Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
If it wasn't for my desire to publically humiliate My Pet, then she and anyone who would have seen it is not affected. I impose myself on My Pet and on the strangers. I have a responsibility to both groups.
This line of reasoning, taken to its logical conclusion could be put in a manner I think you would disagree with as much as I do:
If it wasn't for LGBT people's desire to publicly display affection for their partners, then their partners and anyone who would have seen it is not affected. They impose themselves on their partners and on the strangers, and have a responsibility to both groups.
We permit, for instance, gay men to kiss in public. Which I think is great.
I don't know many gay men, although I know more than a few bi men, most of which I number among my friends, and have received offers that I've politely declined for an honest reason ("I'm in a steady relationship, sorry," in the case of romantic advances; "I'm sorry, but you're not my type," in the case of sexual advances where this was the case; "Very tempting, but I have a religious prohibition against it, sorry," in the case of sexual advances that have been tempting). I've no problem with gay porn, and enjoy bi porn. In short, I have had a fair bit of exposure, compared to many of my vanilla peers. So I don't take any sort of offense.
However, I also have friends that do take offense, although they have enough respect (or, in the case of some people who aren't friends for reasons causually related to a lack of such respect, enough political correctness / tact) not to express this.
Is it then irresponsible for LGBT couples to kiss, or otherwise display affection, in public?
If such is not irresponsible, how about endogamous poly groups, or BDSM couples? Where is the line, and why?
To paraphrase two different quotes: "I have found that anything that has substance to it can be explained, and to the extent it is (or can be) known, it can be quantified," and "Anyone who cannot explain what they are doing to a six-year-old does not understand what they are doing.". Both apply, I think: if there is substance to the claim that it is irresponsible, that claim can be explained, and even quantified, and in such a way that anyone can understand it.
If, however, the example of LGBT couples is irresponsible to your mind, where then do we draw the line? What is reasonable? What is not? What is responsible? What is irresponsible?
Personally, I find it incredibly annoying, and somewhat offensive, that parents bring children that are prone to crying and/or yo-yo'ing all over the place onto public transportation. Yet I understand that the parents need to travel, and also respect the right of those children to be on board. It certainly is a pest, however, when some kid kicks my seat, a couple of them get into a screaming contest, or a baby starts wailing and won't stop.
Is it, then, irresponsible to have them on the bus? Inconsiderate? Reasonable?
We all have different thresholds at which we are aggravated by something, and that threshold will depend on what that something is. Determining what is responsible vs irresponsible, as well as what is reasonable vs unreasonable, must take that into account, and if a differentiation is made between an "unreasonable threshold of offense" and a "reasonable threshold of offense", then the nature and definition of this difference must be accounted for, subdivided by topic if necessary (although a good factoring of the definition will usually not require such subdivision).
I had a root canal done last week. The pulp/nerve was infected/inflamed, and the local anaesthetic would not hold. For good measure, the dentist managed to break the drill bit he was using to remove the nerve. Five times. Being the wimp that I am, I would call it "painful", but not as bad as the ache that it was meant to cure; sharper and more acute in quality, though, less diffuse. Certainly beyond my threshold of comfort, in either case.
My nephandi laughed her ass off when I told her. Sadistic and submissive make for an interesting combination sometimes. 
Anyway, it did not bother me as much as do kids in a screaming contest, or multiple babies crying at the same time.
Hopefully, then, you can understand why it is not clear to me where the lines are drawn, who draws them, and on what grounds. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me, in depth?
quote:
As a human, it is my responsibility to be attuned to the surrounding people. What is irresponsible/negligent in a playground of children is very different than in a dungeon.
As I have pointed out before, children are largely irrelevant to the issue, although I'd be happy to rehash that debate, if you're inclined to.
Quite apart from that...
As another human, nephandi has an ASD-condition which makes her incapable of being attuned to the surrounding people. Personally, I am usually very attuned to what I can sense, unless I'm lost in thought (unfortunately a common occurance by myself), but not at all attuned to what I am "supposed to" know about them, except insofar as someone has explained it in a manner that is coherent and internally consistent.
Do I then share this responsibility for being attuned to what I have not been told, and do not have any "natural" or "common sense" perception of?
Does she, who is neurophysiologically incapable of such attunement?
What is the ethical foundation upon which this responsibility rests? And what is the ethical foundation from which the line between "responsible" and "irresponsible", "acceptable" and "unacceptable", "reasonable" and "unreasonable", is drawn?
For me, it hasn't been an issue. Yet. The reason is simple: we haven't "come out" to all of our friends and relatives yet, and in my line of work, the associated prejudices could quickly disqualify me from consideration in contexts where I would be a suitable candidate. Hence, I do not engage in public play, at the moment.
It will most likely happen at some point, however, and it would be interesting to see a thread get to the core of the issue. The substance, if you will.
quote:
It's very hard to set finite principles.
To reiterate from earlier on, if something is hard to pin down, it's usually because (a) we are not consciously aware of it, (b) we lack the means to perceive it, or (c) it does not exist, except a social construct of sufficient ambiguity as to be meaningless beyond memorized, arbitrary rules that are not agreed upon (if they were, it would not be ambigous).
Even the social sciences, as well as ethics and philosophy, can be put on fairly firm ground.
It may well be that the principles are complicated, or that there are no principles, only memorized rules (whether in default-to-accept or default-to-deny form). Either way, if there are any principles, they would be perceived (because they are known to some or most of those here, it would seem), and they would exist (per definition), so if you are consciously aware of them, they can be outlined. If you are not consciously aware of them, I think it would be a good idea to become consciously aware of them; IMHO and YMMV.
A lot of my work involves getting some very vague notions (from the people with the money) about what is desired, and then digging out the necessary details, until I have formed an accurate description of the task currently at hand, providing feedback on this, and reiterating until things are clear to everyone. Then it is a matter of finding a solution that fits their final budget projections and requirements, or informing them that it cannot be done, at least not by my company. Finally, breaking it down to the level where the exact intent of the management after feedback, can be carried out by people whose ideas and opinions may be very far from those of the management. Scratching the bit about budget projections, and treating the original question of the distinction between responsible and irresponsible public humiliation as the "management spec", this is pretty much the task at hand, or at least can be treated as equivalent to the task at hand.
In short, I could pin down principles from my own axioms, or even sketch them, but those would not be even remotely representative, and so would be of limited interest to this thread, hence I would like to see if there is any foundation for a consensus opinion among those with a more representative view, the formulation of which depends on digging deep.
quote:
Every session of public humiliation is, by nature, irresponsible in one nature or another.
As before, I contest the notion that it is irresponsible by nature; I believe that depends on the nature of the public humiliation and the context in which it occurs.
Bear in mind that what constitutes a humiliating experience will vary from person to person; if someone finds it deeply humiliating to go buy a doll, even as a gift, which nephandi does, would it be irresponsible to make such a person go buy one as a means of public humiliation? If so, why, and how about if it actually is a gift, but the task of purchasing it is assigned to the person on the receiving end of the public humiliation for practical reasons, even though the net result incidentally includes public humiliation?
Usual "everything else equal" conditions apply, of course, i.e. person making the purchase is a consenting partner, derives satisfaction from the humiliation, clerks et al are unaware of what is going on, etc.
quote:
To me, it's a matter of lowering my negligence to an acceptable level.
How do you determine what is an acceptable level of negligence?
The spectrum is pretty wide, ranging from "not giving up everything you have and dedicating your life to help other people is unacceptably negligent" to "accidentally nuking a small country is acceptable negligence", putting it somewhat absurdly to make the point clear.
At what point does the tradeoff between your personal freedoms, your quality of life, and your expression of love/affection- versus their personal space, their peace of mind, and their prejudices- happen?
quote:
I never have them go out of expected roles for purposes of My Slave's humiliation.
This one seems fairly common, although there is some leeway in what is interpreted as "expected role".
One example given as acceptable by someone was asking a sales clerk in a sex toy store whether a particular toy would be suitable (business as usual; some customers are shy/nervous/humiliated, the clerks are trained to deal with that, and answering the question is part of their job description).
Another given as acceptable by someone was a man asking a sales clerk in a women's lingerie store whether they thought some particular piece of lingerie would look good on said man (still in scope of the profession; slightly out of the ordinary, but the clerks in any major chain will get these inquiries on a regular basis, and are usually supposed to deal with it in a professional manner).
One that I believe was given as unacceptable, although I haven't read back to check right now, was asking a sales clerk or teller in a grocery store whether some foodstuff (cucumber, IIRC) would "fit" the person being humiliated (outside scope of professional responsibility, although presumably still a paying customer; one can assume responses would range from a serious reply, via wild laughter, to furious indignation).
So far, three fairly comparable "waypoints" marked out. Where, and why, does one draw the line between "in range of role" and "out of range of role"? For simplicity, one could restrict the discussion to these examples.
quote:
Even if he says "No, but you're cute" and chuckles it off like he was being hit on, I've still comprimised his cognitive health. In the academic world, I would be required to debrief him after.
I would say you may have compromised his personal space and/or other things that might not be responsible to compromise, but based on the response in question, I fail to see how you have compromised his cognitive health. Could you elaborate on that?
The requirements of an academic study may be relevant, but perversely so in this case. If he's shrugging it off, I would think debriefing him would be a much more significant intrusion, and something that possibly could be detrimental to his cognitive health.
quote:
Aswad, you're correct in the sense that "volunteer" is vague. In this context, anyone who doesn't say the words "Can I be involved in this humiliation session?" is NOT a volunteer. They are a bystander. Any person who notices, to any degree, what I'm doing with My Pet (My Slave) is "involved."
I'll stick to a subaspect, as I've made most of the points before.
I have noticed, to a very limited degree (your own admission), that you engage in public humiliation, as has the general public of this board, which might in itself constitute public humiliation. I did not ask to be part of it, at least not in the explicit terms you mention here, although I do want to be part of the debate, and consider what I noticed to be entirely harmless; you have still defined me as "involved" and a "bystander".
And what distinguishes this from her wearing a collar (or a vanilla wearing a wedding ring), or you holding hands and/or kissing her (ditto for vanillas), or, to take it a bit further, you leading her on a leash (not all that incomparable to handholding in content, and not unheard of outside BDSM either, e.g. some goth crowds)?
Why is there a double standard of consent applied to our relationships that is not applied to LGBT relationships, and certainly not applied to vanilla relationships?
quote:
I have the responsibility to every person involved to ensure that what they experience causes no mental or physical damage.
Kudos for taking on that burden, but I daresay it is one that cannot possibly be carried without supernatural insight, unless you mean that you have that responsibility only in regard to a certain subsegment of the general population, as merely resembling the wrong person could strike off a particularly prone PTSD sufferer, while wearing a plastic spider on Halloween would send some phobic girls I know running long before they stopped to consider it might be plastic. A certain girl I know, who has worked as a clerk in places that sold (among other things) collars, would go ballistic if anyone bought one; presumably the reason she doesn't work there anymore.
If you are taking on, as you describe, a responsibility that you cannot master, where, how and why do you draw the line on how committed you are to this responsibility, and how do you deal with failures to uphold it to your own standard, if such occurs?
Conversely, if you differentiate your responsibility, on what grounds do you differentiate? And what responsibility, if any, do you have to the "out" groups, the ones not covered by the moral core imposed by such differentiation?
And what do you consider to constitute mental and/or physical damage? How does this, if at all, conform to the person's own standards and/or those of society? If it fails to conform to either, how is that then different from ignoring the issue altogether, i.e. practicing public humiliation to your own standards, rather than those of others?
quote:
Personally, I only use humiliation with those who enjoy the act of being humiliated in one way or another. I have principles in life. One of them is along the lines of "If a sexual act is not enjoyable, at any level, for both parties, it is wrong." If the 'victim' is aroused by being humiliated, that is a level of enjoyment, greenlighting the act, in my eyes.
I'm more oriented around consent and intent.
Most sexual acts me and nephandi engage in are not enjoyable for her and me at the same time, and there is no reciprocation; such is the nature of the intents of both parties, and such has been consented to by both. Then again, our relationship isn't "about" sex, not that I'm implying yours is.
If playing with someone else, however, intent and/or consent can and will differ, so it's tailored, as always. But I don't always lay off the "dislikes" entirely if they have been consented to; it's more a question of making the sum total of the experience conform to the intent, while allowing no individual part to exceed consent.
quote:
I hope I've made myself more clear, but if I haven't, I have no issue discussing ethics with you.
You were certainly more clear this time around, yes. Thank you.
I have tried to be equally clear about where I am trying to "go" with my line of reasoning and my questions, this time around, and hope this will be useful.
I certainly wouldn't mind discussing the ethics involved; in fact, I got the idea that such was essentially the "core topic" of the thread, and it is one I would seriously like to dig into.
< Message edited by Aswad -- 5/27/2007 12:02:23 AM >
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Responsible Public Humiliation - 
Profile
)). 
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