RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary

RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (Full Version)

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

Message

DeviantlyD -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 5:59:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos je ne c'est quoi [;)] No, it's "je ne sais quoi". I used to speak French. Edited to add: To respond to the OP, I agree with LaTigresse's comments on victims and users. If the person who is "responding" seems to be okay with doing your bidding, then I don't see the issue. As other posters have mentioned or alluded to, adults should be able to decide for themselves. Besides, it's not as if your awareness of BDSM (and their unawareness of it) affords you special powers. If you can tell this person seems very uncomfortable doing your bidding, but is only doing it out of a desire to please, then obviously it isn't okay. As you said yourself, you've done it on a case by case basis, so I am guessing this is how you handle it. There is a young woman at work who is definitely a people pleaser, one of the most extreme I've encountered. I wouldn't take advantage of it though, since I don't label myself as dominant and I don't get off on it. There is also the fact that even the most ardent of people pleasers will eventually not want to please a particular person if that person takes advantage of them one too many times.

Endivius -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 6:06:49 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. Stop obsessing. Honestly, If an adult has an obedient nature to them, that doesnt make them your doormat. Treat them with respect and follow your moral compass and you won't have to worry about "taking advantage" of anyone. I think people naturally pick up on confidence and courtesy and tend to respond well to it naturally.

CynthiaWVirginia -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/5/2011 10:36:02 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. Good question, and I am glad to hear someone else mentioning this. When I have this kind of a relationship with a vanilla (in a nonsexual relationship) I call it being their vanillaDomme. I have always had those, even before I discovered BDSM. Sometimes vanillaDomination (it's my made up word and I can spell it however I want to, lol) is not about a submissive vanilla providing service, but rather needing guidance/leadership, and we can rub together more comfortably when I provide it. Is it wrong to order that person around? If it works for both of us, and is part of a healthy friendship or family bond...then no. To turn your question around, would it be wrong of others to need my leadership... I could be exploited as well, you know, if I allowed it; some people who are black holes could suck me dry. Each of us has to decide for ourselves if the vanillaD/s works. If they are desperate to please, part of my dominant nature is to find out where their desperation comes from and start with that first. It usually means I have to step in and fix something. Making a vanilla omega provide a no strings service because they are intimidated by me, or are trying to appease me, would feel morally wrong.

crazyml -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/6/2011 12:41:25 AM)
Oh come on! It's not much of an ethical quandry. First, look at the boundary conditions - This person is clearly unwell; you order them to go to the docs. Ethically this is a wonderful thing to do. This person is hard up for cash,yet you order them to buy you dinner. Ethically this is wrong. Their action is detrimental to them, while benefiting you - it's exploitation. Ethics would require you only to take advantage of a person's willingness to appease if they benefit as a result. You've already come to the conclusion yourself that it's a case by case thing, and it is. Now the question is, how do you tell the difference? After all, the boundary cases are easy, but the in-between cases are more nuanced. A good starting point is "how would I feel if someone tried to get me to do that?" - sure, it's not the end-point (I've asked sub partners to do lots and lots of things that I'd never do), but in vanilla situations it's a pretty sound basis. Another is "How would I feel if I saw someone asking this person to do stuff? Would I think they were being an asshole? If you're possessed of an inner monologue, what is it saying to you? If you're not sure of the difference, and this is a vanilla relationship, I'd say err on the side of not ordering this person to do whatever it is you have in mind at the time.

AneNoz -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/6/2011 8:31:37 AM)
If one is told by myself to do a thing and does so, where is the question of ethics? This person has chosen to do as asked, it is their will to do so. Be at peace Aneka

DesFIP -> RE: Obedient 'Nillas: An Ethical Quandary (9/8/2011 5:27:30 PM)
Just to play devil's advocate, I've been known to do what was asked. Once. Because I view the person asking as an ass who will start a shitstorm otherwise. So it's less stressful for me to do it and then cut off all contact afterwards. Make sure that's not why they're doing it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625