Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary

Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (Full Version)

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

Message

Epytropos -> Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:05:23 AM)
Ok so this is something I've been debating with myself and a few correspondents for a while now, and I'm still of two minds on it, so I thought it would make an interesting topic of discussion. Let's say you have someone in your life who considers themselves vanilla but whom, if told to do something, will obey you. Is it wrong to order that person around? On the one hand it seems to me that they're making the choice to obey for whatever reasons they might have, and if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. On the other, a dominant has the ability to inspire submission where others might not - the average person is not necessarily prepared to deal with that sort of personality, and taking advantage of their willingness to appease could be considered a form of exploitation. In practice this is something I've done on a case-by-case basis. If I think the person in question is a closet sub or else simply enjoys serving, I treat them accordingly, but if they just strike me as desperate to please and not really enjoying service I don't, but I'm curious to see if anyone else has a firm ethical framework they've placed this in.

LadyPact -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:17:57 AM)
Perhaps I should say a word here. My other half is not a sub. By all rights, he is absolutely a good husband. There's not a thing within his power that he wouldn't give Me if I asked for it. In our world, it's not about ordering and obeying. He just loves Me and wants Me to be happy. He doesn't "serve" Me and I don't serve him. We're just...... happy, ya know? That's how couples are supposed to be.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:19:29 AM)
If someone's willing to take direction, by all means give it to them.

DarkSteven -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:23:14 AM)
They like to serve. You like to be served. Epytropos, that's all it takes. They don't need a BDSM stamp of approval.

Epytropos -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Perhaps I should say a word here. My other half is not a sub. By all rights, he is absolutely a good husband. There's not a thing within his power that he wouldn't give Me if I asked for it. In our world, it's not about ordering and obeying. He just loves Me and wants Me to be happy. He doesn't "serve" Me and I don't serve him. We're just...... happy, ya know? That's how couples are supposed to be. I'm not really thinking within a couple; I was thinking more platonically or as acquaintances. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven They like to serve. You like to be served. Epytropos, that's all it takes. They don't need a BDSM stamp of approval. What if they don't think of themselves as someone who likes to serve? Am I entitled to make that judgment for them just because I feel I have a read on them as a person?

LaTigresse -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:34:07 AM)
Grown sane adults..........if they are willing to do your bidding....what is the problem?

DarkSteven -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:40:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos What if they don't think of themselves as someone who likes to serve? Am I entitled to make that judgment for them just because I feel I have a read on them as a person? Ask him or her if they enjoy it. Let them make the judgment.

LaTigresse -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:50:26 AM)
As far as ethics, the way I look at it.......if you (the person doing the asking) crosses a line and makes that person feel taken advantage of, they will end the relationship at some point. I think we ALL know people that are users and people that are perpetual victims. How that is manifested is as varied as people are. I tend to avoid perpetual victims because they ARE often easily manipulated and used. I don't want to be THAT person. In fact, I tend to do the oposite and refuse their offers of 'use'. Why? Because they are not mine. I have to almost conciously force myself to utilize whatever it is they are offering. I have an internal dialogue that tends to happen to convince myself it's okay, with a ton of little check points that are involved.

LadyPact -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos I'm not really thinking within a couple; I was thinking more platonically or as acquaintances. Ah.... Other ventures. Got it. Frankly, a lot of people obey Me. I suppose I have that certain je na sais qua. (I'm sure someone will correct My french.) Just how I am.

Epytropos -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 7:30:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos I'm not really thinking within a couple; I was thinking more platonically or as acquaintances. Ah.... Other ventures. Got it. Frankly, a lot of people obey Me. I suppose I have that certain je na sais qua. (I'm sure someone will correct My french.) Just how I am. je ne c'est quoi [;)] I think that's true of most real dominants, which is kind of my point. If that energy, that je ne c'est quoi gives you the capability to elicit certain reactions from people, when does that cross the line between harmless fun and exploitation? I mean as Tigresse notes there are some people who, while not enjoying service per se, still seem to find themselves kowtowing from hell to breakfast. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Ask him or her if they enjoy it. Let them make the judgment. I agree with you in theory - asking them would be about the simplest. That said, I think we've all experienced situations where people will say 'no' when asked a direct question even if the truth is 'yes' if it's something that they feel is shameful to admit, which in the current climate of gender relations both genders are liable to be shamed if they admit to wanting to serve to the wrong person. Men will be seen as unmanly, women will be seen as backwards. Most nillas I know who do admit it couch it in 'I like to make people happy' or 'I like to see others happy' which is true but doesn't tell the whole story. So much of human communication, especially intersex, is in body language and tone and the unspoken, and attempting to drag that dynamic into the light of cold analysis is more likely to destroy it than clarify it. Not always, of course, but more often than not outside of a relationship framework.

OsideGirl -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 7:39:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos I think that's true of most real dominants, which is kind of my point. I think that's more of an alpha thing than a "real dominant" thing. I see that reaction to Master when we're out and about. 'Nillas open his door and waitresses fawn over him. He doesn't take advantage of it, but his view is that if service is offered, it's fair to accept.

littlewonder -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 7:44:22 AM)
Even before I started calling what i do "bdsm", I still obeyed because that's my personality and the culture in which I grew up in. Neither me nor the men I was in relationships with had a problem telling me to do things. For us it's just how it was within our relationship and our culture in which we grew up. It was called a traditional relationship...man as head of household. He leads the family, he is the breadwinner, etc.... No ethical quandaries at all...more like, just the opposite. For me it's THE most ethical way to live. Then again I'm a Christian and feel for me that I'm following my religion, morals and values in that way. eta: After seeing your other post about friends/acquaintances...if they enjoy it and they want to do it then accept it. They're adults and able to decide for themselves. If they don't wan to do it they won't.

IrishMist -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 10:25:27 AM)
Hmmm. I am not submissive, not one bit. Yet I go to a family members house, and someone says to me "go and get us some drinks'. I go and get them drinks. A friend tells me to fetch them their coat. I go and fetch them their coat. A stranger on the street tells me to hold the door for them. I hold the door for them. It still does not make me submissive, nor does it mean that I have a yearning to 'serve'. It's simply good manners and a willingness to lend a hand when needed. edited to add: this was a response to the OP

agirl -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 11:30:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Perhaps I should say a word here. My other half is not a sub. By all rights, he is absolutely a good husband. There's not a thing within his power that he wouldn't give Me if I asked for it. In our world, it's not about ordering and obeying. He just loves Me and wants Me to be happy. He doesn't "serve" Me and I don't serve him. We're just...... happy, ya know? That's how couples are supposed to be. I'm not really thinking within a couple; I was thinking more platonically or as acquaintances. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven They like to serve. You like to be served. Epytropos, that's all it takes. They don't need a BDSM stamp of approval. What if they don't think of themselves as someone who likes to serve? Am I entitled to make that judgment for them just because I feel I have a read on them as a person? Platonic friends or aquaintances......are still able to resist you if they wish to. I don't really see what judgement you're making for them. M nudged, cajoled, bossed me about and advised me for quite a few years as a friend. That was all about ME and what was good for ME........it was nothing to do with serving HIM. I did, or didn't, follow his advice or guidance, depending on how I felt about it. I didn't have to do what he advised depending on how I felt about it. I didn't HAVE to but it made sense often enough for me to at least try to. The only possible way he could have exploited me would have been to have had me doing things for HIM, while disguising it as doing things for me. None of this was remotely connected with serving. I just wonder why you want to order them around in the first place? agirl

MissToYouRedux -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 11:33:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos ... Let's say you have someone in your life who considers themselves vanilla but whom, if told to do something, will obey you. Is it wrong to order that person around? On the one hand it seems to me that they're making the choice to obey for whatever reasons they might have, and if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. On the other, a dominant has the ability to inspire submission where others might not - the average person is not necessarily prepared to deal with that sort of personality, and taking advantage of their willingness to appease could be considered a form of exploitation. ... Use your power for good. [:D]

agirl -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 11:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Ah.... Other ventures. Got it. Frankly, a lot of people obey Me. I suppose I have that certain je na sais qua. (I'm sure someone will correct My french.) Just how I am. je ne c'est quoi [;)] I think that's true of most real dominants, which is kind of my point. If that energy, that je ne c'est quoi gives you the capability to elicit certain reactions from people, when does that cross the line between harmless fun and exploitation? I mean as Tigresse notes there are some people who, while not enjoying service per se, still seem to find themselves kowtowing from hell to breakfast. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Ask him or her if they enjoy it. Let them make the judgment. I agree with you in theory - asking them would be about the simplest. That said, I think we've all experienced situations where people will say 'no' when asked a direct question even if the truth is 'yes' if it's something that they feel is shameful to admit, which in the current climate of gender relations both genders are liable to be shamed if they admit to wanting to serve to the wrong person. Men will be seen as unmanly, women will be seen as backwards. Most nillas I know who do admit it couch it in 'I like to make people happy' or 'I like to see others happy' which is true but doesn't tell the whole story. So much of human communication, especially intersex, is in body language and tone and the unspoken, and attempting to drag that dynamic into the light of cold analysis is more likely to destroy it than clarify it. Not always, of course, but more often than not outside of a relationship framework. That said, if you're not sure, you have to determine what the risk is. That's your decision. Can you be sure that platonic friends and aquantainces are viewing it as harmless fun? And are you sure and confident in the effect you may be having and can you justify it to yourself? I'm not actually certain quite what you mean about obeying you in any case. I obeyed M because he was giving sage advice on my life. Any chance of elaborating on what this ordering around platonically or of aquaintances means? agirl

xssve -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 12:06:10 PM)
As a general rule, anytime you think of nothing but your needs, ethical quandries will inevitably result - the fact that you recognize it as an ethical quandary is good news, but the ethics of relationships are complicated, generally, as you note, revolving around consent, but coercion plays a significant role historically, consent is actually a relatively new development - in many religious communities for example, the members are simply not exposed to anything outside the narrow set of valuesespoused by the religion in question, and considerable pressure may be applied to conform, which amounts to coercion depending on the available alternatives which may be few - when that happens anywhere outside religion, it's typically pejoratively called a "cult" - but regardless, if ethics is a serious question, for whatever reasons, liability included, then simply take into account the needs of the person in question, because generally, if their needs, psychological and physiological, are being met, then it becomes more a matter of personal preference than an ethical issue - if you are causing unnecessary stress, then the issue of abuse will almost inevitably arise at some point. I haven't formally addressed the eternal question of use vs. abuse, but right off the top, I would propose stress a quantifiable yardstick, as it's empirically demonstrable to be both physically and psychologically debilitating - in reality, a lot people stress themselves out over a lot of ridiculous shit, so ultimately, it's going to be a judgment call - I dont' think you can be held liable for psychological stress if the person in question is free to come and go, or half the country would be open to lawsuits.

slaveluci -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 2:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos Let's say you have someone in your life who considers themselves vanilla but whom, if told to do something, will obey you. Is it wrong to order that person around? I'm not so sure that "ordering people around" is an appropriate way to behave in most cases. If you are a dominant type of person and have a submissive type of person who has agreed to follow your particular orders, that's cool. But, for instance, at work...just to go around "ordering" people around, even as the supervisor, is not an approach I embrace. Now, if you're a 4 star general or a brain surgeon busy saving lives, orders may be just what is needed. As a library manager in charge of running a busy library with 10 employees, I never find "ordering" anyone to do anything is appropriate. Ditto with friends, family, acquaintances, or just strangers on the street. If you have to "order" people around, I generally see that as a weakness. Hell, Master doesn't even "order" me around. He patiently states what He wants and He gets it easily enough[;)] quote: On the other, a dominant has the ability to inspire submission where others might not - the average person is not necessarily prepared to deal with that sort of personality, and taking advantage of their willingness to appease could be considered a form of exploitation. I'm going to have to politely call bullshit on this, Epytropos. No "dominant has the ability to inspire submission" in me except the Man I have chosen to submit to. To think that "average" people are just walking around unprepared to deal with some strong, dominant wonder that crosses his/her path is pretty insulting, actually. You can't swing a stick without hitting a self-described "dominant" personality both here and in real life and none of them inspire much of anything positive in me - at least not until I choose to get to know them and then they are somehow DESERVING of admiration and being called an inspiration. They are under the same rules as everyone else I meet, nothing more, nothing less. luci

xssve -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 3:42:56 PM)
quote: You can't swing a stick without hitting a self-described "dominant" personality both here and in real life and none of them inspire much of anything positive in me - at least not until I choose to get to know them and then they are somehow DESERVING of admiration and being called an inspiration. They are under the same rules as everyone else I meet, nothing more, nothing less. Right, I think the word you're looking for here is "assholes".

seekingreality -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 5:12:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos Ok so this is something I've been debating with myself and a few correspondents for a while now, and I'm still of two minds on it, so I thought it would make an interesting topic of discussion. Let's say you have someone in your life who considers themselves vanilla but whom, if told to do something, will obey you. Is it wrong to order that person around? On the one hand it seems to me that they're making the choice to obey for whatever reasons they might have, and if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. On the other, a dominant has the ability to inspire submission where others might not - the average person is not necessarily prepared to deal with that sort of personality, and taking advantage of their willingness to appease could be considered a form of exploitation. In practice this is something I've done on a case-by-case basis. If I think the person in question is a closet sub or else simply enjoys serving, I treat them accordingly, but if they just strike me as desperate to please and not really enjoying service I don't, but I'm curious to see if anyone else has a firm ethical framework they've placed this in. In my view, you put too much emphasis in trying to label people - domme, sub, nilla, whatever. Ultimately, in all relationships people carve out how they choose to interact. And, sure, you can be psychologically abusive and destructive to people who consider themselves nilla -- but you can also be abusive and psychologically destructive to people who label themselves a sub. My take is just be open and honest with people. And if someone is making you uncomfortable, stay clear of them.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875