|
SoRelentless -> RE: Drinking, Doming, and scening... OK ? or NO WAY (2/18/2005 4:35:45 AM)
|
I'm in the squarely, comfortably in the middle. I'm not comfortable, however, with the fact that my disparaging tone (the part I wasn't able to edit out) will no doubt offend the "no wayers!" here, so I apologize in advance. Further, I'd ask you to understand that such puritanicalism is what we are entering Year FIVE of with George B*sh, and seeing it in this forum is more than a little disappointing.
I particularly liked the comments "outing" how unnecessarily puritanical Americans are about this issue (and I'm American). In fact, it would be comical were it not so hypocritical. And we're not just overly puritanical about alcohol, which kills 1,800 college students per year here (admittedly, many are vehicular-related). But there are no medically-documented cases of someone dying from an overdose of pot. Yet one can buy alcohol in grocery and convenience stores, but go away for life (in some U.S. states) for personal use amounts of weed.... (Don't get me started....)
I think puritanism is bad in most (all?) it's forms. I mean, from what I read, "George B*sh" is the punchline to more jokes in Europe and elsewhere than any other two words. Yes, we're puritanical, and our unelected "president" is an untreated alcoholic and former coke addict. And he started a "vanity war" (to guarantee another term--notice I didn't say "reelection"?) while he was allegedly STONE SOBER, based on misinformation and lies, and thousands died. My point is, beware of thinking and speaking in absolutes--look where it got B*sh....
Remind me, again, of the value of absolute sobriety, please? B*sh has one DUI, Ch*ney has two. The DUI's in the B*sh cabinet are exceeded only by their Vietnam deferrments (Ch*ney has FIVE, W*lfowitz SIX, and others have similarly shameful numbers).
I don't drink a lot while playing, for a number of reasons, one being safety (hand/eye coordination, etc...) But I can handle a beer or two--sheesh! And that's only until my portion of the show's over--then, like Petey Pablo says, "I like to lay back...enjoy my time." I also agree with lovingmaster45: "I use something called judgement. Mine is damn good." That's great!
Mine's good too--so good I know NOT to drink hard liquor, or I will be unsafe at any speed, to coin a phrase. A few beers, on the other hand, and everything's both more relaxed and more tangible.
I think it comes down to knowing yourself and your partner. I believe those absolutists who say "no way!" are either terrified of repeating some traumatic experience (and that's their right, of course--to be terrified) or they're seeking comfort in false gods. In other words, if you can't trust your Dom to control him/herself and manage a couple of drinks, why trust them with your health in the first place?
Humans are funny--especially American humans. Remember the hue and cry about the (true) fact that airbags do kill a small percentage of accident victims? Like, I'd guess the total (not sure if this is US or worldwide) is still under 200 souls, as a few years ago it was like approx. 100. But the airbags save MANY times more lives than they take. Yet people were screaming to have them disconnected.
Cigarettes kill how many each year? 40,000? (not sure). Alcohol-related deaths number how many thousand? Hospital mistakes kill what, 130,000 per year in the US? And yet so many "absolutists" were afraid of their own, gas-guzzling SUV's airbags.
What's my point? Just this: I happen to believe that every Dom should have a heavy duty pair of sharp scissors within reach, in any bondage scene. Shoulders go out of joint, legs cramp, etc.... While you're frantically trying to free your screaming sub, who's watching the candle light the drapes on fire? It's faster and safer to cut 'em loose!
So, how many of the "no wayers!" insist on there being a good pair of scissors on hand? I'm simply suggesting that it's false comfort to insist on barring one enemy at the gate (alcohol) while ignoring other risks. I think it'd be better to consider all of the foreesable risks, and weigh them on their merits, in the context of the individuals involved. This (excercising good judgment) would provide me a greater comfort than rigidly insisting on a rule that might have little to do with the risks you're actually facing, if you were to stop and (re?) think about it.
No offense, but given some recent experiences with some misguided, moral absolutists, I can honestly say that people with "rules for rules' sake" make me tired.
|
|
|
|
