|
CitizenCane -> RE: Ethical issues... (3/12/2005 1:46:36 PM)
|
I happen to be one of those people that think SSC is just advertising to keep the nillas calm. Safe? That's a relative term. Sane? All the intricacies of definition aside, I don't see anyone asking prospective partners to take psych batteries before playing, or volounteering to do so themselves. It's a remarkably high standard to set for BDSM that certainly isn't a requirement of vanilla relationships. Consensual? Well, we live in a pretty non-consensual world. A lot of what's done to us without our consent is hidden behind a screen of normalcy or law or shrink-wrap licensing agreements, but the 'consent' involved is just not having any other viable option. In a D/s dynamic, of all places, we should recognize the elastic, highly-tilted-playing-field nature of 'consent'. So, what are the obligations of consent to people with which we are not directly involved? Surely they are less than to those with whom we are directly involved. If a spouse is non-consensually limiting the options of their wife or husband, do we need their consent to participate in violating those non-consensual limits?
It seems to me that the real issue is character: if the married person you're thinking of playing with is just a user, or somebody caught in a bad situation trying to make things come out okay. Either way, of course, you can have complications in your life you don't want. While I, personally, am not prone to play with someone who is deceiving a spouse or partner, I am also reluctant to condemn someone who does on ethical or moral grounds. On practical grounds- I think you're usually just asking for trouble.
Citizen Cane
|
|
|
|
