Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: On addiction and D/s


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On addiction and D/s Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:27:29 AM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Context context context. I think there is nothing wrong with being a surrogate mother. NO one reads here. There is a lot wrong with thinking that asking a strange woman to be one, over the net, who you don't know at all to be one and to tell her it is to please her master because you will be replacing her as his.


-MANY- surrogate mothers are chosen over the internet (back in the day, it used to be through personals ads, but who reads the newspaper personals anymore?). Most surrogate mothers are strangers to the couples that they provide surrogacy for, and that is actually -preferred- in the field... and, frankly, you would have had to get to know one another at some point, to exchange sperm and ova. Oh, yeah... and btw... MOST of these surrogacy things exchange MONEY for BABIES.... but.... but... wait....exchanging money for babies is EVIL, right?

Not your scene? Yeah, I get that. But it is NOT inherently -wrong-... nor is it wrong to try to help one's companion find a more suitable match when you realize that you're not right for one another. Heck, I did it for my first husband, before he and I separated, and got his dating life off to a good start. Worked out well for both of us.

You can hate it all you want -- but just because you don't like it doesn't necessarily make it wrong, immoral, or evidence of mental illness or addiction.

Dame Calla

< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 7/2/2009 6:31:24 AM >

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 221
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:33:29 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

The first case is not something I would do, but I can't call it evil either.

Neither would I with the second case.

In both of those cases, she is of clear mind and consents in a meaningful way.

In the third case, I can't see how that is not taking advantage of her condition.


I understand that it's not what you would do - I was asking your thoughts on whether he was a slimeball or not.  And honestly it's not a trick question.
 
the.dark.


IN the third case he is. He is taking advantage.

 
Ok thank you - I just wanted to see where you was coming from (in my pov) because you said that it's not just a question of ethics to you.  For me (my opinion - I might be being semantic) your response is one of ethics - not as the OP was indicating - morals.  It just helps me understand the path you are coming from and taking thats all.
 
I think Aileen is kind of correct in suggesting that unless you have had a long term bdsm relationship or experience before - you may not grasp the concept of what is in essence, authority transference and the way 'consent' works in such a context.  That's not meant to sound condecending at all, it's purely one of 'learn by experience' things.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 222
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:35:11 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		 Out of interest Sarah why do you believe the adicted prostitiute is not bad but the man who uses her is?

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 223
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:37:18 AM   
Aileen1968


Posts: 6062
Joined: 12/12/2007
From: I miss Shore, New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I think Aileen is kind of correct in suggesting that unless you have had a long term bdsm relationship or experience before - you may not grasp the concept of what is in essence, authority transference and the way 'consent' works in such a context.  That's not meant to sound condecending at all, it's purely one of 'learn by experience' things.





_____________________________



(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 224
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:43:19 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen1968





Yeahyeah, I know.
I was going to type that someone might need to pick you up off the floor as you may have passed out.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Aileen1968)
Profile   Post #: 225
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:46:27 AM   
Aileen1968


Posts: 6062
Joined: 12/12/2007
From: I miss Shore, New Jersey
Status: offline 		Heh. No passing out, but I did have to wipe coffee off of my monitor.

_____________________________



(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 226
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:50:22 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline 		Sorry about the screen, try a bit of white vinegar on a cloth - it's ok for a screen cleaner.
It's ok though.  You haven't ended up in some alternative universe or anything.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Aileen1968)
Profile   Post #: 227
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 6:52:51 AM   
Prinsexx


Posts: 4584
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline 		Having read through the thread I just wanted to raise an issue with regard to addiction and to see how this aspect of addiction ranks against the ethics of safety, sanity and consent.
I'm not one for the analytical so-called depth model (based on the reification of the subconscious and the role of the ego). So my working definition of the subconscious tends to be that that which is subconscious are those aspects of our physiological processes of which we are not generally aware on an everyday basis.
Breatjingm digestion, immune system, levels of fear and arousal at the glandular level and hormones all rate as sunbconscious to me according to my working definition.
Now there is a level to addiction which I assume non of are aware of UNTIL a withdrawal synpton becomes conscious. All drugs, food, environmental stressors have a 'life' within the body. What makes nicotine so addicive to human is that it apes the ultradian feeding cycle and the life of human milk. So we sticj a 'tit on a stick' into our mouth every 90 minutes in order to feel a satiation close to being fed on the breats. It's an innate response to substances and all the most addictive substances have this innate capacity to create a near immediate addiction because the body naturall recognises the chemical response and interprets that respons as a survivla need.
Now: as for safety, sanity amd consent. These are humanly created safeguards I question entirely whether it is possible to ever say one hundred per cent that I or anyone else for that matter plays, always has played and always will play safely. It's trust and a function of relationship, not an absolute. Again: sanity. Exciuse me? How debateable is that one? I'd need a 35,000 thousand word contract for a thesis to do that and no-ones offering.
And as for informed consent? It's a total paradox... even as an ethical code of practice. Contentious to say so but nevertheless I'm going to ask this: how can we ever ever give informed consent. We would have to be seers, to be able to see into an unknown future to be able to ensure another of the 'informed' aspect to that one.
So: SSC is created merely as a semblance of what it is supposed to represent to unable those of us who are hooked on the experiences of WIITWD to go and have those experiences which in themselves are chemically and therefore addictivelt arousing at a subconscious level: ie at a physiological level.
I have always argued here with those who insist on telling me that their bdsm in never sexual. I have argued my point because it's NOT the mechanics of sex for me that define it as sexual: it's the physiogical chemistry.
So my conclusions? My bdsm is adictive to me whether i kick and acream against it being so, try to keep face by saying no it isn't,
It's a bloody greta rush is what it is and I would be bothering to want to do it again unless it gave me a deep sense of pleasure, re;lease and offers me a change of mood, mind set, enables me to sleep afterwards, makes me as high as a kite into sub frenzy and fall like a bat out of a belfry when I drop.
The question is: despite setting up a shimmer of hope that it is SS and C... it's again only down the the question of whether it fucks up the rest of my life and my abilities to cope.
And as with all aspects of addiction only I can take responsibility for that.



_____________________________

Owner of asterion

Metawhore.... the sound of a metaphore when gagged
Free woman
Resident thread finisher
To my stalker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN2lP_7J7GI&feature=fvwrel

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 228
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 7:20:48 AM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL Prinsexx:

These are humanly created safeguards I question entirely whether it is possible to ever say one hundred per cent that I or anyone else for that matter plays, always has played and always will play safely.


It isn't. The best we can do is to say that we play "consensually" and mutually agree to the risks inherent in the activity. This is why I tend to prefer the whole RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink) approach over SSC (Safe, Sane, Consensual). Of those, the only one that can be assured is 'consent'... safety is relative and ephemeral, as we can only determine effective safety after successful completion (the same rationale that many doctors use to say that the only way to determine 'normal' birth is after the birth has happened), and who gets to figure out what is "sane"?

quote:

Contentious to say so but nevertheless I'm going to ask this: how can we ever ever give informed consent.


As someone who is responsible for consenting patients on clinical trials, I can give you the background for this. Informed Consent does NOT mean "I know every possible danger that could come from this, and exactly what that danger would mean to me if it were to happen to me." Informed consent means "I've been given as much information as is available about this thing, AND been informed that there are things we still don't know, and I understand the risks that we know about and how those have affected -other- people, and based on that, I feel ready to say that I'm willing to take my chances."

The point of Informed Consent isn't to eliminate risk -- it is to -define- known risks, and educate individuals to enable them to make the choices that are right for THEM at a given time.

It's been my experience that we are -all- motivated by something, even if it's just the sound of our own voice railing against the wind. *yeah, that's one of my "addictions"* I also speculate, though, that we intentionally -choose- our own motivators, and that we choose the level to which we're going to subsume ourselves into that 'thing' as a motivator.

As a ministerial counselor, I've worked with a lot of people dealing with their 'addictions', and the one thing that strikes me is that human beings just don't let go of their motivators until they're damned good and ready... and sometimes, that means that the motivator becomes more relevant to them than the rest of their existence... but it isn't my job to -force- them to let go of that motivator. It's my job to be there and provide encouragement if they want it... but if they want to hold on to that cigarette, or bottle, or being beaten... hey, they have ultimate sovereignty over their own bodies. IMO, doing something or denying someone something 'for their own good' or "for the good of society" is hubris, and selfish, and generated out of an individual's compulsion to being seen as a hero or god, saving people from themselves--just another motivator, and no more valid than a cigarette or chocolate (and potentially a lot more damaging to others!). That's why I try to remember that when I do 'good deeds', I do them for people who come asking for help first, AND that I am doing it because it makes me feel good... so when the person stops wanting my help, I can walk away without feeling bitter because they "blew off" my "help" and chose not to take my recommendations.

Dame Calla

< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 7/2/2009 7:21:20 AM >

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to Prinsexx)
Profile   Post #: 229
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 8:06:01 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

Thanks for telling me the acronym and welcoming me.

I think the OP was saying that, there can be people who get into this lifestyle for the wrong reasons. I am not a doctor, but I have heard a lot about "addictive personalities." I think that he was saying that there is something like that for D/s and that person - especially if they do not have the self esteem to try to fight it, can become addicted to D/s in much the same way as someone can become addicted to anything else, and that much like other addictions, will then seek greater and greater highs.
you may not be a doctor but I am.  In case you missed it, I stated earlier that I am one of those doctors who looks somewhat askance at those who want to blame each and every instance of selfish, childish, obnoxious, hedonistic, idiotic, whatever-you-wish-to-call-it on addictive behavior.  Many cite studies that speak about "addictive personalities" and many of these studies purport to show what leads to an "addictive personality".  Where most of those studies begin to break down is in the extremely wide range of factors that lead to an "addictive personality" and in the fact that not 100% of those "diagnosed" with a personality disorder have any of the "contributing factors" in their background.
At its most basic level, life comes down to choice.  That first drink, that tenth drink, that 100th drink.  That first snort of cocaine, that first stick of the needle, that first time you eat 6 scoops of ice cream rather than 2...these are all individual choices, just as the choice to be with a master who wants her to look for another woman for her master to impregnate is this woman's choice.  Now, is she an idiot?  She may well be OR this could satisfy some need/want/desire within her.  Is he being abusive of her and, like most abuse victims, she has not yet reached the point of being able to see it?  Possibly...but we have no evidence of that since one cannot compare D/s dynamics to "normal" dynamics.  Is she a lunatic?  In MY opinion, yes...but I am not certified to make that judgement and even if she is, it would require greater knowledge of her by someone certified by the state to make that decision than either you or I are at this point.  Is she "addicted" to this POSSIBLE abuse or, if it is not abuse, this extreme dynamic?  My question would be why you would ask that...unless it is YOUR morality, YOUR choices, YOUR feelings about the matter that says to you that it must be an addiction because otherwise, there is no explaining why a sane (as you see it), rational (as you see it), non-abused (in your opinion) woman would choose the route she has chosen without addiction being at the core of her being. 
No one is saying her choice is right, no one is saying that her master is not acting in an amoral manner, what we are saying is that she had the freedom to make the choice she did and that it is not our job to police each individual nor do we want to be nannyists, saving everyone from the freedom of their choices.

quote:

He is saying that this can be a self destructive cycle.

That's what I took from it at least, and that poor girl really struck me as an example. She looks to me a lot like someone who is in that sort of cycle.
But she CHOSE that cycle and the self-destruction that you witness may not be as self-destructive as you think.  What would be self-destructive for YOU might be morally uplifting and empowering to another.

quote:

She is not an idiot. That's just mean to say. She is in a very bad place. The really frustrating thing to me is that there are people here calling her an idiot (because then she can be ignored) and saying "oh well, she chose to suffer, let her suffer," when she isn't in a place to choose clearly about anything.
No one here has said that they would not help her.  I have stated to the OP that I would make my views known and make my help available and that is all I can do and all I would want anyone to do for me.

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 230
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 8:14:57 AM   
Andalusite


Posts: 2492
Joined: 1/25/2009
Status: offline 		What do you mean by "walk away from it?" I can be single, and not engage in D/s or BDSM, but I don't want to get involved in a vanilla relationship. I've chosen to only date kinky guys, or at least ones who are open to exploring with me, since I was 20. I *do* consider it to be part of my self-identity. I don't engage in it in self-destructive ways though.

Interfering with people at a playparty, when you aren't the DM, is likely to get you kicked out. There's a huge difference between defending someone who is being unconsensually harmed, and being a busybody when the person who is being *hurt* has agreed to it. If you can't tell the difference between the two, I'm concerned that you are sociopathic.

(in reply to QuixoticErrant)
Profile   Post #: 231
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 11:59:00 AM   
Sarahsubmits


Posts: 37
Joined: 7/1/2009
Status: offline 		Ok, Wow,

First off, let me say thank you for writing such a fantastically detailed and well written post. I also loved your profile.

I loved this part especially,

"Something else that is important to Me...and it has been brought home to My heart again very recently...is this: be responsible for your actions and understand your actions have consequences. If you hurt someone really badly, understand that 'having to' say you are sorry may not be the only consequence you have to pay."

I have to agree about personal responsibility here, and your discussion of consequences completely.

I do not disagree at all that people make choices and sometimes they are really bad ones. I do not doubt that they are responsible for their own actions. I blame the junkie much more than the pusher - in the beginning. After the junkie is a junkie though, they are simply not in the same mindset to refuse, and the blame goes more to the pusher.

I am asking that you add in this list, and after reading your wonderful profile, I feel that you must get me when I say it, that you also have a personal responsibility to not prey on people who don't know any better. That is the only real point being made with all of this talk about social duties.

I'm just saying that you should use common sense and a little empathy when making these calls. I get that there are numerous shades of grey. Included in that multitude of tones, but, is some really dark black and some really bright white. If something is borderline, and you called wrong, ok, at least you tried to make a good call. It is a different story. BUT, some things are simply not borderline.



< Message edited by Sarahsubmits -- 7/2/2009 12:00:50 PM >

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 232
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 12:09:20 PM   
Sarahsubmits


Posts: 37
Joined: 7/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

 Out of interest Sarah why do you believe the adicted prostitiute is not bad but the man who uses her is?


Ok, a junkie prostitute is not some glamorous, high paid courtesan right? It's a completely dangerous, disease ridden, soul destroying, degrading and pitiful existence. I am going to be really bold and suggest that someone who would want that life, has something terribly wrong with them. I do not mean wrong in a moral sense. It's wrong as in not functioning properly.

So, if they are that messed up, they really can't consent rationally to much of anything.

Since people in such a state are pretty obviously in such a state, the guy knows better and is abusing her addiction to get his rocks off. OK, that is why I think he is a slime ball.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 233
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 12:12:01 PM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

Can we agree that if someone gets so addicted to drugs, that it actually makes sense to be a prostitute (to get another fix), that they have crossed some threshold out of being able to judge clearly?


nope, we can't. you are saying that initially choosing to take drugs is irrational, the continuance of taking drugs is irrational, and being a prostitute to accomplish the continuance of take drugs is irrational. I don't think any of these things are true. all of these things are choices...they just happen to be socially unacceptable choices. there is no difference between this situation and saying that if someone is chooses to continue smoking, it actually makes sense for them to get a job as a rodeo cowboy to get another fix. there is the element of an activity that is self-destructive (smoking), the individual wanting to continue that  behavior (supposed "addiction"), and the participation in a dangerous career to continue the 'self-destructive' behavior of smoking (irritating bulls that are already irritated). the only difference is that smoking and being a rodeo clown are not illegal and not as stigmatized as drug use and prostitution. all you are doing is placing value judgments on actions you don't like and trying to invalidate the motives of anyone who engages in those actions by cordoning them off as insane (an ad hominem, might I add).

and on the topic of addiction, which I believe should be the central focus of this discussion, I do not believe it exists.

there have been no studies that have even hinted that the pharmacology of drugs cause an individual to lose control.I would suggest that any of you who are truly interested in this discussion check out the following:

research on the loss-of control hypothesis (all of which have failed to give the slightest validity to the hypothesis) that has gone on in the past 40+ years.

the rat park study on morphine addiction (of which funding was withdrawn after the results indicated that rats, once 'addicted' to morphine, only chose to continue the behavior if no other options of action were available).

the findings on cocaine done at the addiction research foundation in canada.

lee robins' studies on heroin use/rapid recovery in the vietnam vets.

and if any of you have access to any psych databases, I'd suggest you find any articles from the 1973 archives of general psychiatry (largest study on confirmed heroin users).

and these are just the ones that come to mind.

and might I remind you of this: http://doctorsfromthefuture.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bayer_heroin_bottle.jpg
there was a time when heroin, and other stong, 'addictive' opiates were legal to purchase in america. as such, the use of heroin and other opiates was greater when it was legal...but the dependence/addiction of it never reached 1% of the population (a 2005 survey puts 'dependence' over 1% - though I believe the defitinition of dependence in both the 05 survey and the Bruce Alexander's book, where I'm getting the percentage from 19th century dependence rates, are unwieldy).

the loss of control hypothesis has never been shown bo the true. it has yet to be identified. it is still only wishful thinking.

and to give you yet another wonderful look at the politics involved in such studies: http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/cocaine-study-supressed.html

in summary, "Drugs can no more cause addiction than sex hormones or genitals can cause perversions or sexual acts." ~Szasz

edit: bring it on, bitches.


_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 234
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 12:27:29 PM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

But with the first example, if someone forced a drunk person to sign a contract... You go on very clearly that would be coercion. I agree!

So if a submissive is in a place where she can't see clearly, don't doms make demands all the time that they are expected to obey? If he knows she is not doing so well, isn't that coercion by your own definition. Isn't he forcing her?


you are ignoring a very important word: forced. if someone forced a sober person to sign a contract, that would be coercion as well.

if you're making the argument that if someone is inebriated (again, difficult to determine how much is 'too much' due to different body sizes and brain chemistry) or similarly impaired, they should be absolved of the consequences of their actions, then I have two contentions to this:

1) the initial ingestion of alcohol is in itself a choice
2) if you argue that the consequences should be waived because they are not in a clear state of mind, then you are saying that women could not sleep with a man while intoxicated without it being rape (which I believe is actually a law in colorado) as they are unable to give consent but also that a man should not be held accountable for crimes he committed while inebriated (for instance, the assault and rape of a woman) because he was not in control.


_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 235
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 12:39:55 PM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

Ok, a junkie prostitute is not some glamorous, high paid courtesan right? It's a completely dangerous, disease ridden, soul destroying, degrading and pitiful existence. I am going to be really bold and suggest that someone who would want that life, has something terribly wrong with them. I do not mean wrong in a moral sense. It's wrong as in not functioning properly.

So, if they are that messed up, they really can't consent rationally to much of anything.

Since people in such a state are pretty obviously in such a state, the guy knows better and is abusing her addiction to get his rocks off. OK, that is why I think he is a slime ball.


Ok, the person who cleans feces off of the walls at low-grade retirement homes is not some glamorous, high paid butler right? It's a completely dangerous, disease ridden, soul destroying, degrading and pitiful existence. I am going to be really bold and suggest that someone who would want that life, has something terribly wrong with them. I do not mean wrong in a moral sense. It's wrong as in not functioning properly.

So, if they are that messed up, they really can't consent rationally to much of anything.

Since people in such a state are pretty obviously in such a state, their employer knows better and is exploiting her desire to meet certain ends (paying for food, rent, childcare, etc.) to earn a profit. OK, that is why I think he is a slime ball.

< Message edited by variation30 -- 7/2/2009 12:40:40 PM >

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 236
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 12:51:02 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

Ok, Wow,

First off, let me say thank you for writing such a fantastically detailed and well written post. I also loved your profile.

I loved this part especially,

"Something else that is important to Me...and it has been brought home to My heart again very recently...is this: be responsible for your actions and understand your actions have consequences. If you hurt someone really badly, understand that 'having to' say you are sorry may not be the only consequence you have to pay."

I have to agree about personal responsibility here, and your discussion of consequences completely.
Thank you...I appreciate your kind words.

quote:

I do not disagree at all that people make choices and sometimes they are really bad ones. I do not doubt that they are responsible for their own actions. I blame the junkie much more than the pusher - in the beginning. After the junkie is a junkie though, they are simply not in the same mindset to refuse, and the blame goes more to the pusher.
Blame for what?  For continuing to supply the junkie, though the pusher's product is obviously destroying the junkie?  Why would he stop doing what makes him money?  Let's face it, if he was all that concerned with the junkie's downfall, he would not have supplied him drugs in the first place.
Much the same argument is made against gambling casinos.  It is a constant cry among the nannyists...why did you let him keep on gambling when you knew that he had to be risking his home, his job, his family, etc?  Why should the casinos be the protectors of those who are too weak to make the right decision?  If the pusher does not sell to the junkie, will that uplift the junkie?  Will he gain any moral ground and suddenly realize that he should not be doing this?  No, he will look for the pusher that will supply him and the one who would not is the ONLY one who displayed a random act of kindness or moral concern.  Will the casinos gain anything from not allowing a person to gamble until they are out of money?  I doubt it...those who preach against gambling preach against ALL gambling, not just gambling that takes place beyond some emergency point.  Will they gain a higher moral ground in the eyes of the public because they "save" us from ourselves?  No, because the public at large does not appreciate being baby-sat. Of course, some do...those who not only want to put their seatbelts on but force you to wear them.  Of course, many of these nannyists are hypocritical...they will force the restaurant owner who smokes and allowed his patrons to smoke, through nannyistic laws, to stop allowing anyone to smoke so that those who don't can enjoy the restaurant but of course, they see nothing wrong with speaking on a cell phone while driving or putting make-up on while driving or writing on the computer while driving.  But wait...are there not any other restaurants in town?  Is this restaurant...previously geared towards smokers and now forced into being geared towards those who don't...the only place that folks could get good food at?  No...in most cases, it is not but these nannyists have a tendency...as noted earlier...to not only want what they want but to impose what they want (because it is better/more moral) on you.  Again, choices.  Despite what christian foundations might be and despite what non-religious people's foundations might be in terms of being responsible for each other, that can only go so far for those same foundations also emphasize the need, the importance of choosing your own pathway and consequences for making the wrong choices are spelled out.  If a person has continually made the wrong choices...despite offers of help, despite being given other options, then there is something within that person driving them and that is theirs to wrestle with, not mine.  I am nobody's therapist nor am I anyone's "White Knight"...not any longer.

quote:

I am asking that you add in this list, and after reading your wonderful profile, I feel that you must get me when I say it, that you also have a personal responsibility to not prey on people who don't know any better. That is the only real point being made with all of this talk about social duties.
I admit to confusion...please write me on the other side and let me know what list you are referring to in the part I have made bold above. 
As to the rest...yes, I have a personal responsibility not to prey on people that don't know any better.  But that personal responsbility was one I chose when I was younger and my morals were  being formulated.  It was built upon and delineated and characterized further when I was in the service and again built upon when I took my professional oath.  Through the years, as a man and as a healthcare provider and as a dominant, I've never seen any reason to deviate from it as it is what I am comfortable living with.  But, while I can hope that others might make that same choice, it is not on ME to choose that or do that for them.  It might be on the law but I am not the law.  Yes, if I saw drug-dealing going on in my neighborhood or I saw a crime being committed, I would report it.  If I see a submissive go to her knees and pull her dominant's loaded weapon (nooooooo, not that...that is a gun.  Remember:  This is your weapon, this is your gun...this one's for shooting, this one's for fun.) mouth, I am going to tell him and her that I think it is stupid and, if it violates club rules, I am going to report it because I think it is stupid and inherently dangerous...not just to them but to other bystanders.  But, if they choose to continue their play because it is not against the rules and others don't seem to mind, then after I have stated my opinion I have a choice to make...leave or stay & shut up.  Their choice...and mine.

quote:

I'm just saying that you should use common sense and a little empathy when making these calls. I get that there are numerous shades of grey. Included in that multitude of tones, but, is some really dark black and some really bright white. If something is borderline, and you called wrong, ok, at least you tried to make a good call. It is a different story. BUT, some things are simply not borderline.
See though...that is kind of a problem because much of what it is that we do is borderline.  Your profile states that you like canes and crops and whips (oh my) and that you enjoy ass play.  In Maryland, just as I am sure holds true for many states, it is illegal for a man/woman to hit a man/woman let alone with an implement.  In some states, again including Maryland, anal intercourse was considered to be sodomy and therefore illegal.  Ass play, at least from what I gathered back when I was your age and dating women your age, was considered to be sick, twisted, perverted, nasty, dirty and one of those things that "just wasn't gonna happen baby and if you stick your finger back there one more time, I'm screaming as loud as I can". 
I'm not trying to be obtuse nor am I trying to be difficult.  We all have to judge for ourselves where we are going to insert ourselves, our feelings, our "help", our control into others' lives.  My decision on that...and for many...comes down to what I can ascertain of choices made.

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 237
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 1:17:40 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Then I would ask you this.
A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub.  He is fully aware of her situation.
The female in question has a great home, has no addiction, disease free, might even have a family whom are aware of what she does and are comfortable with it.  She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it.

Is the man a moral slimeball?

A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub.   He is fully aware of her situation.  The female in question has a house that need to be paid for that she will lose otherwise.  She is bloody good at her job and comfortable with it - it pays the bills and she earns far more than she could working at a minimart or in a secretarial position.

Is the man a moral slimeball?

A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub.  He is fully aware of her situation.  The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub.

Is the man a moral slimeball?

I simply wish to see your take on the three scenarios.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

In the third case, I can't see how that is not taking advantage of her condition.

There are a couple of issues concerning this example I think are valuable to take into consideration:

First, you show a disposition to consider that certain situations automatically render someone capable or incapable of consenting. Your reactions seem to indicate you take a very black and white approach to this. I'm curious what determining factors really make the difference for you.

What if there is a direct conflict between the presumption of enjoyment and the potential to presume an addictive response? I'll alter an example a bit:

A woman has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a male prostitute or pro dom/sub.  She is fully aware of his situation.  The male in question has an addiction and he funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub.

Is the male prostitute being taken advantage of in this scenario?

The reason I switched the genders in the example is twofold:

1. It is more commonly accepted socially to presume that men can enjoy sex for the sake of the sex. I suspect that many people's initial reaction is likely to be different with this scenario because that presumption, coupled with normal gender bias, makes it much stranger to see a man as being a victim of being taken advantage of even though the situation is the same (because you are arguing based on vulnerability to addiction, not vulnerability to another person).

2. The determining factor I see that makes a difference as to whether someone is taken advantage of or not seems to lie in the likelihood of whether they are doing something because they enjoy it or because they feel they have to. This is the big reason I used the example above: what would you say is the motivating reason for the man to engage in selling himself in the example? Is it enjoyment of sex or is it the need for a fix? And, if there is conflict between two possible answers, how do you determine which one is correct?

For instance, if go back to the original example and make a change:

A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub.  He is fully aware of her situation.  The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. The female in question happens to genuinely love what she does. She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it.

Is this, now, an example of being taken advantage of? If she genuinely likes what she does yet also could be doing specific things to feed an addiction, what makes it an occasions of being 'taken advantage of'? If she is making a decision that she would still make without the presence of an addiction in her life, can we still say she's being taken advantage of and, if so, how and for what reasons?

The second issue I want to address is a basic concept of "taking advantage". Every situation that could compromise a person's decision-making ability is a dot on a range, not just one of two poles.

Is choosing to get into a relationship with someone who's on a relatively heavy rebound "taking advantage of" them?

What about a local store owner who you know is being forced to reduce his prices in order to compete with a chain store in order to stay open. Are you taking advantage of him by purchasing his wares at an excessively reduced price? Are you taking advantage of him if his reduced prices still aren't cheaper that the chain store's and you choose to buy them there instead?  And, if you do choose to buy from the local owner at a higher price...who now is being taken advantage of? Would you consider the fact that pity has made you make a decision you would not have otherwise made because of an "addiction" (I'm using the term loosely to cover anything that might compel us to do something we otherwise would not do) to feeling the need to help strangers at the expense of your own benefit?

You're attractive and over 21. Have you accepted drinks or dinner dates from men who you knew you wouldn't actually choose to date? Would you consider that an example of taking advantage of someone...or because it is a more socially acceptable arrangement, does it not really qualify?

There are so many determining factors and variances in "taking advantage of" to take into consideration before making a blanket statement as to the moral status of a decision/event. We take advantage of people thing to varying degrees every day of our lives. At some point, we need to isolate what specific traits make one instance of it "evil" as opposed to acceptable.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 7/2/2009 1:21:54 PM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 238
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 1:44:40 PM   
Sarahsubmits


Posts: 37
Joined: 7/1/2009
Status: offline 		"Bring it on bitches?"

After reading your list of claims that drug abuse is beneficial, I thought about drunk drivers.

Which part of I am through with talking to you did you miss? Please don't make the mistake of thinking it is because I am impressed by you or cowed by you. It is because you are abrasive, not correct. I am simply not going there with you anymore.


< Message edited by Sarahsubmits -- 7/2/2009 1:52:06 PM >

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 239
RE: On addiction and D/s - 7/2/2009 1:50:43 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

"Bring it on bitches?"

Which part of I am through with talking to you did you miss? And it is because it is you are abrasive not correct.


Why bother responding to just this? If you were going to respond anyway, you could have spoken on any aspect of the latest round of posts or you could have stood by your previous statement and said nothing in reference to his post at all-- but instead, you choose this immature rant. Is there a point?

Dame Calla

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to Sarahsubmits)
Profile   Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On addiction and D/s Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094