|
HeavansKeeper -> RE: New BDSM Rules (4/13/2009 12:24:42 PM)
|
To be the devil's advocate...
If there is a unified ethics, then there is a unified rule book. It would provide the basic principles which govern ideal human interaction, less so specifics on how events play out.
Until humans decide on unified ethics, I'll continue in conditional statements.
If you feel a dominant and a submissive are equal, balanced parts of a system, then the freedoms of one extend to the freedoms of the other. If one has the right to walk out and leave, so does the other.
If the dominant has the right to seek out other fuckbunnies, and the submissive doesn't, they are not equal in this capacity, and hence, not equals in the relationship. One has more rights than others. (Which is fine, people can volunteer to be unequal with no ethical quandary - nor does it make any involved parties evil).
A less heated example, if the dominant has the right to sleep in until noon and the submissive must be up at 8:00 a.m., then those two are not equals in this capacity.
My point is that basic principles can be extrapolated to rules. The funny guy Susie quotes is right, in my eyes... He just should have made his conditional statement lucid and properly articulated. Here's what would have been more bland, but more accurate.
"Assuming you view D and s as equals, if you are in a BDSm relationship, then you have equal rights, so if your master has rights to find a woman, you have likewise. The rules of reason are clear about this."
[sm=pushed.gif]
|
|
|
|
