|
FieryOpal -> RE: Strange twist on control... (12/16/2014 7:57:21 PM)
|
Color me cynical,..
quote:
ORIGINAL: LostKytten
He read my profile before I cleared it and was highly interested in the fact that I am disabled and can't walk without assistance.
Evidently, in his kwirky little mind, this meant a whole new kind of control and world of domination towards me... he liked the dependability factor, and how it would be a matter of NEEDING him for things, not just choosing to submit.
...but the issue I perceived with this Dom is that he was more than just interested in OP out of compassion for a disabled sub. Not being able to walk without assistance severely limits mobility and this is what piqued his interest, the degree to which she could be potentially dependent upon him for having access to what she needs to get around, that she would have no choice but to submit to him or else he could use this against her.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he had asked how isolated OP is from daily contact with others (friends & family nearby), whether she has anyone looking in on her regularly, whether her reliance upon her service dog takes care of her basic needs to where there was no necessity for visits from a home health care aide in her routine, that she was managing without one.
Then what happens when this Dominant tires of having to be the one who serves his sub instead of the other way around, conceivably? Once it's no longer fun & games for him?
quote:
ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12
In it's self I don't see anything wrong with it. Many Doms tie a girl's wrists or ankles to remove her ability to fight back. Yet it's somehow morally wrong or suspect if that physical inability is permanent rather than temporary? Curious. Does consent only matter to the able bodied? Is a disabled person not able to give or negotiate their consent to scenes? I am sure they are no less able, so this is not a question of predators, which we are all at risk from anyway. I would say the only red flag would be the risk elements of dependence, but this is just as risky for the stay at home Mum who relies on her Master's career. i also see no reason a person shouldn't be desired BECAUSE of their disability, rather than in spite of it. There are all kinds of people in this world and all kinds of desires. If you can match two up then why not? I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with this. Forget for a moment that this man is a Dom. It would make no difference whether BDSM is involved or not from this standpoint. Any man who would stress fostering more dependence upon a disabled person rather than having the desire to help the disabled achieve a greater level of independence, or at the very least be neutral in this matter (as in, we can work around this so that it doesn't become an issue), is not coming from a place of adding value to the OP's life.
There is a major difference between being temporarily incapacitated and being permanently so, and there is no comparison between the two. Only someone who doesn't have a permanent physical disability which limits their ambulatory movements, and who hasn't been the caregiver to somebody who does, could pose such a question with naiveté.
As a Dominant myself, if I were considering a sub because he would have no choice but to submit to me, what kind of responsible Dominant would that make me? No choice takes full consent out of the equation. Whether s/he consents or doesn't, whether this consent is honored, becomes a moot point when s/he would have no choice but to submit to my arbitrary whims. Then when you factor in a D/s power exchange and a Dom who can pull out the "Master's Right" card, after he has made his sub all the more dependent upon him, I can't see where there wouldn't be a big red flag waving.
|
|
|
|
