RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)?

RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (Full Version)

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

Message

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:49:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Well, to be honest, that doesn't feel very much like realpolitik to me. Realpolitik involves region destabilization, "bait and bleed", deliberate escalation and detente... it has everything to do with infringing on the freedoms of another, and getting away with it, ethically as well as pragmatically. And for every Pol Pot there's a Henry Kissenger - someone who half the world wants to string up for war crimes and the other half praises as "willing to make hard choices to preserve Freedom". Then I was misunderstanding the context of the word as you were using it. I was, I admit, unfamiliar with the term and deferred to the definition described as: quote: " politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives" (from the MerriamWebster site) ...at which point I thought you were asking what sort of practical framework should be applied flatly to BDSM and also to the consent issue therein. My response was geared towards that presumption. Sorry for the confusion. Well, actually, I AM asking that. Just from maybe a different direction than you're thinking of it. Hence my statement "getting away with it ethically". What's a system of ethics that can both be applied and sold to the "community" of WIITWD, that could circumvent the sticky issues surrounding having to define 'consent'?

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:52:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What's a system of ethics that can both be applied and sold to the "community" of WIITWD, that could circumvent the sticky issues surrounding having to define 'consent'? Thou shalt not lie? To thine own self be true? the.dark.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:53:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What's a system of ethics that can both be applied and sold to the "community" of WIITWD, that could circumvent the sticky issues surrounding having to define 'consent'? Thou shalt not lie? To thine own self be true? the.dark. That's... pretty much precisely what I've come up with, as well. So how do we teach that? And while we're trying, how do we keep the pitchforks and torches away?

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Well, actually, I AM asking that. Just from maybe a different direction than you're thinking of it. Hence my statement "getting away with it ethically". What's a system of ethics that can both be applied and sold to the "community" of WIITWD, that could circumvent the sticky issues surrounding having to define 'consent'? Getting away with it ethically involves (depending on what is sought, obviously) simply a connection with the willing. Your entire "should I settle?" thread is precisely about this. The propensity for people to generally presume what should and should not comfortably fall within the accepted boundaries of "consent" (for instance, what you seek) and being prone to label those who may want it as "unfit". Nevermind the weight that others' critiques can bring as far as starting to question the sanity of one's own wishes... I think "consent" is a red herring, in that sense. It clouds the actual issue: odds. The likelihood of finding someone to conversely match your desires. Each individual will be responsible for defining those for themselves.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth So how do we teach that? Can honesty (self-honesty, most importantly) be taught? Or is it just another human variable upon which to determine your desire to meld in companionship with someone? quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth And while we're trying, how do we keep the pitchforks and torches away? Those (if we are to take human history at face value) are inevitable.

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth That's... pretty much precisely what I've come up with, as well. So how do we teach that? And while we're trying, how do we keep the pitchforks and torches away? You will never keep away the witch hunters. All societies have them, even in their own ranks. So you deal with them by sticking to those ethics and not getting drawn into their behaviour - else you become them and perpetuate the cycle. You accept them, you may chastise them but you always love them. You teach by example. You become the living breathing embodiment of your own ethics. the.dark.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:01:38 PM)
1. Know yourself, honestly. 2. Seek what it is you seek, honestly. 3. Do not infringe on the seeking of others. 4. Do not be deterred by the opinions of others. Lather, rinse, repeat.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Who is anyone to state what is right or wrong for another person? but in the end... it is not the judgements of prop.. be they positive or negative that I find troublesome... it is that we shouldn't make judgements in the first place. In fact, I find a certain hypocrisy to suggest that don't judge.... unless it's good, which I see being promoted in a subtle way. So you believe that it is perfectly alright for you to force your moral judgments on other people without their will, and decide for other consensual adults what they should or should not be allowed to do with their own bodies and their own lives? To me, that is ethically reprehensible. Were I to abide by your philosophies, I would have to rail against you, because your ethical position defies my own moral statutes. So who is right, and who gets to judge? Calla Firestorm

gypsygrl -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:10:10 PM)
quote: You teach by example. You become the living breathing embodiment of your own ethics. Nice.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth But what does that leave you with? How do you define 'consent' if you throw away the "community's standards" of safety, awareness and sanity? Do you even use 'consent' as a moral concept? If so, how do you define it, and if not, what do you use instead? I define consent strictly on a case-per-case basis. If someone agrees to do X with me, or allow me to do Y, and I agree to do it, there is "agreement to participate" between us. There is no legal precedent. Neither part is protected, but at least, to all appearances, both parties agreed to participate. Preferentially, I like to have my Darling present if I am not meeting a bottom in a public place where there will be witnesses to the consent. It isn't as though it truly protects either of us, but it does minimize the chance of mis-perceptions. For those who participate on a long-term basis with us, we have a series of 'contracts' that spell out what they are agreeing to contribute to the communion of their presence and our household's. They are re-negotiated as trust and experience causes development in the relationship, either adding or removing things. Again, this isn't for public consumption or to 'protect' either party... it is merely so we can be sure that there are no misunderstandings of what each person's role is in the process. Occasionally, something will happen that will change our mutual level of participation suddenly, and verbal acceptance of the changes by everyone involved is used until a more clearly defined method can be invoked. If someone agrees, and it is clear that xhe's understood what we're talking about, that is all I have to go by. I am responsible for my own behavior, and I hold myself to a certain standard, however, no promise, contract, or bond will bind a deceitful person, nor will such things protect someone from a person who sets out with a will to deceive -- so I pretty much recognize the whole issue of 'agreement to participate" to be for -my- comfort, and something that I do because it gives -me- (and probably those who participate with me) the illusion that we have done everything we can to make sure that we are honest and forthright about our intentions. Calla Firestorm

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VivaciousSub However, the way your post is worded alarms me, specifically the part about "who had ended up in the system in this manner". I am horrified to think that I am not worthy in some way of finding the relationship I seek and that I might be considered a burden or damaged goods. That is deeply wounding. Another point to consider: The fact that I got better means that I stopped deciding that I always knew what was best for me and submitted to the hard work and rigor of the healing process. I turned over my pride and my life and put them in the hands of people who knew better than I did what was best for me. I'd say that doing so made me a better sub, not worse. Honestly, that was, sort of, my point -- that idea that once one has had difficulties such as this, one is 'pariah'. For myself, I've seen enough and heard enough in over 30 years as a minister and a quarter-century as a pastoral care provider, to realize that people change, grow, are challenged, and most of them figure out how to rise to those challenges. The reason this post came up was because of the speculation that someone who had once been considered "unfit" and had entered "the system" was no longer capable of consenting to enter a relationship... a position that I absolutely do not agree with in general. Like everything else, I believe that it is a per-case situation, and my acceptance of a servant in that situation is really going to depend on how things go during discussion -and- during our typical, fluid, extended evaluation period. I did say, in the original query, that I'd give my own opinion at some point in the discussion, and this seems as good a place as any. Every single person has "history". If someone agrees to a relationship, and we've talked enough that I believe that they understand what we're talking about, and they submit under those terms, I'll be damned if I'll turn them away -- even if they acknowledge that they still have work to do (as long as they're still doing their part or are willing to do their part with my help in the ongoing work). Calla Firestorm

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark It leaves you with a bunch of people who take responsibility for themselves and who they are involved with without other people sticking their noses in unless they are asked. It leaves you with people behing honest instead of blaming some set of other peoples 'rules'. Do I use consent? In my life and reality? Not really(see above in this thread as I have already discussed it). I don't believe it exists other than in a paradoxical sense. Safety? Depends on who you are with and the expereince you have. Sanity? Meh - I enjoy my insanity - if that is how I am defined. Awareness? I am self aware. I know what I like and I don't like. I think everyone does - BUT - many people lie to themselves. They hide .inshadows. I exist in them. It's the lies in BDSM that are the issue overall. Considering trust is such a big thing in wiitwd, kinda ironic hey? the.dark. I have to share a brief quote that seems particularly relevant at this point: quote: Willful ignorance and endless laws become the replacement for self-education and self-restraint, because ignorance and laws are easy. Dughall, House of Galweigh, A Diplomacy of Wolves (Holly Lisle) Calla Firestorm

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:39:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What's a system of ethics that can both be applied and sold to the "community" of WIITWD, that could circumvent the sticky issues surrounding having to define 'consent'? IMO, for myself and ours, the most practical manifestation of this is the practice of individual responsibility... in essence, a household version of Libertarian politics. Calla Firestorm

KnightofMists -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Using genocide in the same breath of a couples/groups personal relationship is kind of erroneous. Last time I checked... a mountain is built not by one big rock...but a multitude of little rocks, pebble and sand. So much abuse and genocide is rooted in much smaller issues within the very personal relationships that individuals that commit these crimes and action. What is erroneous is to think that genocide isn't rooted in very small relationships that grows as such likeminded individuals come together. I find it ironic that you state... quote: And that is where people mess up with WIITWD. Consent does NOT exist but yet you use consent or a lack of consent as a determining value in making a distinction of genocide or inflicting abuse. which is strange since you seem to think that it doesn't exist Frankly.. to me consent does exist and does have value... but... just because one does consent or doesn't consent... has little to do with the consequences of a given action that can cause harm and abuse on a person. If consent is given... I am sure that it satisfies a person's moral responsibility...... they consented!...so it's ok that they eat dog shit or get caned, or flogged... or thousands of other things. Fact is... just because they consented doesn't make it right but neither does it have to be wrong either. I wouldn't say that consent doesn't exist... but sometime it actually is irrelevant to my moral ethics. But that is my ethics.. others will have different standards neither being better or worse... just appropriate for ourselves. quote: You cannot make a person leave abuse if they accept it. You cannot make someone give up drugs unless they want to. You cannot make anyone believe something is wrong for them, just because it is wrong for you(generic). You can say,'its not my choice' or 'it's not for me' but to say that it is wrong across the board, to me is wrong I agree.. that you can't make a person leave abuse if they accept it or shall we say consented to abuse. I also agree that you can't make they believe something is wrong just because I believe it so. But just because they choose to accept it doesn't make it right either. Yes.. I can say it's not my choice.. I also can say that I think it is a wrong!.. Regardless of your view that I think it is wrong that I say it is wrong. I think it is good that we have our judgements. I will tell you that I believe it is wrong for alot of things and alot of things I can say that it's not my choice. These things demonstrate my values, principles and beliefs that make me a unique individual in this world. I don't expect everyone to agree... it would be rather boring if they did... I really couldn't stand being with a room full of people just like me........hell... I think just one other like me would be too much. But I do find it hypocrisy to say that it is Wrong for others to say "it's wrong for others because it's wrong for themself" just because they beleive it's wrong for them. I think it's great that people say it's wrong for them...........I also think it's great that they say... It's wrong for others too!.... I might not agree with them.... but I do learn what they are about... and it allows me to make a better judgement of the type or relationship I want to have with them if any.

KnightofMists -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 12:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW So you believe that it is perfectly alright for you to force your moral judgments on other people without their will, and decide for other consensual adults what they should or should not be allowed to do with their own bodies and their own lives? To me, that is ethically reprehensible. Were I to abide by your philosophies, I would have to rail against you, because your ethical position defies my own moral statutes. It might be right in a give situation... and it might be wrong in a given situation... no situation is so simple to judge. quote: So who is right, and who gets to judge? We both are and do !!

VivaciousSub -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 1:43:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW If someone agrees to a relationship, and we've talked enough that I believe that they understand what we're talking about, and they submit under those terms, I'll be damned if I'll turn them away -- even if they acknowledge that they still have work to do (as long as they're still doing their part or are willing to do their part with my help in the ongoing work). Excellent point, Calla. I have seen one too many relationships sunk because the person who still needed to do the work was unwilling to do so. I am inclined to believe that no one is a state where they do not need to work on themselves in one way or another. There is always room for improvement.

DMFParadox -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 9:40:29 PM)
KoM nailed it. I tend to agree with V on "there is always room for improvement" but I've seen this taken too far. And everyone's definition of improvement is different. There's always room for improvement in oneself, but be wary of extending that statement to others or to your expectations. Keep things in balance.

VivaciousSub -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 10:33:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox KoM nailed it. I tend to agree with V on "there is always room for improvement" but I've seen this taken too far. And everyone's definition of improvement is different. There's always room for improvement in oneself, but be wary of extending that statement to others or to your expectations. Keep things in balance. Why should I not extend that to my expectations? I am always seeking new knowledge, new learning, new opinions so to broaden my world. This doesn't mean I'm never satisfied - far from it - but I am wary of those who allow themselves to grow stagnant, to their deficit. I would expect that someone I am in an intimate relationship with - my Sir, to be exact - would be interested in broadening His horizons as well. Just the two cents of a professional student [:D]

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/28/2008 7:28:23 AM)
quote: Last time I checked... a mountain is built not by one big rock...but a multitude of little rocks, pebble and sand. So much abuse and genocide is rooted in much smaller issues within the very personal relationships that individuals that commit these crimes and action. What is erroneous is to think that genocide isn't rooted in very small relationships that grows as such likeminded individuals come together. Thing is KoM, is that genocide is the wiping out of an entire group. And by saying something is entirely wrong not only for ones self, but for others - you are causing the same thing you use as an example. At the risk of sounding out a shock tactic - you are promoting genocide. It's simply the genocide that you approve of. quote: I find it ironic that you state... but yet you use consent or a lack of consent as a determining value in making a distinction of genocide or inflicting abuse. which is strange since you seem to think that it doesn't exist And here is the difficult I have on a personal level. To convey what I am trying to say, I am resigned to using the structure and words that others use to try and to get them to undertand by concepts. You are right in a sense - it is ironic. But when others are unwilling to accept anothers wording - as the King of Siam once said - someone has to try sometime. I am trying. If I change the wording, it becomes much harsher - much more dramatic. Maybe that is what is needed? Choosing is not consent. Its simply choosing. quote: But I do find it hypocrisy to say that it is Wrong for others to say "it's wrong for others because it's wrong for themself" just because they beleive it's wrong for them. I think it's great that people say it's wrong for them...........I also think it's great that they say... It's wrong for others too!.... I might not agree with them.... but I do learn what they are about... and it allows me to make a better judgement of the type or relationship I want to have with them if any. I don't think it is wrong. But I don't think it right. In fact, there is very little I believe to be wrong or right. I just agree or disagree and I do what I find helps me grow. I am not here to save anyone. I am not here to counter anothers mistakes or their victories. I am not here to judge someone as good or bad for anyone else - which on the forums you see occuring all the time. I fail and disappoint - sometimes - I'm far from perfect. But I try - and I will keep on trying. There is no right or wrong to me. There is grey and shadows. And I live in them. the.dark.

KnightofMists -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/28/2008 7:46:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Choosing is not consent. Its simply choosing. true......... but consent is choosing! but even though one chooses or consents to a given action doesn't make in right or wrong for that matter for the well-being on oneself and others. However, as individuals we have our own personal beliefs and values and we will make choices of action that others will disagree with or not consent to. Sometimes those things are rather bad for the person and others... sometimes it is exactly what needs to be done. I am not promoting a particular belief or idea over another.. I am however stating what I see is a reality that unless people speak out and fight against what they see as injustice or moral wrong or anything for that matter will make genocide and all the way down to simple relationship abuse becomes much easier for those that make those choices. I shutter to think what would happen to all the women that are and have been in abusive relationships if there wasn't people trying to stop such activity. I shutter to think what would happen if job harassment was allowed to occur unabaited. I shutter to think what would happen if we allow school bullying. I shutter to think if I allow my girls to just do as they want and not exercise the authority that is fundament to our relationship.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875