B and be one way of looking at it and C can be compared to B and be another way of looking at it and neither is flawed (as far as I can tell), then what happens when we compare A to C?

Can a sociopathic hitman killing a human being in service to his clients be given equal weight next to a solider killin a human being in service to his country?

I don't think so which is why I don't compare a slave in service to their owner to a solider in service to their country.




MadRabbit -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:38:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte12

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Like...shooting someone in the head?
Drowning a small cat?
Kidnapping a young adult for sexual misuse?

Couldn't a Vanilla man ask you to conspire in his sister's murder just as easily as a Dom?


Yes, charlotte, and it happens all the time.  Most people, who are convicted of  horrific and gruesome crimes against others, aren't involved in BDSM or in a D/s - M/s relationship.


Both of you perhaps should read the first sentence of my post.

Here it is.
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
In a purely theoretical context for the purposes of logical discussion, would you not need any personal absolution in doing something that was deeply morally wrong to another entity?


As i said, 
quote:

Notice that the examples they give are always hypothetical and never one instance cited from an actual event.


quote:

In logical discussion, these things have to be played out to there conclusions.

Who's conclusions?  Your conclusions, maybe, not mine.  In my world, my itty-bitty, little corner of isolationism with my Master and Oour small, loving and caring family, there is no destructive, negative, horrible conclusions to my nonrestrictive service to my Master.  He is free to do what He wishes with His slave, without any hesitation or worry, on my part, because i know that He is an honorable, sound, sensible and, moral man who harbors no ill will in His heart toward me or anyone else.  He has no interest or desire to do evil to anyone or to have His slave do evil to anyone.

quote:

I'm sorry that some of the logic being used here to narrate relationships doesn't pan out consistently.

Who's logic?  Your logic, maybe, not mine.
 
slave joy
Owned property of Master David


Regardless of whether the hypothetical situation is murder, rape, vandalism, theft, borrowing your neighbor's lawn mover under the false pretense of returning it back, never returning a Blockbuster movie, or swiping a peice of bubble gum, the point I am trying to make applies to all of them.

Just because you don't like the examples doesn't change that my point is still valid and applicable in other situations. The more extreme examples just illustrate it better.

If you want to stomp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears, go right ahead.



BeingChewsie -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:41:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Well, unfortanely I don't know how to reply to this because you didn't really answer my questions.

All these answers are based on him making the right decision and not the wrong one. Well, of course, there won't be any reason to feel guilty if he makes the right decision.

So apparently, your obedience is based on the contigency of him doing the right thing.

However, my question was under the pretense that he made the wrong decision which lead to a misdeed under his command and if you would feel absolved of that personal guilt.

Hence, saying "No, I won't feel guilty because he always makes the right decision" isn't an answer to a question that is posed under the situation that he had made the wrong decision and a misdeed because of that poor or malicous judgement was commited.




I'm sorry MR, you are right. I wouldn't feel guilty for obeying or need to be absolved even if he turned out to be wrong by his own asessment. I'd still know he had made the best decisions he could in the moment with the facts at hand. That is just how he operates.



MadRabbit -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:51:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Well, unfortanely I don't know how to reply to this because you didn't really answer my questions.

All these answers are based on him making the right decision and not the wrong one. Well, of course, there won't be any reason to feel guilty if he makes the right decision.

So apparently, your obedience is based on the contigency of him doing the right thing.

However, my question was under the pretense that he made the wrong decision which lead to a misdeed under his command and if you would feel absolved of that personal guilt.

Hence, saying "No, I won't feel guilty because he always makes the right decision" isn't an answer to a question that is posed under the situation that he had made the wrong decision and a misdeed because of that poor or malicous judgement was commited.




I'm sorry MR, you are right. I wouldn't feel guilty for obeying or need to be absolved even if he turned out to be wrong by his own asessment. I'd still know he had made the best decisions he could in the moment with the facts at hand. That is just how he operates.


Okay. Fair enough. I can understand that. Mistakes happen.

I am not trying to jump down your throat or anything or make any assumptions regarding the nature of the man you are serving with this next question.

I just think this is an important issue that should be explored.

It's clear that you have a man you serve who you have a lot of trust in and has a large amount of character as an individual.

Hypothetically, what would you do if one day he were to make a decision that was malicous and unethical and betrayed that character and judgement?

I understand this isn't a plausible scenario because you have been with him for a decade and know enough about him as a man that you trust him to not ever make a decision like that.





celticlord2112 -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 11:56:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Can you justify doing something that you know is wrong by saying you were only following instruction? Do you feel that it absolves you of your responsibility in it?


If you "know" something is wrong, by definition you are asserting an authority other your dominant. Such knowledge, and such additional authorities present, pushes final responsibility from the dominant onto you, the submissive.



Tigrita -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 12:02:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte12
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
In fact, my own model of relationship falls much the same pattern as most of the "No Limit" relationships narrated here. I just don't call it that. I call it "Taking on My Limits".

I like that way describing it. I might start using it. I completely understand the problems involved with calling something no limits but until i can find the words to accurately describe what it means for us then i have fumble around with "no limits." I think the way you address it with that statement makes a lot of sense.


And give up our high-minded, airy-fairy, wonderwoman wannabe superiority complexes?  What would be the fun in that? [8|]

I do think this is a great way to describe it too.

Edited because I've taken on my Man's limit of spelling anal-retentiveness.



agirl -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 12:11:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie

Maybe it is different. I have done things I didn't agree with, would never have chosen to do on my own, but I know without a doubt that he makes the best decisions for our family and relationship. That knowledge trumps anything else, even my own personal feelings.


quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

There's a bit of a difference here. If you're doing what you're told to do and you believe in the rightness of your Master/Owner/Husband/Best Friend's decisions, then that's all well and good. But what if you KNOW it's wrong,  with no mitigating factors other than you were TOLD to do it? I thought THAT was the question. If you understand, and take on board the rightness of the decision and agree with it, then surely you're not viewing it as *wrong*? Just trying to understand your POV here.

agirl






Yes, it's different to doing something *wrong*. I also can't conjure up a scenario where M would ask me to do something *wrong*. Like you, I trust in his decisions for me and my family because I've every reason to do so. BUT, if he asked me to do something I knew was wrong, everything would change because he just would not be the same person. ( something would be awfully awry)

Doing things I don;t agree with and doing things I wouldn't choose to do if it wasn't for him, isn't necessarily *wrong*.

agirl 



Stephann -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 2:48:35 PM)

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

I'm actually really glad you mentioned this Marine example as an argument. It was the good argument that I couldn't really think of a counter to when I was thinking about this over coffee this morning.

However, for me it doesn't quite do it.

We have two seperate lines of logic that are both pretty solid and both can be compared to a slave.

So if A can be compared to B and be one way of looking at it and C can be compared to B and be another way of looking at it and neither is flawed (as far as I can tell), then what happens when we compare A to C?

Can a sociopathic hitman killing a human being in service to his clients be given equal weight next to a solider killin a human being in service to his country?

For a moment, I'll answer the question as though the hitman isn't sociopathic (someone who is, in fact, mentally ill is simply a burden on society; we don't traditionally hold the mentally ill socially responsible for their actions.)

The hitman is a murderer, sure.  Yet, he doesn't represents an element of society that has existed ever since man had to learn to compete with each other.

The Marine assassinating a military leader in a foreign country would be breaking the law, in that country.  A hitman is also breaking the law.  The country and commanders are equally (morally and legally) responsible for their actions, just as the man who contracts the hitman.  The issue isn't about reducing moral or social obligation; the issue is that moral and social obligation apply to all of the people involved in the act.  The person who pays a hitman is guilty of murder; he's using the hitman as a weapon.  The hitman is equally guilty.

The slave who breaks her own moral code to do something she is against is still ultimately responsible for her actions.  If she is, in fact, suffering from trauma (ten years of being locked in a box, beaten, raped, tortured, and brainwashed) she falls under the same legal and moral protections afforded other mentally ill individuals.

People look for reasons they shouldn't be guilty or wrong all of the time.  We constantly give excuses about why we can't follow legal or moral imperatives; I had to speed because I was late for work.  It isn't a question of 'is this right or wrong?'  It becomes a question of 'how wrong is it?'  If I drive 2 miles over the speed limit, I am technically breaking the law; yet society as a whole isn't harmed by this violation.  If I drive 40 miles over the speed limit for ten miles, I might not hurt anyone, but I am certainly increasing the likelihood that I am. 

Thus, the question isn't a matter of black white right or wrong, but one of degree.  How 'wrong' is the act, and are you prepared, as an individual (slave or otherwise) to accept the consequences of your act?

quote:

Hypothetically, what would you do if one day he were to make a decision that was malicous and unethical and betrayed that character and judgement?


Not to speak for her, but I think she answers this elsewhere.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1444056

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie

Honestly if a slave dosn't believe in the "rightness" of her owners decisions as being the best for him, her, and the relationship she needs to get out. Life is too short to live with doubt about your partner.


Stephan



Stephann -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 2:53:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tigrita

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte12
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
In fact, my own model of relationship falls much the same pattern as most of the "No Limit" relationships narrated here. I just don't call it that. I call it "Taking on My Limits".

I like that way describing it. I might start using it. I completely understand the problems involved with calling something no limits but until i can find the words to accurately describe what it means for us then i have fumble around with "no limits." I think the way you address it with that statement makes a lot of sense.


And give up our high-minded, airy-fairy, wonderwoman wannabe superiority complexes?  What would be the fun in that? [8|]

I do think this is a great way to describe it too.

Edited because I've taken on my Man's limit of spelling anal-retentiveness.


And apparently our slave's limit of graceful acceptance of said limits [;)]

That's ok, I'm bringing the belt tonight.

Stephan



slavegirljoy -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 7:28:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Are you saying that slaves are never ever required to do things that they may find morally objectionable, that they have to live with, and that may indeed haunt them until the end of their days? Just because it does not rise to the level of a murder that they can be tried in a court of law for does not mean that it is not as painfully wrong to the submissive.

i'm not saying anything about what "slaves" are or are not required to do.  i'm saying that i, me, this one person, does not submit to anyone who i don't choose to submit to and that i only submit to someone who i consider to be of a moral and ethical character that is agreeable with my own value system.  What other people choose to do is entirely up to them.  If they choose to submit to someone who would have them do things that would "haunt them until the end of their days", that's their choice.  i don't choose to submit to someone who would be so inclined.

quote:

So you made sure that your limits were the same as your Master's when it came to these questions...really no different from anyone else no matter what they call themselves. They pick a mate that has the same values as they do.

Call them limits, if you want.  i know the type of man that i want to be with and that's the type i searched for and that's the type i found. 
 
134 million = the number of men in America, according to the 2000 US Census.
 
600 = roughly the number of men i have met since i was 20, estimating that i have met an average of 20 per year, through school, work, and social activities.
 
25 = the approximate number of men i have gone out with, since i was 20. 
 
12 = the number of men i have had some type of ongoing, intimate relationship with.
 
5 = the number of men i have submitted to in my life. 
 
1 =  the number of men i have been owned by. The reason is that He has been the only One i wanted to be owned by.  He is the only Man that i have ever met, who i felt a true desire to devote myself, my time, energy, emotions, and skills to serving, unconditionally and without restrictions.
 
i have always been very selective about who i spend my personal time with.  i have no interest in or desire to spend my time with people i consider to be of questionable moral character.  i also have no desire to be owned by just anyone or to be owned by someone who's moral character is below what i am comfortable with. 
 
It took me a long time to find the Master that i wanted to be enslaved to but, it was worth the time and effort because He is a perfect fit for me.  The reason He is such a perfect fit is because i made sure, prior to submitting to Him, that He was a Man with values, morals, beliefs, standards, goals, and interests that were in sync with my own. 
 
We discussed the issue of children, along with all the other important issues, prior to entering into a relationship together.  It was decided then that there would be no additional children brought into this world by either of Uus.  Pregnancy isn't a possibility for me and, so abortion is a non-issue, in my case.  If it were a possibility, Wwe would have discussed that issue, as well, before beginning Oour sexual relationship.

quote:

My response to you was because of this:

quote:

Notice that the examples they give are always hypothetical and never one instance cited from an actual event.

You even stated that no one can bring up a convincing case or hypothetical because none existed. One hypothetical I am sure has happened is forced abortion. I brought it up primarily because I remembered your stance on abortion as murder.

Actually, i said that the examples given are always hypothetical and that there is never an actual event cited, when some people, in this case MadRabbit, state how extreme and gruesome a Master could get with a "no limits slave."  i have yet to see one example given of an actual murder or, as you have mentioned, forced abortion, taking place that was the result of a "no limits slave" following her Master's orders.
 
slave joy
Owned property of Master David



juliaoceania -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/30/2007 7:35:29 PM)

It would be very hard to find actual cases, but what you are saying is that it is improbable to you that someone would be ordered to have an abortion and do so against her belief that it is immoral?

The discussion then went to how one would handle it is they were ordered to take action that they felt would harm their UM, care to weigh in on that one? I am sure this is not a hypothetical either

Edited to add, like many vanilla people that take the commitment of marriage seriously and wait for exactly the right person, it seems you have taken your commitment seriously too... as would I take making that commitment just as seriously. As someone that has never been "collared" I understand what you are saying.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625