teamnoir
Posts: 226
Joined: 4/5/2005 From: San Francisco Bay Area California Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TigerNINTails A person can agree to ride with someone in a car. Up to the point that they ride with the person in the car, they learn about the car, learn about the driver (perhaps it's a friend, even) and they feel pretty safe. As safe as one can be, riding in a car with someone they trust. They get into the car and buckle up. They've just taken all the responsibility for themselves they could be expected to take. With you so far. quote:
Now this person drives along, and does something stupid, getting the passenger killed... So... Is the passenger responsible for their death, or is the driver? They share responsibility. And here's where your analogy breaks down. A scene is not a car. In a car, it's difficult to suddenly decide that you've had enough and end the ride. You may be flying along at 120mph. You might be many miles from home. In a scene, (or a relationship), you have the option of ending the interaction at any time. More like a car with an ejection seat. If you don't trip your ejection seat, then yes, you've participated in creating the results, even if those results are your death. BTW, most passengers killed in auto accidents are rules to be "accidents" where the driver is not legally held to be responsible. For the driver to be held responsible, there needs to be some gross negligence involved. And even then, the "responsibility" is for causing someone's death through irresponsibility rather than intention. Intentional death is murder. Death as a side effect of irresponsibility is manslaughter. These are significantly different things legally. quote:
Back to the situation with the driver of the car that kills that passenger... In any court of law, it's going to be ruled that the driver is the one that has control of the situation (ideally). Therefore, the passengers death is that persons responsibility. I don't know what legal system you're talking about, but short of gross negligence, no, the driver is not likely to be held responsible legally in any legal system I'm aware of. quote:
That's not just something that would be determined by courts, but it's again... Common sense. Where I live, if someone gets into a car with someone else, they drive, an accident occurs, and the passenger dies, we generally call that an "accident". Unless there is clear "fault", no one is held responsible. It's simply a sad thing that happens occasionally. If you decide to blame the driver, for no other reason than that they were driving the car, around here, we call that "fucked up". And there's an entire industry of therapists around to help you sort through those feelings and come to some more socially appropriate understandings of what happened. quote:
Yes, bottoms are responsible for certain aspects, and wholly responsible for their initial decisions. But once they are incapable of making further decisions, either by chance (such as sub-space) or design (being bound, gagged, suspended, etc.) it's very much the Tops responsibility to own up to personal responsibility and be sure that the bottoms welfare is first and foremost in mind. I disagree on two counts. First, what you're discussing is dominance and submission, not power parity SM. So your terms are confused. Second, neither a bottom nor a sub gives up that responsibility. They share it. If they become incapable of making that decision, then what's happening is no longer consensual bdsm - it's rape and/or assault. For the interaction to be morally and ethically acceptable, (even consensual bdsm isn't necessarily legal everywhere), the bottom and/or sub must retain the responsibility and the ability to end the interaction. quote:
And that responsibility rests squarely on the Tops shoulders. Any Top that thinks otherwise, in my opinion, is dangerous. And I mean dangerous above and beyond the danger that a Top poses if they are balanced, aware, informed and responsible. Period. That's probably the only blanket caveat I'll ever make here. The only absolute in my mind is the absolute of personal responsibility and total responsibility that comes with having gained total control over the well being of another. I disagree. The top's or dom's responsibility is to maintain consent. Consent is critical. Without that, you are in high probability of committing not only a crime, but also a morally and ethically reprehensible act. You do not, in western culture, have the right to remove anyone's ability to consent - not without due process, anyway. Please note that I'm not claiming that a top or dom loses responsibility - only that they do not hold it exclusively. Tops and doms have responsibilities. Bottoms and subs have responsibilities. Everyone has responsibilities. You do not have the power to remove that responsibility nor does anyone have the right to abdicate it. Socially, that's not acceptable nor allowed. Please also note that I'm not an SSC freak. I'm well aware that people play with these lines daily. The fact that you might have lost consent briefly doesn't necessarily make you a criminal. However, it puts you squarely in the crosshairs of a criminal complaint. Consent isn't a complete protection - there are many jurisdictions where consent isn't a defense against assault but rather assault is considered a crime against the state and thus the state can press charges even if your partner doesn't want them to. (Google "Spanner case" for a case in point). If you play in this "lost consent" territory, you will, eventually, commit assault, rape, and/or kidnapping. If you're ok with that risk, and your partner is too, then it's certainly up to you to do so. Personally, I'm not usually willing to take that sort of personal risk nor to spend any of my relationships that way. Relationships are generally too important to me to risk blowing the entire relationship and perhaps my personal freedom for the sake of one scene. But that's my level of personal risk. You, of course, can set whatever levels you like.
|