So then by that suposition you propose that if any ethical system is established it should be unviversally enforced in a catagorical sence?

I wonder if any society has ever succesfully accomplished that for very long.

How very Kant of you to say we can't have an ethical system than doesnt apply as an ethical system unless it applies to everyone.

In actual reality the truth of it is that each and every one of us accepts those ethical values that we choose to accept and applies them as we each see fit.

We may say that what we believe is the right way for all of humanity but that doesnt change the fact that others may disagree. Nor does it mean that we must be at war forcing them to do so unless they are physically threatening us.

It is no more a "role playing game" for those of us who embrace the ethical virtures expoused by Norman than it is a role playing game for Taoists, Epicurians, or Stoics etc etc.

To imply that it is is farcical to say the least and just as insulting (which I am sure it was ment to be) as if one said all you do with your submissive in bdsm is "role play" with no consideration for any code of ethical behaviour attached like two animals rutting in the dark.

I also allready answered your question in a previous post Holland and I will say it again in case you are having trouble understanding.

Norman never says that the female of the species should be catagorically forced into submission.

What he does sugest is that truely dominant men never relinquish thier dominance, nor allow it to wrested from thier grasp as it appears to be in the proccess of doing here in our modern day society.