Morality or ethics is not something many kinky folk are concerned about. Of course, they want to do the right thing - most of the times - but as mentioned in the previous blog: “We are more a practical community, focused on human needs and humane ways to find a safe way to get our needs met”, than that we are a bunch of fancy philosophers that contemplate on the eightfold way of bondage or the epistemological consequences of dirty talk.
In this blog we will examine the second point that was raised the last time when we looked at the diminishing tolerance in the BDSM scene; “we see an attitude when truth, morality and justice are involved that can be seen as an increasingly relativist position. As anyone has his own truth and nothing is generally valid, you can be as egocentric as it goes.”
Starting from this, we see if we can find a handle to morality that fits both modern demand and still leaves us free to pursue our lovely sexy kinky habits. If so, we can truly say that BDSM is good.
Are BDSM and corporal punishment immoral?
From the above quotes we have seen that the leather subculture has certain characteristics; firstly, we like to live and play out our kinky urges. As we are mostly lust and sex driven in this pursue, this is the dominant factor. Secondly, we are rather practically focused; concerned with the ‘when’ and ‘what’ and less interested in the ‘why’ and ‘how can we’ kind of questions. Thirdly, as a result of postmodernism most kinky folk have an attitude that is perhaps not entirely egoistic, but there is a general light-heartedness when it comes to the justification, rationalisation and morality of that what it is that we do. The hedonist pursue of sexual bliss is of course acceptable, as long as we do not lose our focus, that BDSM is first and foremost a social activity, where two or more persons get involved in play that requires both trust and care. Already here we find the seed for BDSM ethics.
Besides that; the question if BDSM is immoral, is a tricky question anyway, and this for two reasons:
1)
When most in the scene are not concerned about ethics, but just do what feels right to them, can they then properly account for what they do? And should we? After all, we cannot expect that getting involved in BDSM has to come with the duty to professionally account for the ethics of the scene, particularly not when considered that BDSM is rather broad an activity. This on itself does lead to a relativist position or a one-sided view that is to overcome.
2)
When most professional ethicists are not involved in BDSM, can they really understand its power and its dynamics from the inside out? In a way they probably could, but nowhere will the academic be more biased as with what she regards as perverse. A similar thing goes for many feminists when they would meet me with a teen-slave girl at my side and Sir Cameron would start talking about him being a feminist. How can you value women, when you whip them? How do you rationalize that? How can you speak of justness and morality?
When the above does make clear that inside the scene there is no real interest in the ethical question and at the outside there is no sympathy or need for an affirmative ethical yes to kink, then how do we arrive at satisfactory answers?
Can human nature or evolution theory account for morality?
For those who have read the previous posts on evolution theory and BDSM, the idea that this can provide us with arguments that justify ethical kink may not come as a surprise. Eventually, we will have to find some arguments and nature or evolutionary development can show the way in many things regarding sexology, but unless you wish to use statistics to explain our behaviour and employ statistic normality as a base for morality, nature just is a given that can be known through facts and experience. And on top of that, nature is very diverse. Let us in this respect consider parts of the social, feeding and mating behaviour of the other four of the great apes;
a.
The Orangutan is a mostly solitary living fruitarian that when involved in mating rituals, stays monogamous for a while.
b.
Gorillas are predominantly herbivores, live in troops and inside of that group only the dominant alpha male has several females to mate with.
c.
The chimpanzee is an omnivorous but mostly frugivorous ape that lives in groups. Regarding mating rituals Chimpanzees are promiscuous but can also form temporarily or longer lasting monogamous pairs.
d.
Bonobos are omnivores and tend to live in a broad community where mating is, among others, used for socializing and solving conflicts. Bonobos also perform face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing and oral sex as the only primates besides man.
In anthropomorphical terminology we would say, we have monogamous, polygynous and polysexual apes that live either solitary, in a paternal troop or in a maternal group, while being vegan, vegetarian or omnivore. From this point of view the variety in how humans eat and copulate and socialize is just a mixture of what we find with other great apes.
I know actual people living those different things in all possible combinations, thus rather showing the natural diversity, instead of providing a justification for normal natural and abnormal unnatural behaviour. The idea that there is a right way to live together and to have sex together, is itself questionable. The fact that the question for ethics do arise in the first place is however of much more interest; after all, ethics seem to be an evolutionary trait that humans developed. As such, the question for ethical justification can be regarded as an attempt to find out how humanity functions best and how we achieve maximum evolutionary benefit out of ethical rules when sexual behaviour is concerned.
Back to sin …
In the previous blog about ‘BDSM and Sin’, we have seen that religion, ethics and social rules are closely connected to our worldview. We can distinguish their respective influences, but they do not come separate: a religion not lived by its members is dead, ethics with no subject cannot be known, a society without having their rules based in any form of belief or religion or ethics is hardly imaginable, so we are stuck with the mixture.
We have also seen that the ethical mechanisms which govern sexual behaviour more often as not are being put to use in order to support a particular view on sexuality, like cementing a religious or otherwise founded authority and to keep (repressive) institutions in place. So when we talk about BDSM in a (non-sinful) ethical context, we have to find a way around history and its obvious deficits in its dealing with human sexuality.
For a long time I have searched for suitable options, like watering down the scope of religious authority, or by trying to use atheist arguments, or even egoism – but then, BDSM can of course never solely by and for yourself, which basically means that we need social rules, which on itself are embedded in morality ... Clear, but where to find them?
The nature of ethics
One of the characteristics of morals is its ability to show why we should follow them. For this, we obviously need practical support for our morals; in the sense that it does work. It does not need to work flawlessly or perfect, but it has to show its merits as people show the tendency to drop behaviour that does not lead to the desired results. A good example of a working ethical concept in BDSM is the familiar ‘safe, sand and sound’ credo, which has proven to make the community a safer place than it was before. The issue with this kind of rules that are based on practice, is that they are not regarded as generally valid. And – inevitably? – ethics that are not universally valid are seen as relativist.
The question mark behind ‘inevitably’ already makes clear that the claim of universality is indeed a questionable one. It seems however, to be the claim that is the trade-mark of constitutionalized morality; in that view morality is not only intrinsically universal as a human trait, but also universally valid in its object or in the propositional content of its assertions. An example can clarify what is meant here: not only is claimed by most monotheistic religious teachings that e.g. sexual fidelity is a human ethical rule that is valid for all times and societies, but it is also seen that this is best lived out within a – long term - monogamous relationship. Meaning that we cannot e.g. have sexual fidelity in a polyfidelity community – which is obviously a false conclusion, as we can.
We have opted for the view that morality is a universal trait in the sense that most properly functioning human beings to some extend carry moral values that are used to get right from wrong. Humans, so it seems, are ethical beings. Concerning this functional use of ethics, as a human tendency, I have a cautious yes. But with regard to the alleged ethical truths, it seems much harder to argue in favour of their universality.
Behind the concept of universally valid truths, beliefs and dogmas, lies the assumption that we can relate them to something universal. Most of the times the connection to a divinity, a religion, an ideology or a popular worldview is regarded as justification to attribute truth to such conceptions. Now is it – due to lack of a universal frame of reference – impossible to decide what assertions of truth are universally valid, if any. With regard to some laws of nature, we know that the laws are valid, thus true. But this use of the word true can be misleading in the context of true morals. We have the logical use of true and false, or the ethical use of right and wrong, but truth is a sort of slippery thing.
Ethics and truth
The point is that many ethical problems are such in character that a simple true or false in the logical sense cannot be made. The reason is that when we look at one assertion at the time, like (p1) Monday it rained and (p2) Tuesday is was sunny, we could say, that indeed it rained on Monday, so the statement (p1) is true. But it did also rain on Tuesday, so the statement (p2) is false.
It does not work like this with ethics, as from statements that are expressed in propositions we can say whether or not their propositional content is true (or false), but ethical judgements are complex and do not come in single independent assertions. On top of that from behaviour, sentiment or feelings we cannot easily make similar truth claims. We cannot attribute logical truth to ethical answers in the same way as we apply truth with propositions – then for a proposition to have meaning, that what is asserted needs at least to be true. Nevertheless, it is also clear that certain moral principles must work, and in this sense be true, otherwise no sound person will felt bound to that principle for guiding their life. We thus expect morals to be true, binding and lasting.
The idea behind universally valid ethics is that we perhaps cannot prove the truth of an ethical position, but that we can logically deduce the rationality of it. The advantage – so it is argued – would then be, that anyone could reach a similar conclusion based upon logic and not on (irrational) sentiment. We would thus be justified in holding something for right and other things for wrong when we can find compelling logical arguments to support our claims.
Beyond philosophy
The introduction of justice and (logical) justification into ethics might at face value be a rationalistic tendency – and it for sure started like that – yet, the problem with the concept of logical justification does not lie in the rationality of the arguments as such, but in the expectation that they are universally valid and in the depreciation of sentiment (as it seems rationalists through the ages felt somewhat uncomfortable with sentiment).
With BDSM being very much an endeavour that requires gut feeling, sentiment and intuition – besides a proper attitude and technique – any morality based upon mere rationalism reduces human experience to the part that we rationally can account for. Yet, from BDSM as praxis, we know that unconscious and repressed motives urges players to do what they do to a much larger extend as logical arguments do. After all, we do not get turned on by arguments, but rather by seeing, touching and thinking.
The idea that human behaviour is anything near being rational is plainly delusive. Consequently, we should distrust any ethical system that does not take into account that we are animals, evolved animals for sure, but nevertheless. Therefore, we should have rational argumentations, but not a rationality that is directed against or suppressive towards the non-rational side of humanity. Sex has never been a rational thing, but a biological issue, with rationality, ethics and emotions attached to it for sure, but reproduction is reproduction.
Beyond rationalism
We have just seen that there is a tendency to explain human behaviour with morals that favour rational arguments over sentiment. Universal concepts have reigned over large parts of humanity when it comes to sexual preferences, sexual tendencies and sexual identity, but none of these ethical conceptions seemed to have been built entirely on logic, but rather on religious or political views.
When for a justification of ethical sexuality such ideas of universally valid concepts are dictating, which are based upon worldviews that deny the relevance of modern scientific theories - regarding evolutionary theory and the finding of sexology, e.g. concerning DNA hard wired gender identity or sexual preference – we are definitely entitled to check if such presuppositions do actually find a confirmation in reality. It is my opinion that they do not adequately do so. Nor logic nor empirical facts support such claims.
What I observe is that similar circumstances for similar people result in similar ethics. The philosopher Richard Rorty once described ethics as not concerned with dilemmas between loyalty and justice, but rather as conflicts of loyalty towards larger groups and loyalty towards smaller groups. Another thing that Rorty addresses is the issue of redefining justice as loyalty to a larger group instead of something that is universal. Moral dilemmas are in this view not seen as a conflict between reason and sentiment, but rather as conflict between loyalties toward different groups. This means that for us to belong to a group, we have to share the same moral values, if we do not, we cease to be part of that group.
If we e.g. assume that there is no transcendent being – a.k.a. God – who by revelation tells us how to behave in the bedroom - we would be left with nature (as ‘creation’ a smaller ‘group’ as a Divinity transcending the universe). Similarly to the sexual behaviour of other great apes, we could convincingly argue that kink is partly genetically founded and thus a perhaps uncommon, but nevertheless natural behaviour for humans. It would rather be statistics that say what is normal and what by exceeding two times the standard deviation is abnormal, not ethics.
Kink and abuse
When kinky behaviour is an integral part of humanity, we can ask where the difference lies between whipping slaves in the 16th century and BDSM-Mistresses whipping their sex-slaves. What is the difference between rape and rape-play? In a way it may be that the actions look very much alike and for certainly the experience will have larger emotional overlaps, but there is a fine difference; this is found in the presence of consent as a result of rational agreement. This is what BDSM sets apart from abuse. And together with feminism, we find many religious doctrines towards women and their sexuality in principle more abusive as BDSM de facto is.
Contrary to the brutality that we sometimes do display when we are in a scene, the reality of safe, sane and sound BDSM is rooted in the consent of all the participating players. This consent is not mere consciously made, but also an expression of our own free will to participate in role play in order to get our needs met. This means that both sentiment as rationality are involved and seasoned BDMS players take good care that not only emotions like lust or greed or violence are the ones that motivate us, but also genuine interest in the wellbeing of our partners.
By taking care for each other kinks add ethical motivations to the play and show responsibility towards fellow human beings. Of course you can also play unethically, e.g. when you do not protect yourself and your partners against possible diseases or when you or your play partner is cheating on someone else. As any act also sexual acts are subject to social rules, when BDSM would be unethical, it would have no rules at all. So the question is not if morality is not a human trait, or not if BDSM had no ethical consequences, but rather what arguments can be given to justify our actions.
Kinky ethics
When morality is part of human behaviour and there are no universally valid ethics to be found, the question is how to arrive with ethics that would have our ethical obligations met. If we take up the concept of consent once more, but this time taking it to a broader field, we will soon arrive at the conclusion, that any group and their social behaviour has much to do with consent. When two parties differ about what the proper behaviour would be, they talk, negotiate and find a solution that is acceptable. In this sense, the power a manager has over her employee’s is not much different from the power she has over her slave-boy in the night after work. In both cases there is a relationship that has authority and different roles involved, in both cases the partners involved are consenting; the slave-boy could anytime use his safeword to get out if he would; the employee has signed a working contract.
Any unforced agreement between free and sane individuals creates trust and a bond. We feel connected to a group because we can identify with what they do and who they are and what they represent. For this reason BDSM roles – except for 24/7 relationships – are mostly temporal role play. After the session is over the Mistress is mom and part time pharmacist again and the toy-boy goes back to his job as senior bank manager.
The above example shows, that by being able to choose our roles and to be able to have different social roles in different social settings, we show not only that we can differentiate between when what sort of behaviour is appropriate in what context, but also that we do remain our identity; we are neither fully this or that, but always act in accordance to the kind of relationship that is involved: family father, car mechanic, lover and friend; as such, BDSM is just another form of a psychological role we play including the corresponding (ir)rational behaviour.
Yet, it would be wrong to regard BDSM as merely something primitive. It takes a lot of time to get close, to build trust and to learn how to please one another. It takes a lot of courage to do some of the things we do, like being vulnerable, like getting hurt, like being honest about your own desire. Name calling is just a primitive reaction in itself; for those who never have thought about BDSM beyond the usual prejudices: BDSM is about fun, about trust, about very sexy things that make us feel good and secure. This is what people in the scene are looking for, this is why they do what we do. Just as any alternative form of behaviour, we try to play by the rules that enable us to achieve our common goals. That these goals and our ways of achieving them are not mainstream does not per se render it wrong. That these goals are historically seen not morally sound, says perhaps more about historical ethics and their sources, as it does about BDSM in its modern guise.
Conclusion
From all we have seen, we can conclude that BDSM can very well be rational human behaviour. Where fundamentalist moralist differ from pragmatic moralist is to which extent they regard freedom of sexual expression a human right or not. Based on evolution theory, there is no need to discriminate on gender, race or sexual preference. Not at all, provided that this behaviour is not harmful to one self or others. The protection of our own kin is just as natural as it is with other animals. For this reason, universal human rights are a good example that ethics are needed in order to secure our evolutionary survival; it protects humans against inhuman acts and violation of their rights and integrity.
From the point of history, BDSM never had the change to evolve, because the social restrictions put upon kinky persons where so severe, that BDSM urges needed to be repressed. It is still so in those areas of the world were our personal freedom is limited by laws, religious convictions or powerful social groups. History also shows that we evolve, and this gives us hope that also our ethics will evolve until it encompasses all the different groups there are, but without the need to go beyond negotiating consent. No violence, no repression, no discrimination, no abuse.
We have also seen that I draw heavily on the concept of humanity as being meaningful in itself. Whoever means to be able to transcend this meaning and follow a ‘higher call’, should also realize that more moral wrong has been wrought by ‘higher calls’ as by BDSM – if any. Moreover, we might still consent regarding human personal integrity and freedom, even when some readers carry beliefs that they hold for better as the moral that I here argued for. Such believers might even have good arguments for their views, but as long as they cannot be rationally argued, by compelling evidence or prove, we are stuck with history, sentiment and repressed freedom and that has never proven to be a wise choice.
So, is BDSM good? In a way this will always be a point of discussion, but when BDSM is ethical and humane, why should it be wrong? Sir Cameron and his Dominion Members, the Friends, Submissives and Councils of the Court, as well as Members of the House Cameron, for our part, have chosen to live a BDSM lifestyle based on ethical non-monogamy and feminism. And as long as we act on those principles and form a community of trust, our BDSM is definitively good.
Play safe and keep heathy, have fun – Sir Cameron
P.S. These blogs are long. Thank you for reading it to the end. In the near future we will look into evolutionary mating behaviour and aggression.
