Goodness

There has been a lot of cyber-noise in the last few days about truth and honesty and trust. Many of us have engaged in intense discourse about how those things relate to each other, and how we experience that relatedness in our own lives.


There has come to be a side-bar discussion woven around all of that and focusing on the notion of the "good" dominant. It has been suggested that, in some quarters, there are partners who are "good," while in other places the "goodness" of the dominant is suspect. Frankly, there's a smugness and self-congratulatory tone to much of that commentary, but that is not what I am interested in discussing here.


I think that we too often bandy the ideas of "good" and "bad" around casually without really considering what it is we mean. Too, more often than not, our thinking is shaped by religious training and remains in the child-like state reflective of when we first encountered the ideas. That seems to be the case with the current line of thinking: honesty is "good," so absolute honesty is "absolutely good," and anything that falls short of that ideal is, by definition, "bad" or maybe even "absolutely bad." I just don't think that sort of dichotomous thinking takes us very far, and given the fallibility of humans, I'm not sure it is even a very useful formulation.
There's some heavy duty philosophical theory about "good" and "goodness," but I am after trying to winnow this down to something that is reasonable, and maybe even useful... Note: I am going to discuss the terms "good" and "bad" in the character and behavior sense -- not in the sense of experienced, qualified, and accomplished (or not).



As long as I have engaged in alternative choices regarding my lifestyle and sexuality, the "good" vs. "bad" theme has repeated over and over. It is a female and submissive debate. We regularly assure ourselves and others that we have a "good dominant." Or, if we want to come off as the edgy sort, we may declare with a fair dose of bravado, that we have a "bad dominant." I imagine that is mostly indicative of the fact that, for those of us who put large bits of our personal power into the hands of those dominant people, watching them and analyzing them and trying to understand what makes them tick become our all-consuming pastimes.


The "good dominant" is most often portrayed as that "knight in shining armor" sort of strong protector who makes his woman feel like a princess. Women who insist on this paragon paradigm will tend to point to character traits like kindness and responsibility and honesty and gentleness and generosity and... Yeah. Dudley Doright of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.** Ask a woman who claims to have one of these guys in her life and she will tell you that her man respects her and values her and cherishes her. Being in a relationship with the quintessential "good dominant" reportedly takes a woman into some kind of ecstatic spiritual journey leading to the ultimate experience of self-realization and self-actualization. As evidence of his goodness is the fact that he would never, ever do or say or ask for anything that might cause her true discomfort -- emotionally, physically, or spiritually. And so, obviously, if one is hooked up with the opposite number to Dudley Doright (would that be Snidely Whiplash?) then that fellow must be the "bad dominant." A "bad dominant," or so the implication goes, must be a person of low character -- no ethics, no integrity, no human feeling, no heart, and no soul. If a woman gets into a relationship with one of these guys, then she is going to end up abused, de-valued, broken, lost, ruined, and less than human.

Now, I think that drawing that duality as starkly as that is just silly. To posit that there are people who live their lives at the poles of character is pretty far fetched (the occasional Mother Teresa not withstanding). Far and away, the vast majority of us live somewhere in the middle range -- burdened with flaws and graced with glorious gifts as well. We come as human creatures -- homo sapiens. Ironic isn't it? In the midst of all this recent dust up, I'd sure wonder about that "wise man" designation.

So, how might we describe goodness in some functional and understandable fashion? There's a lot of high powered philosophical theory to address the whole question, but I am just not feeling it. I found this quote by Benjamin Disraeli, and I like where it takes my thinking on the subject:



“The greatest good you can do for another is not just to share your riches, but to reveal to him his own”


In my own life, that description of "goodness" works for me. Any of us, dominant, submissive, or just plain old, garden-variety vanilla type could find our way to being good if we simply came to life with this intent -- sharing whatever gifts we have, and helping all those with whom we come in contact to share theirs as well. That is, in the end, what being His has done for me. In His sight, and under His care and guidance, I've grown and learned and become the best I have ever been. His love, His dominance have revealed me to myself. Truly, that is enough for me, and I hope for Him.

** I apologize to my Canadian friends if our cartoon character, Dudley Doright, is somehow not a comfortable or politically correct reference. I really don't want to offend anyone.

swan