Principles (46)

Although I don't like to think that with a very different background to my own (from a both nurture and nature point of view), I'd be any of those things, I do prefer to think, "there but for the grace of God go I," rather than compliment myself on being better than others.

I find it quite difficult to conceive of someone who has absolutely no central point of belief/principle that they cannot compromise on, though. This isn't a criticism of you or others in D/s relationships, but more a struggling to understand how there could never be *anything* that you would dig your heels in over, and simply say, "this far, but no further."

It reminds me of one of Thomas More's speeches in A Man For All Seasons, when Norfolk is trying to persuade him to take the oath:

"I will not give in, because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do, I."

Yeah, I don't. I don't eat rabbit or mink or fox or anything else like that. I eat cows: I wear leather.

www.brightonfab.com www.fetiqueuk.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhKU-tmSQR8

Seriously - I can't think, either off the top of my head or over several days of thought on this, of any particular hot topics that would be verboten for a dom (or indeed, anyone) to challenge me on.

I'd started to come to a conclusion as to why this might be the case, and I think redcat beat me to it:

Sometimes that's a frustrating way to be, as these days it seems to be really important to people that one holds one's side in an argument, and I'm afraid it's often all too easy to make me see the other side. (One of the reasons I failed to get into Cambridge, as it happens - started off arguing one thing, ended up arguing the exact opposite. They don't like that, much - well, they didn't back then, for sure.)

I believe this is nothing to do with lack of intelligence or weak will, but rather I see it as an openness to other ways of thinking, that my way isn't always the right way, that other people's lives and experiences, different from mine, can lead to different conclusions - and also borne from the acceptance that there are many things I've changed my mind on in life, and I've no doubt there's many yet to come.

Indeed, I quite like having my viewpoint changed. There's an almost audible 'pop' and I can feel my mind expand a little...

So would I be happy for 'my dom' to challenge my principles (when I've worked out what they are)? Yes, of course, if he can get me to care enough to engage about that sort of thing. Whether he manages to change them or not depends on how persuasive his arguments are - but then, as I'm looking for a bloke smarter than me, he might well succeed!

Or maybe you simply would not put it that way.

This thread seems to have veered - although it has drawn out some very interesting posts along the way - from some of the OP intention. That was, simply, to ask what people understood by the contention that some people "have principles" - and that some of those some people have principles that are fundamental or intrinsic to them.

I have difficulty with that. When it comes to discussion of moral philosophy, the reification of things like "principles" mostly strikes me as lazy - and more likely to confuse debate than not. Show me a principle: tell me its colour, shape and smell; and I would be interested.

Most of the time, however, it simply seems to stand as shorthand for a statement that "there are things I will always do in a certain way": or "things I will always hold to be true/right"; irrespective.

Which then raises a very intriguing question as to what the "irrespective" covers. If someone said to you that they had a fundamental belief that the earth was flat - and they would hold that belief irrespective of evidence to the contrary....would you consider them "principled", or just a tad deranged?

To be honest, this mainly feels to me like a question of allegiance: to whom or what does an individual look for guidance/instruction? In years gone past, it would have been perfectly acceptable for people to own up to going to somewhere else to find the answers to a particular question.

Contrariwise, I have a suspicion that this insistence, on some parts, that individuals believe what they believe and will do so irrespective of any external pressure is....well... partly deranged....partly sad. I've explained the deranged bit: but sad?

Yea. Because however much the left like to hold Thatcher's assassination of "society" against her, it seems to me that the current liberal left is doing far more to destroy any concept of society than Thatcher ever did. Don't even trust your partner, seems to be the message being put over here: and if you don't trust your partner, who on earth are you going to trust in any broader context?

Truly, this way lies a nation of very lonely (but principled!) individuals.

Regards,

John

Interesting link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/objectification_in...
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/art...
"I'm shocked - shocked to find that gambling is going on in here"

While I do like a bit of force in certain circumstances and I don't subscribe to the notion that submission is a gift, it is important to me that my slave is a free-thinking, feeling person and that he remains that person.

I was surprised by Chastiser's response that looking at her and seeing only himself looking back at him and agreeing with him is "perfection" but can accept that for some this is the ideal and what they may be aiming for. But personally, I want my slave to obey and/or agree with me because he wants to/does. Not because he has become me. I would get very little satisfaction from controlling another me.

Limits are one thing. I enjoy forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do and I love seeing the conflict of desperately wanting to obey while hating whatever it is I'm making him do, but there is nothing he wouldn't bend on if I asked it of him.

I dare say that, for him, any principles would also be given up if I expected it, but it is a principle of mine that they should not be.

Edited 29 Dec 07, 9:31 PM by Tadashii_Aikouka

As you say, part of the difficulty here is in defining a principle. People do indeed tend to stick the label on anything they don't want to have to justify or defend. I personally believe that there are moral absolutes, i.e. right and wrong exist independently of any belief system, philosophy or religion. So I would tentatively suggest that a principle is an awareness (sometimes instinctive or inarticulate) that something is right or wrong, and as such I believe that principles are outside the scope of a d/s or any other relationship.

Having said that, there are few moral absolutes, and huge grey areas in between. How far these are fair game is entirely subjective, and depends on factors such as how 'grey' something is perceived to be and how much moral authority the dom has.

For example, if my dom told me to go out and kill the first person I met in the street, I wouldn't do it. I believe it to be wrong and a matter of principle. However, if my dom told me to leave the shopping trolley in the middle of the carpark instead of taking it back, I would. I think it's wrong, but it's not a principle.

Before anybody points it out, the problem with all of the above is that people's principles, the things they believe to be intrinsically right or wrong, differ. I don't have an answer to that really, but would suggest that it is difficult to have a relationship with someone whose most fundamental principles are different from yours. Also I personally think it would be irresponsible to do something you believed to be wrong because someone else told you to, whether that someone is your dom, your mother, the Pope, or the Fuhrer.

Of course, if you don't believe in moral absolutes then you may not find any of this relevant.