undergroundsea
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: submale4u2spank
He was put in a mental state where he was no long responsible for his actions. His life WAS in danger, anyone that trying to minimize this by saying the danger is small does not have any idea what they are saying.
I don't think he was put in a mental state where he was no longer responsible for his action. He was put in a state where he became angry, which alone does not relieve one of responsibility for his actions.
Leaving someone unattended without thinking about unexpected emergencies that can arise is irresponsible, yes. The activity carries some risk. I think the probability that something of that nature will occur is small; what makes the risk relevant or significant is the consequence if an emergency occurs.
I don't think the scenario at hand really put his life in danger as much as it is made out to be. Otherwise, the argument of endangering his life could be extended to say that if a woman ties up a man she is endangering his life; she could have a heart attack and die, which would leave him helpless and put his life at risk if there was a fire immediately after her heart attack. And then one could say that she should have a second person there in case she has a heart attack. What if the heart attack causes the second person to panic and also have a heart attack? Or what if both of them have a heart attack simultaneously? It could be like yawning, you know....one person yawns and...
;-)
I don't think the sub in question was in the cage thinking, oh my god, I am going to die, I hope they hurry home, god, please let me live! What's that smell? It smells like the neighbors are barbecuing! God, I hope they are careful! Heeeey! Neighbors! Use the George Foreman Grill! ;-)
Instead, I expect he was thinking, that bastard! How dare he! Who is he to lock me in here? And what if something happens while they are away? Why didn't he think of that?
And to the extent the point about risk or danger is relevant, I expect to him it was the disregard for his well-being that was offensive, not that he actually felt in danger. And I think the points Christina makes about abandonment or jealousy could have contributed to his anger.
Therefore, I think his reaction was driven by anger and not by a survival instinct. I think your argument would apply more if he resisted with physical force while the lock was being placed. I think the point about endangering his life is being used because it is harder to dispute; one can't use anger or resentment over being offended, slighted, abandoned, or jealousy as effectively an excuse for violence as with a danger to life.
So I think the sub has a right to be upset. I am not so sure about the violence. Was it a mistake, or was it deliberate disregard? Based on the circumstances I might say it was entirely wrong, or that I would not do it but I can see why he did it, or that it was justified. With the information at hand, I remain unconvinced that the violence was necessary in this scenario. I will add, however, that the denial by the dom is a point in favor of the sub and this denial might have played a role in the violence that ensued. I think how the woman reacted is also relevant. If she sided with the dom, it would have created feelings of betrayal.
OP, do you know if he objected or was able to object when the lock was being placed?
In any case, I think the matter reflects poorly on each party involved. If I heard this story about members in my local community, I would see it as a flag against each person.
Cheers,
Sea
< Message edited by undergroundsea -- 6/4/2008 10:09:25 PM >
|
RE: Who's wrong???? - 
Profile
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