If liking this stuff is morally wrong, then watching Tarantinos movies would be morally wrong. I don't support that kind of shooting and killing in real life, but the fantasy world portrayed on the movie screen is entertaining, and a great outlet. In the real world I certainly not support any of this stuff happening. When it's purely fantasy though.....
In the real world I am a very nice guy. Support 100% equal rights, Feminism, and love strong women. Though in fantasy and in roleplay between 2 consenting adults.....
Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
-
bellamyspiano
- Member
- Posts: 151
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
The world has become a f@cked up backwards place with its views and morals recently. There is nothing wrong with this.
My two cents.
My two cents.
-
ernestgreene
- Member
- Posts: 275
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
As usual, I agree with Tan. Any viewing of the evening news presents a far worse view of the world than what we see in DOF comics.
Our problems like not in our fantasies but in the reality of the planet as it exists today.
Our problems like not in our fantasies but in the reality of the planet as it exists today.
-
bellamyspiano
- Member
- Posts: 151
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
Could not have put it better myself.
Anyway, back to the nitty gritty. I need to go touch myself.
I blame this forum.
Anyway, back to the nitty gritty. I need to go touch myself.
I blame this forum.
-
ROBERTS
- Member
- Posts: 730
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
My lovely and talented Brenda has lived with the conflicts of this sexual lifestyle..imagine, a beautiful girl, a model..educated, smart, talented..and living a very secret lifestyle. Because if people only KNEW...her real sexual preferences? That she longs and lusts to be captured and bound, stripped and roughly restrained, and spanked red, caned, whipped to welts..and f@cked every way possible while helpless? If they only KNEW the devils living in this girl's head...
And she is not the only one..
And she is not the only one..
-
ooragoth
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Location: Provost Alberta
- Contact:
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
Morality is at best a fluid concept, at worst an artificial construct of those who would control the masses. Around 200 years ago the USA had a war because certain factions sought control over others and used the justification of whether or not slavery would be legal to gain the support of the respective sides. 70 years ago we had another war based on the idea that invasion of one country by another was wrong, and yet 11 years ago with full support many countries of the world who had stood against invasion, invaded another country because of a terrorist attack by a terrorist organization, not the country.
The truth of the matter is morality is a personal thing; it makes up a great part of who you are in mind, personality and character. We each should decide what is morally right or wrong, if what we think or feel is right or wrong, however it is a challenging and important decision that defines so much of us we often forget that we can change our mind at any time. It’s for this reason many people let society or religion define morality for them, and in doing so give justification to those who seek to manipulate and control others by way of deciding what is right or wrong.
The issue of right or wrong cannot be decided and should not be decided here or anywhere but in the hearts and minds of every man woman and child.
Those who would see these types of comics become real and even seek to make them so, believing they are morally in the right for whatever justification, are not wrong. The morality they have chosen for themselves and they have allowed to define themselves, may be harmful to society and may warrant their removal from that society through incarceration or death. It does not change that the morality they follow put them in the right.
It is unfortunate we forget too often that incarceration, execution and even such things as fines and community service are not punishments for amoral acts, for there is truly no such thing as an amoral act so long as you remain true to your beliefs and personal codes. The methods we use in society in response to transgressions are not punishments, threats or any attempt to correct behaviours, though many would wish it and would seek to convince you of it. They are protections and restitutions, methods of repairing or minimizing the damage done to the social fabric.
I’m afraid I have drifted off on a tangent but I feel my point remains, it is a personal and ongoing decision that is each individual’s morality, it is the weighing of our personal desires against each other and as a whole against those of society.
One must always remember that freedom and slavery begin first in the mind, in our willingness to submit, to be dictated to and to accept that which is inherently unacceptable to us.
Your Morality is the greatest of freedoms and the strongest of chains.
The truth of the matter is morality is a personal thing; it makes up a great part of who you are in mind, personality and character. We each should decide what is morally right or wrong, if what we think or feel is right or wrong, however it is a challenging and important decision that defines so much of us we often forget that we can change our mind at any time. It’s for this reason many people let society or religion define morality for them, and in doing so give justification to those who seek to manipulate and control others by way of deciding what is right or wrong.
The issue of right or wrong cannot be decided and should not be decided here or anywhere but in the hearts and minds of every man woman and child.
Those who would see these types of comics become real and even seek to make them so, believing they are morally in the right for whatever justification, are not wrong. The morality they have chosen for themselves and they have allowed to define themselves, may be harmful to society and may warrant their removal from that society through incarceration or death. It does not change that the morality they follow put them in the right.
It is unfortunate we forget too often that incarceration, execution and even such things as fines and community service are not punishments for amoral acts, for there is truly no such thing as an amoral act so long as you remain true to your beliefs and personal codes. The methods we use in society in response to transgressions are not punishments, threats or any attempt to correct behaviours, though many would wish it and would seek to convince you of it. They are protections and restitutions, methods of repairing or minimizing the damage done to the social fabric.
I’m afraid I have drifted off on a tangent but I feel my point remains, it is a personal and ongoing decision that is each individual’s morality, it is the weighing of our personal desires against each other and as a whole against those of society.
One must always remember that freedom and slavery begin first in the mind, in our willingness to submit, to be dictated to and to accept that which is inherently unacceptable to us.
Your Morality is the greatest of freedoms and the strongest of chains.
"You can call a turd a sandwich but it still tastes like shit"-Caine
-
ernestgreene
- Member
- Posts: 275
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
Sorry, but absolute moral relativism is no more intellectually defensible than moral absolutism. Down one road lies sociopathy, down the other, tyranny.
I'll take neither, thank you. I recognize that basic concepts of right and wrong are pretty simple, though sorting through levels of cynical expediency and rationalization do get complicated, and I recognize that popular morality is generally dictated by those in power to their own benefit.
But somewhere in the middle ground lie right and wrong, of which even the youngest of our own species exhibit an instinctive awareness, as well as do members of other relatively intelligent mammals.
There are indeed moralities we make up in our own heads and moralities made up in the heads of others, but beneath all that is a rudimentary concept of morality most of us recognize and in our dealings with others, try to apply, hoping they will do likewise.
Bad a place as the world may be, it would get much worse very soon if we simply decided as a species that morality existed only as an arbitrary concept subjectively created by each individual mind. Civilization, any civilization, requires some commonly accepted ground rules.
I'll take neither, thank you. I recognize that basic concepts of right and wrong are pretty simple, though sorting through levels of cynical expediency and rationalization do get complicated, and I recognize that popular morality is generally dictated by those in power to their own benefit.
But somewhere in the middle ground lie right and wrong, of which even the youngest of our own species exhibit an instinctive awareness, as well as do members of other relatively intelligent mammals.
There are indeed moralities we make up in our own heads and moralities made up in the heads of others, but beneath all that is a rudimentary concept of morality most of us recognize and in our dealings with others, try to apply, hoping they will do likewise.
Bad a place as the world may be, it would get much worse very soon if we simply decided as a species that morality existed only as an arbitrary concept subjectively created by each individual mind. Civilization, any civilization, requires some commonly accepted ground rules.
-
ooragoth
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Location: Provost Alberta
- Contact:
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
I’m sorry but who said anything about absolute moral relativism?
What I said is it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong, to follow their own choices on what is moral or amoral rather than to accept what someone else tells them outright.
I agree with what you said about even the youngest of our species and many other species inherently know the difference between right and wrong. Just as whom we are is influenced by the society we inhabit, we accept or reject things as positive or negative based primarily by our experiences with them, experiences shaped by the reactions of society to those things. We win a baseball game it’s great we are hero’s and it becomes a positive experience and we learn winning is good. Now what would happen if everyone or even someone like your father treated you badly for winning or because your victory was insufficient, would that not change how your perceive winning? The same is true for right and wrong.
The issue I think for many is that right and wrong are not simple or easy concepts, we inherently try to classify our acts as good or evil based on both the intention behind and the consequences of our actions. While often this allows us to easily define whether something or someone is right or wrong it is as often or perhaps more often that the intentions and the results clash. You try to drive a drunken friend home, against his protests, the roads are slippery and there is an accident, your friend is injured and blames you. Now your intention was to protect your friend a good action, but the consequences are that you hurt him and you will likely lose your friendship. While many would say you did the right thing others would disagree based on the consequences that you should have made him stay at your place. The reconciliation of what is right and wrong is now more difficult, and many will turn to someone else to tell them rather than make the choice of morality themselves.
I believe we are all endowed through evolution and the pack/herd mentality we retain with a basic system, a morality used to get along with one another. That said it is incomplete and functions more as a baseline than as a true moral compass, leaving the majority of decisions on morality to our conscious mind, informed by our experience and by our instincts of self-preservation in opposition.
The largest disagreement I have with your post, ernestgreene, respectfully, is the idea that self-determined morality is arbitrary. Too define it as arbitrary is to say that you decide not based on a principle of guilt, of any informed understanding of right and wrong, but on a basis of pure want and instinct. What I am talking about in my first post and this one as well is the idea of deciding for yourself, rather than being told by society or organizations, what is right and wrong, if you are good or evil. However a person chooses is by definition their right, how they act on it however determines the response of society, which informs through experience, the moral decisions of others.
There is no happy middle ground when you look at someone society, organization or other, telling you what to think, what choices to make. To allow someone to tell you what is moral or amoral is equivalent to allowing them to tell you what to think, to define your sense of self. It is when this is allowed that we see the slop become slippery and we find our world thrown into chaos by crusades, jihads, genocides, wars, and yes ironically, slavery. We must decide for ourselves each individual what is right and wrong, so that atrocities that have plagued our history are never accepted as morally just. As happened to the unfortunate people of the Third Reich.
Sociopaths and psychopaths unfortunately will exist in any society and are thankfully, the aberration as opposed to the norm. They lack the basic moral guide each person is born with, even so they can and more often than not make their own moral choices, and in fact they are more likely to than a normal person who’s ingrained instinctual morality and guilt often causes the internal conflict people seek to avoid by allowing others to define their morality in whole or in part. They are also, despite what may be considered a moral disadvantage, majorly able to live and function peacefully in society without, as their unfortunate stigma would have us believe, turning into serial killers. In point of fact most are more effective in business and law where morally ambiguous questions and answers often interfere with or slow a person’s reactions.
The fact is these people are the exact reason why it is imperative that morality is decided by the individual rather than society. Without the natural moral guide most of us have intrinsically, they are forced to rely more heavily on their experiences and societies reactions to them. If this would cause more than a comparative percentage of their action to be considered “wrong” by people who are born with that moral guide, what does that say about the society as a whole?
Each situation is different, each person is different, and each day is different. It is a fundamental responsibility of each person to make their own choice, inexorably informed by their past and their instincts, as to what is right or wrong at any given time in any given situation. To accept an outside moral code, to accept a dictation by others of what is right or wrong, in any situation, is to subject oneself to moral slavery.
What I said is it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong, to follow their own choices on what is moral or amoral rather than to accept what someone else tells them outright.
I agree with what you said about even the youngest of our species and many other species inherently know the difference between right and wrong. Just as whom we are is influenced by the society we inhabit, we accept or reject things as positive or negative based primarily by our experiences with them, experiences shaped by the reactions of society to those things. We win a baseball game it’s great we are hero’s and it becomes a positive experience and we learn winning is good. Now what would happen if everyone or even someone like your father treated you badly for winning or because your victory was insufficient, would that not change how your perceive winning? The same is true for right and wrong.
The issue I think for many is that right and wrong are not simple or easy concepts, we inherently try to classify our acts as good or evil based on both the intention behind and the consequences of our actions. While often this allows us to easily define whether something or someone is right or wrong it is as often or perhaps more often that the intentions and the results clash. You try to drive a drunken friend home, against his protests, the roads are slippery and there is an accident, your friend is injured and blames you. Now your intention was to protect your friend a good action, but the consequences are that you hurt him and you will likely lose your friendship. While many would say you did the right thing others would disagree based on the consequences that you should have made him stay at your place. The reconciliation of what is right and wrong is now more difficult, and many will turn to someone else to tell them rather than make the choice of morality themselves.
I believe we are all endowed through evolution and the pack/herd mentality we retain with a basic system, a morality used to get along with one another. That said it is incomplete and functions more as a baseline than as a true moral compass, leaving the majority of decisions on morality to our conscious mind, informed by our experience and by our instincts of self-preservation in opposition.
The largest disagreement I have with your post, ernestgreene, respectfully, is the idea that self-determined morality is arbitrary. Too define it as arbitrary is to say that you decide not based on a principle of guilt, of any informed understanding of right and wrong, but on a basis of pure want and instinct. What I am talking about in my first post and this one as well is the idea of deciding for yourself, rather than being told by society or organizations, what is right and wrong, if you are good or evil. However a person chooses is by definition their right, how they act on it however determines the response of society, which informs through experience, the moral decisions of others.
There is no happy middle ground when you look at someone society, organization or other, telling you what to think, what choices to make. To allow someone to tell you what is moral or amoral is equivalent to allowing them to tell you what to think, to define your sense of self. It is when this is allowed that we see the slop become slippery and we find our world thrown into chaos by crusades, jihads, genocides, wars, and yes ironically, slavery. We must decide for ourselves each individual what is right and wrong, so that atrocities that have plagued our history are never accepted as morally just. As happened to the unfortunate people of the Third Reich.
Sociopaths and psychopaths unfortunately will exist in any society and are thankfully, the aberration as opposed to the norm. They lack the basic moral guide each person is born with, even so they can and more often than not make their own moral choices, and in fact they are more likely to than a normal person who’s ingrained instinctual morality and guilt often causes the internal conflict people seek to avoid by allowing others to define their morality in whole or in part. They are also, despite what may be considered a moral disadvantage, majorly able to live and function peacefully in society without, as their unfortunate stigma would have us believe, turning into serial killers. In point of fact most are more effective in business and law where morally ambiguous questions and answers often interfere with or slow a person’s reactions.
The fact is these people are the exact reason why it is imperative that morality is decided by the individual rather than society. Without the natural moral guide most of us have intrinsically, they are forced to rely more heavily on their experiences and societies reactions to them. If this would cause more than a comparative percentage of their action to be considered “wrong” by people who are born with that moral guide, what does that say about the society as a whole?
Each situation is different, each person is different, and each day is different. It is a fundamental responsibility of each person to make their own choice, inexorably informed by their past and their instincts, as to what is right or wrong at any given time in any given situation. To accept an outside moral code, to accept a dictation by others of what is right or wrong, in any situation, is to subject oneself to moral slavery.
"You can call a turd a sandwich but it still tastes like shit"-Caine
-
ROBERTS
- Member
- Posts: 730
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
Do what thou Will, but Harm No One.
My morality is quite simple.
My morality is quite simple.
-
ooragoth
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Location: Provost Alberta
- Contact:
Re: Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?
ROBERTS wrote:Do what thou Will, but Harm No One.
My morality is quite simple.
Is it, because it would all depend on what you define as harm?
Sorry just being devil's advocate, or is it angel's advocate on this forum?
"You can call a turd a sandwich but it still tastes like shit"-Caine