|
CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Want opinions on this please (11/21/2008 1:51:30 PM)
|
My take on this is that people do a lot of things that I wouldn't necessarily do. If someone wanted to do this to me, I'd say 'no'. If I were still a bond-servant in the House, I'd take it to arbitration, but I wouldn't voluntarily go and get myself burned.
"Forcing" someone to sunbathe until they get a sunburn is pretty tough unless they're tied to the lounge... It isn't something I would choose to do to someone else (though I might do something like require a servant who hadn't taken care not to get burned while sunbathing put on hir uniform anyway over the burn, as a lesson). Since I'm not big on beatings, I don't really see the point in that part either. As far as the blackmail part, I'd hazard that if participating in WIITWD is dangerous enough for someone that xhe could be blackmailed over it, it's probably a greater measure of risk than I'd be willing to take... now, if the blackmail risk is simply for "tittilation factor" and there's no real risk, then crying 'blackmail' is useless as a motivational tool and the s-type is using the blackmail as an attempt to avoid taking responsiblity for hir own choices (and avoid looking like an idiot).
In this case, if the guy didn't really want to do it and got himself into a situation where he put himself at risk through blackmail, in addition to calling the dominant's portion of this abuse, I'd certainly explore the term "dum dum" for the s-type. However, if both parties agreed to it (including volunteering to be blackmailed to be forced to do what one didn't want to do), and the guy didn't call 'foul', I don't think it can be called "abuse". It was a consensual act, performed by grown adults who knew what they were doing and chose to complete the acts.
|
|
|
|
