The Golden Rule

(A typical caning scene at Lupus Pictures...)

In the discussion on my last post about Football and Masochism some very interesting topics came up which made me think again about tolerance and ethical behaviour. Both Ludwig and I subscribe to the view that there are indeed universal moral values which, as Ludwig explained, "can be derived from human reason according to our best understanding of our individual and collective needs. What that means in practice is another long, complex discussion, but in my view, the so-called 'golden rule' is a good starting point and will take us quite a long way: one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. And one should not treat others as one would not like others to treat oneself. Many philosophers have developed variations of this theme in different time periods and cultures, from Confucius to Kant."

Now, the golden rule might be a bit misguiding at first. For example, it doesn't mean that I can slap unsuspecting people on their bottoms just because I would find it funny if someone did that to me. One has to transfer the moral issue to a more abstract level at first. The question isn't: Am I okay with a stranger playfully slapping my bottom and can I therefore do the same to others? The question is: Am I okay with a stranger doing something to me that I don't expect, haven't agreed upon beforehand and maybe don't like, just because that person likes it? I guess the answer is simple.

Therefore my guideline for tolerance is the following: In my view, open-mindedness means accepting others as they are and letting them live as they want to, as long as their actions don't violate the health or freedom of others. If the latter is the case, limits have to be set and compromises have to be made. The problem: In my opinion many people aren't capable of distinguishing between personal preferences / limits / tastes and ethical values. Those people often use the former as a base for moral judgements, stating that those who don't have similar preferences or who do things that are beyond their personal limits are behaving immorally. Today I have come across a discussion of an age-old topic on Chross's message board which sadly again demonstrates this issue.

(...and the resulting marks.)

The original commenter mglfrps writes: "I enjoy spanking art, stories, photos very much. They are a big part of my erotic fantasies. However, I like them to be cute, naughty, clever, funny, sexy like the cartoon art of spankings in the Humorama magazines of the '50's and the Betty Page spanking images of that era, too. I detest the Lupus type of spanking images. I hate to see pretty girls' pretty bottoms covered with welts and perhaps about to bleed out. I may have some grudges against some women but I believe if you enjoy seeing the deep purple bruises and the blood red caning marks, you should seek psychiatric help very soon and do not act out on those fantasies, please." He later adds: "The most important point I am trying to make i [sic] that there is a broad spectrum in the world of BDSM. The most violent end of the spectrum scares me about who is enjoying depictions of rape and real torture and whether or not this is an outlet for those feelings or a stirring up of those feelings that will lead to real world horrors."

In another comment woronov adds: "I wholly share mglfrps tastes. In fact, I could have written his first post myself. Was mglfrps unduly judgemental? I'm not so sure. I was reminded of a joke by Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle: 'Yesterday I saw a YouTube video of Saddam Hussein's execution. Is there ANYTHING on the Internet I won't masturbate to?' Let's say you are turned on by the idea of killing and eating someone. Could you find a willing partner? Yes, you can. In fact, it happened (in Germany, as I recall) a few years ago. Both partners were consenting adults, but I can't help wondering whether, as he was being killed, the victim had second thoughts. Yes, maybe the idea of being eaten was extremely arousing for him, but at some point he must have realised that being alive is an essential part of enjoyment. People who desire to inflict extreme pain on someone else, whether that someone consents or not, could be in need of treatment."

I don't have to tell you that Ludwig is into severe canings and that he has worked as a top for Lupus Pictures as well as for Mood Pictures. He has also done similarly severe scenes as a bottom. I also don't have to tell you that I have been struggling with severe scenes and sometimes still do. For example, I would probably rather not watch the Lupus Pictures film from which I have taken the pictures for this post. But, at the same time, I have done two canings of the same severity myself, one as a private experiment in order to develop an informed opinion about the subject and one for Pandora's site Dreams of Spanking. Ludwig and I can both testify that there is no permanent harm done by those severe canings. That said, the scenes are definitely challenging, as I experienced during my first try. But if the participants know their personal limits, their possible reactions and how to respond to them, it is very safe and it can also be a very fulfilling experience. I haven't topped Ludwig for a similarly severe scene, yet, but we have already agreed on such a scene in the future.

(The scientific proof - severe BDSM play causes violence.)

Unfortunately, both commenters mentioned above obviously haven't taken the time to learn more about the topic which they are discussing and to develop an informed opinion. Let's try to put emotional reactions on the topic aside for a moment and see how far the golden rule takes us when looking at some of their arguments.

The first main argument against severe scenes which both commenters give is that severe marks don't suit their personal taste and that they don't want to see any stuff like that. So, the basic question is: Do I want to live in a world where it is a basic moral rule that people are prohibited to do and publish anything that doesn't suit another person's personal taste and makes that person feel uncomfortable? I guess I don't even have to give a serious answer to that question. Even if one uses the term "the majority" instead of "another person", that only means that the tastes of minorities would be oppressed by the taste of the majority. And, at least in many countries, that means goodbye kink (yes, even nice pink bottoms), homosexuality and so on. You get the same result when applying my rule for open-mindedness and ask: Does the depiction of severe canings between consenting adults violate the health or freedom of others? Again the answer is no, because one can easily turn away if one doesn't want to look at the pictures or watch the videos.

The second main argument is that both, the tops who dish out severe canings like that and the bottoms who consent to taking the canings, are mentally ill. The basic accusation against the tops: They are women-haters (of course, as so often, only the M/F constellation is considered here) who want to hurt and torture women and might even proceed to non-consensual rape and torture if severe forms of BDSM play aren't prohibited and if they don't seek out mental help. Okay, let me swallow my anger concerning the horrible accusations made against people like Ludwig and me for a moment, and let's analyse that argument rationally.

Fact is that there is a psychological difference between pathological sadism (the one that some psychopaths are diagnosed with) and affectionate erotic sadism (the one that is involved in kinky play) which I explained in detail in this post. The latter isn't considered to be a mental illness. Personal preferences and the severity of one's play don't influence that medical classification, as long as the play is consensual and no permanent bodily harm is done. As for the aspect of being women-haters or men-haters: Ludwig definitely isn't one. Many others whom I have met personally aren't (I recommend reading Ludwig's behind-the-scenes report from his Lupus Pictures shoot). And I am not a men-hater, either, despite the fact that I can enjoy seeing male spankees at the receiving end of severe canings. I can't rule out the possibility that some pathological sadists watch kinky porn, too, like paedophiles who look at boyscout brochures, but that doesn't mean that kinky people who do that kind of scenes or producers who film them are dangerous or doing anything morally objectionable.

(Picture of a typical women-hater and his helpless victims.)

The third part of the argument, which is that the depiction of violence leads to violent behaviour, was disproved in different studies as well. And non-consensual fantasies don't equal the wish to make any real non-consensual experiences, either, as Pandora wonderfully explained in her post about women's rape fantasies. So, the basic question here is: Do I want to live in a world where the prohibition of certain things and the classification of people as being mentally ill and dangerous is based on emotional judgements of people, even if they contradict the results of scientific studies? For me, the answer is again clear.

 

The general tactics and the arguments in the thread mentioned above are typical for the kinds of discussions in which people try to sell their personal preferences as a valid base for moral judgements: Totally inappropriate comparisons (severe canings and cannibalism), attempts to raise fear with completely unproven assumptions (people could become violent because of severe BDSM porn), the presentation of totally wrong conclusions (Lupus could be censored because of their violent movies, so why not prevent that by self-censorship) and pseudo sympathy (hey, in a way I am mentally ill as well, I don't judge you for having those desires, you just have to suppress them) plus pseudo solutions (why not fake severe canings, then everyone would be happy).

By the way, the golden rule isn't a base for moral arbitrariness. Quite the contrary, it can lead to very strict moral statements as well if necessary. Another issue briefly mentioned in the thread was spanking children. In his comment fatherjim states: "Look, I don't like ANYONE hitting kids at all! PERIOD! That said, I will not call those who do sick and in need of a psychiatrist lest they escalate and possibly kill their child!" When it comes to spanking children, that certainly isn't a consensual activity. And scientific studies have proven that spanking children can cause permanent mental harm and that other ways of raising children can be just as effective without involving the same risk. So, the question here is: Do I want to live in a world where defenceless minors are subjected to painful experiences that can cause permanent mental harm (without any scientific proof that they do help these children more in other aspects than other forms of education)? For me, the answer is simple, which is why I am strictly against spanking children, and that not only when there is any acute danger for their lives.

Well, I don't think that rational analyses, informed opinions and the golden rule will ever be able to replace pseudo-moralistic discussions based on emotions, fear and personal taste. But if they did, our world would be a more tolerant and at the same time safer place, in my opinion. Luckily, there are people who use the informed, analytic approach. Some commenters in the original thread did (at least partially). In my opinion that's all one can ask for.