www.BoundAnna.com

Lotharjulz wrote:

Lotharjulz wrote:There was a plan for him to breath that wasn't successful. It was a risk for enjoyment that didn't fall his way that time.

Yeah, that's fine. If that's your thing, go for it. Where I have a problem with that story is that the person mummified this way was left alone without supervision and left to suffocate.. He could easily have still been alive had there been a good and reliable way for him to alert the person who tied him up or if that person had bothered keeping tabs on him. I don't judge the activity, I judge the apparent lack of precautions and the apparent lack of understanding just how dangerous what they were doing was until it was far far too late.

"Yeah that's fine" HOWEVER insert criteria here...

I am frequently chained in a building left alone where my partner is at times over 500 miles away (far more negligent in appearance). I could get strangled in chains, building could catch fire, tornado, etc and I am aware of the risks in fact it is the risk that makes it exciting (much like hundreds of other activities people do). How do you know the sub didnt want to be neglected? Maybe the dom being free to do something else while the sub was restrained was agreed upon before hand and unconditional for the scenario to commence?

My point was that Lisa felt guilty and decided to call it quits on self bondage, people rushed in to say never feel guilty, and this whole thread proves the contrary. I sure feel guilty as the sub in this situation for how you all will condemn and judge my Dom (for my selfish pleasure) if I make the news.

The following is my opinion, take it for what you want or ignore it.

It all falls back to the rules of "safe, sane, concensual" and where exactly you draw the line of safe and sane. Personally when it comes to (potential) breath play of the type discussed in this topic my opinion is that doing it without supervision and leaving the bound person alone was neither safe nor sane, no matter the wishes of the sub. If he wants to feel unsupervised there's certainly ways to achieve that without actually leaving him unsupervised. For me, personally, chaining someone inside a building unsupervised with no way to escape if things go wrong and then leaving for an extended time does not meet my personal definition of "safe". It's fine that YOU want to do these things, but you seem to be under the impression that that wish completely indemnifies your Dom, even going so far as to have a letter stating "I wanted this, I don't blame him" and your stated opinion that the sub has ultimate control, but IF something does indeed go wrong and your Dom has to answer questions from police and prosecutors the argument against him will be "he should have said No." And ultimately, that is the power he has. He can say No, I will not do that. By the very act of being to one to (agree to) leave you in that state he becomes involved and at least partially if not wholly responsible. I don't have any judgement on the desires, I don't judge the activity of being tied up or restrained (even for longer periods), I have similar wants and fantasies myself. But I have an opinion on the way it was executed and I just cannot say that either the sub or Dom where free of blame in the case in this topics subject. And IF god forbid something bad happens to you while left alone, I cannot help but judge your Dom based on this same principle. There comes a point where he should have said No. And I fully agree that it's very easy to judge from a distance and in hindsight, but there must be a limit.

What Lisa did was by no means extreme or different or dangerous and didn't break any SSC limits, that's why everybody said not to feel guilty.

I think that no anesthesiologist in their right mind would play this game, but that is an opinion I am keeping out of my judgement.
I'll try something. Let's say you invite your friend over to have a boxing sparring session. There is risk, no one is trying to kill anyone. Now, in the fight, your friend is hit and falls limp. You would have a responsibility to get them to a hospital. If the police are called in, it could be explained, and charges are unlikely, civil law suits after the fact are unlikely. It was an accident.
But, if after knocking your opponent out cold and you do not immediately bring him to the hospital or summon professional help, you are now liable. Imagine if you decided to go to bed and sleep with your friend lying on the floor, thinking "He'll be fine in the morning". You would certainly be be held criminally and/or civilly responsible for any complications or death that could have been avoided by getting immediate help.
Again, no judgement on the activity chosen for their game. No judgement on their ability to recognize a problem that was happening. But hours pass by without even a look? This is no accident. It's negligence.

...

If someone asks you for a revolver with one bullet loaded, because they want to play russian roulette, would you give it to them knowingly? Morally clearly the provider has a large responsibility.

Legally, I guess what the difference on opinion is, whether there is a limit to the amount a risk for which responsibility can be waived. My guess would be that in Europe the opinion is that at some point people have to be protected from themselves and the responsibility for certain high risk activities cannot be waived. In the USA the opnion might be that the responsibility for any risk can be waived, because FREEDOM! (sorry, I couldn't help myself )

...

Lotharjulz wrote:Following your example though if the provider was the gun store, they are ethically responsible?

Of course, if someone walks into a gun store and and says that they want to play Russian roulette and they sell them a gun knowingly then yeah I would hold them responsible. I would go even a step further, if the store wasn't told but should have reasonably known they are responsible.

I agree with your other points though, although the examples are meant as an example. It's not meant to see they are equal.

Hi, guys!

Just a reminder that this conversation is going dangerously off course and soon to run aground on the reefs of politics.

Please take heed of this and steer this boat back on the course to bondage, before this becomes another White Star Line ship.

Thanks!

Jenny.

...

...

My apologies, I'm afraid I steered the barge into perilous waters. My point was that different countries/cultures have a different take on resposibility.

I can't judge anyone's mental illness, but aren't we all here a little crazy? Thank god!

BoundInKasugai wrote:but aren't we all here a little crazy?

It would be boring if we weren't (this coming from the one of the head crazies... ).

Jenny.

Well, according to the latest happenings inside the british
Parliament, enjoying a pint & toasting ones birthday is now a political act.

That doesn‘t leave many innocent topics for our board to be discussed without
Invoking the wrath of jenny.

Maybe that's what we were after all along =P

ponylady wrote:Well, according to the latest happenings inside the british
Parliament, enjoying a pint & toasting ones birthday is now a political act.

Proud to be British? not now just .

We had a Canadian running the bank of England so I suggest sending Jenny into parliament to sort them out.

BoundInKasugai wrote:My apologies, I'm afraid I steered the barge into perilous waters. My point was that different countries/cultures have a different take on resposibility.

I can't judge anyone's mental illness, but aren't we all here a little crazy? Thank god!

I'm not crazy, just ask my invisible friends over there they will tell you I'm not.