Women and horses?

[Sub4Life]

Ok. I got you Thanks Sparrow and InnocentFacade. I was like "Oh no I got in trouble!!" lol

 

[Sparrow69]

no, your not in any trouble.... yet... but I definately have my whip with the feather duster tip out.. but you'll enjoy it so dont worry

 

[sebastian]

I think Sparrow was probably responding to my post. As I said, for me the issue isn't discomfort; there's a lot of fetish stuff that I find uncomfortable (scat, ws, blood, hardcore body mod, fear play). I genuinely put that in the 'your kink is not my kink' column, and wouldn't describe such things as immoral (even if I might find some of them icky and unsanitary). But I do strongly believe that bestiality falls into a different category that lies outside the SSC boundary of fetish play. It can't be consensual, so I think it falls on the outer edges of things like pedophilia and rape. I guess I feel that it's important for d/sers to draw this boundary, among other things because without it, it's very easy to fall into the trap of saying that anything is acceptable and nothing is truly immoral. Given that d/s operates in a moral grey area, finding the black and white dividing line is extremely important.

 

[Sparrow69]

Actually, i wasn't really referring to anyones post directly, sebastian, but since you brought it up, whose level of "morality" are we to go by? Bare in mind that the morals you hold are a product of your upbringing,usually stemming from a religious bias honed by your parents/ancestors. So, to a catholic, the mormons practice of polygamy was so immoral they pressured a country that has a guiding compass of separation of church and state to prosecute them.
So while you say its important for us to keep "immoral" actions out of our BDSM, i retort in general with "keep your Morality out of my dungeon"

 

[sebastian]

Well, that's why I based my argument on what I see to be the foundational principle of all d/s play: Safe, Sane, and Consensual. Not only is SSC the widely accepted standard in this community, it's also fairly hard to argue against unless one invokes more subjective moral systems based on religious belief. It also dovetails fairly well with the law ( in BDSM if it's non-consensual, it's also probably illegal, although the inverse is not inevitably true.).

But bestiality is not consensual (it's also not entirely safe--the sane part is more subjective). So by the standards maintained by the d/s community, it's not moral. I realize that many d/sers are reluctant to call anything immoral, because they do not wish to be judged by those who don't follow their practices. Many of us have been treated badly and had to hide our desires for such reasons and reasonably wish to not perpetrate that on others. So not wanting to make such moral judgments is entirely understandable.

But it's also a mistake. Imagine that instead of bestiality, we were discussing a video in which a woman was actually being raped, or a 12 year old was having sex. I think (I hope) we would all agree that in both cases the video was immoral because in the first case it was non-consensual and in the second case the teen cannot give informed consent. The same standard applies to horse-sucking. The horse cannot give informed consent. It might be willing, just like the 12 year old might be willing, but it lacks the facilities to understand the full extent of what is going on.

So I guess I would say that I'm not really intruding my morality into your dungeon. I'm saying that what I strongly believe to be your morality ought to be making the same judgment I'm making on this particular issue. I simply can't see how bestiality can be condoned by those who accept SSC. And in case it's not clear, I have full respect for you and your choices.

A final reason I think this is important is that to outsiders, it's easy to think that d/s has no rules and no standards. Many of the activities are shocking to the uninformed, and it's easy for an outsider to say that bdsm is simply immoral. The best defense against such a charge is to say that bdsm has clear rules and standards, that consent is an absolute bedrock principle, and that practices that involve non-consenting partners are unacceptable. In other words, there is a bright red line between bdsm and rape. (Yes, I realize that pushing limits dims that line a bit, but the sub can always end it.) But not objecting to bestiality undermines that defense.

 

[Sparrow69]

While I fully understand and appreciate your opinion, this is where I differ: Your concept of informed consent is based on the makeup of human sociology and physical physiology. Many animals lack the brain structure to make an emotional connection through intercourse, and instead see copulation as merely part of the cycle of life. We know this through the study of the brain centers and comparing the developed parts of the brain to that of studied animals. Humans as a species, once bred for survival of the species in the same manner animals now do, due to different sections of the brain being enlarged. Hence the caveman's philosophy of "club the woman over the head, drag her in the cave, and breed." studies have shown males and females who habitually cheat on their spouse still suffer from this condition, allowing them to breed without emotional connection or social stigma. By your standards we should not have sex with these people either, because they too cannot properly make informed consent.

now lets examine your discussion about watching a video of a 12 year old having sex. While I understand that to many here this act is deplorable, but I urge us to discuss the full scope of this discussion. Where are the participants from? What social situation are you viewing? If they're from Thailand, for example, they could be a consenting married couple and both parties would possess not only the physical ability to make informed consent, but would be developed enough mentally, socially, and physically to understand its ramifications. Even in our own country 150 years ago, a 12 year old would be considered almost marrying age, and still is in most states with (average minimum age to marry in US is 14 parental consent, and in more then half the states the age of sexual consent is less then 15).

The beauty of the discussion of SSC is that its derived to be different from culture to culture. While I don't condone sex with the unwilling or minors, I also accept that its illegal in my culture. If i were in a different culture, I wouldn't be so disposed of such practices, and while i myself wouldn't participate, that doesn't mean i would judge someone as quickly there as i do here for such acts.
In the end, were all Mammals, and we share many traits with our animalistic brethren in this world. Elephants bury their dead, primates have the same brain physiology as we do, and many other species share similar characteristics that make us decidedly "human".

Without compassion and understanding of all types, we cannot be so quick as to condemn a persons actions without all the factors.

 

[sebastian]

A well-reasoned argument, and I understand your point, particularly about cultural variations. As a historian, I am constantly telling my students they need to view other cultures more objectively, because the moment they start judging, they stop understanding. But I also recognize that there needs to be a point at which one does need to engage in judgment, because if you don't then all standards and boundaries are arbitrary. There have been many cultures that have engaged in practices that simply are immoral. To use one example that I think is quite an important contrast to d/s play, antebellum slavery included many elements of d/s practice (verbal abuse, bondage, sexual use, pain, body modification, ownership), with the difference being that the 'sub' was nonconsenting, and simply had to endure what in some cases was monstrous suffering. But in the context of the society practicing it, this was acceptable; many even argued that it was for the slave's own good (America is the only society to ever argue that slavery was a moral good, rather than an unavoidable evil). To say that cultural variation justifies these things back then means that there is simply no basis for social, political, or economic reform in any society. If morality is as culturally relative as you assert, there was no moral basis for the American Civil Rights movements or Stonewall, no moral argument for the legalization of gay marriage, and ultimately no moral argument that d/s play ought to be legal. If a society choses to condone a practice, it is moral and if a society choses to condemn it, it is immoral. Such a position is, in my mind, utterly untenable.

Your point about compassion is well-taken, and I think most people I would know would say that I'm a very compassionate person. But compassion does not mean validating actions you consider immoral.

 

[Sparrow69]

...To say that cultural variation justifies these things back then means that there is simply no basis for social, political, or economic reform in any society. If morality is as culturally relative as you assert, there was no moral basis for the American Civil Rights movements or Stonewall,

In part, while the moral implications helped gain popularity by sympathetic means, the argument at hand was not moral in either of these cases. They were both political in nature. Both the ACRM and Stonewall were about a particular group of american citizens having their rights infringed on the basis of another groups set of morality.
They were in fact ANTI Moral, but that doesn't mean they weren't correct. They were all granted the same rights, as all men are created equal. The major argument was that their rights should not be denied because of a basis that others in this country found to be MORALLY wrong, In the infamous MLK speech "I have a dream" it is said and i quote, "There is no greater injustice then to deny your fellow man his rightful place beside you based on their moral character, when we live in a nation where all men are created equal."

"no moral argument for the legalization of gay marriage, and ultimately no moral argument that d/s play ought to be legal. If a society choses to condone a practice, it is moral and if a society choses to condemn it, it is immoral. Such a position is, in my mind, utterly untenable.

And there is no moral argument for it,however their is a legal one. the moral argument is against gay marriage, not for it. The pro argument is a separation of church and state, as guaranteed to every citizen via the constitution, focusing on the legal aspect of a civil union, not the religious implications of such a merger."
If a society chooses to condone a practice it is LEGAL, not moral. I'd like to point out that in West Virgina, the age of consent law states that you cannot have sex with someone under the age 11 unless your within 4 years of age. 11. So an 35+ year old can rail the hell out of a consenting 11 year old, and it would be perfectly legal, even though they have to be 14 to get married. It's acceptable there. So your saying its Moral simply because its legal, even though your earlier argument was that its immoral to have sex with someone that young.... Please don't confuse LEGAL with Moral, as they are two completely different things.

Your point about compassion is well-taken, and I think most people I would know would say that I'm a very compassionate person. But compassion does not mean validating actions you consider immoral.

I'm not validating what I consider to be immoral, i merely avoid it. i know what i like and don't like, and like you i file things into a "your kink is not mine" folder. The difference here is I understand that not everyone is the same and i cant change that. The worlds population is to diverse and broad. there's an old saying, "grant me the strength to change the things i can, the will to accept the things i can't, and the wisdom to know the difference."

 

[sebastian]

I think you are misunderstanding my point. If we say that there is no such thing as an absolutely moral or immoral action (that morality is relative and therefore determined entirely by cultural circumstances), then there is no true basis for demanding social change on the basis of morality. Gays cannot argue that it is immoral to deny them the legal right to marry (which is generally the reasoning that persuades straights to support gay marriage). Blacks in the 1960s could not have claimed that the laws barring them from voting were immoral (after all, the real turning point was when whites saw the extreme violence being used to suppress the movement and decided that it was immoral). In both cases, the ban is legal, not moral (the law allowed Jim Crow laws, segregation, and many of the practices that prevented blacks from voting; the law in more states continues to ban gays from marriage). The argument used to overturn those laws is moral. But these approaches rely on the assumption that morality is absolute. We assume that the morality of social equality is an absolute thing; it must always be immoral to disenfranchise a segment of the population if not clear moral argument can be offered in support of it.

Let me make the point another way. If morality is determined entirely by the context of the society, why was antebellum slavery wrong? It was legal, and southern society insisted that it was moral.

 

[InnocentFacade]

Oooooor you could just agree to disagree.