TigerNINTails
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Because I was speaking about the point in time where it's not feasible or realistic to be able to expect a bottom to be responsible for what happens to them in a scene. And there is always present, a time when that might come to pass...
And, as hard as this might be to believe for some people, I'm not changing my mind at all... Complete responsibility is responsibility. There is no half assed responsibility. You are either responsible, or you're not. There is no percentage about it. Responsible or irresponsible. Which one is it?
So when I was saying completely responsible, that might have been redundant, but it was the only way I knew to express that there are times when the responsibility will fall wholly on the shoulders of the Top in a situation, well beyond the beginnings of the scene, when rational thought and responsibility from both parties was the deciding factor. And a bottoms responsibility for themselves, to be able to make sound decisions was reliable. I think the key word here is reliable.
These are the situations, just to reiterate for lack of confusion, that I was specifically speaking about:
1. A sub or bottom in sub-space is incapable of making an informed, responsible decision regarding themselves... Much like a drunk cannot drive an automobile in an informed and responsible fashion.
2. A sub or bottom incapacitated in any fashion through physical means by the Top, again, is incapable of communicating or enforcing a responsible decision regarding their well being, and again, this lands in the lap of the Top.
It's not that the Top ALWAYS has complete control over the situation. After all, both of them made decisions to get where they are. In my experience, and in my view however, there comes a time when a Top... Hmmm... I'll phrase it differently...
When a Top should be aware enough to accept more, or additional responsibility or expand his or her personal responsibility to envelope the bottom and consider their welbeing, and make the informed and correct decision on behalf of themselves and the sub/bottom...
This doesn't absolve a submissive or bottom from their responsibility up to that point, injury or no injury... Nor does it mean that the Top is the only person to be investigated should something happen. Nor does it mean that the Top is solely responsible, as would be in a criminal situation, after all, it's all consensual, or better be.
But if they accept the additional level of responsibility, of knowing that "yes, she made the decision to play, BUT, if I see anything out of the ordinary from MY end, regardless, for her safety, regardless of her statements to the contrary, I'll do what needs to be done." Then that is what I'm talking about complete responsibility.
It doesn't start out that way, but there are situations that ultimately land that additional "complete" or perhaps a better way to put it "consistent, and overlapping" responsibility in the Tops lap.
It may not be that the weight of the responsibility changes, but perhaps the scope. As in, it takes in broader pretexts.
I'm not saying it for the reasons that you're stating either, it's just a view that I have. Just exercising my authority and having it adhered to gives me enough of the power dynamic. Where the submissive is incapable of being the responsible party, I have to be for both. It's not a power thing, it's an integrity thing... And safety.
Maybe I am overstating my case, but I was also thinking of those situations that people don't often touch on, but need to be noted regardless.
I do agree that a bottom must also learn to accept responsibility, and in many cases, this is learned every single day in their relationships. Again, I never stated I was absolving the bottom of their responsibility... Just that certain situations require a Top to step outside of just being responsible for themselves, and consider the responsibility they have for their actions on a sub/bottom when they themselves cannot. Or perhaps even more to the point, will not.
I don't know if I've successfully communicated the distinction I'm trying to convey or not, I can only hope. But there is a distinction between just being responsible for yourself, and being responsible for someone incapable for whatever reason, of being that for themselves.
Peace.
TNT
edited: To add something to make a sentence more understandable, and one sentence, that might well aid in understanding this seemingly ambiguous concept I'm trying to convey.
< Message edited by TigerNINTails -- 7/10/2007 9:05:21 PM >
_____________________________
Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary
|
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 
Profile
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread