ataxia.girl
D/s anarchist
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Posts
- 1,231
However, upon contemplation it seems clear to me that the above states it exactly backwards.
Assuming there is a correlation between the possessing power and being able to deal with the consequences of the exercise of that power, then it appears obvious to me that it is the irresponsible person (the "bad boy" if you will) whose power is definitionally limited. Whereas the responsible ("good guy" if you will) enjoys far more power because he will own up to and deal with the consequences of the exercise of his power.
Just so long as he doesn't give into the fear and stop exercising it. Also i wouldn't classify "owning up" as a distinction between the nice guy and the bad guy. i wondered when this discussion would degrade\ascend to a discussion about exactly what is good and what is bad. i think we'll be there soon.
For me the distinction probably isn't between good\nice versus bad\evil its between those who NEED to excercise power and those who are simply willing to. i'm assuming there are capable\competent exercisers of both varieties. Actually i think its usually the nice guy, willing exerciser, doing it for the other person Dom who is more likely not to go far enough, not to own up and more likely to stop playing.
i understand and have experienced those who need to exercise power that when things go wrong or get difficult prefer to just give up and move on to the next victim which is really just weakness and if that defines "bad boy" then yeah, i don't want one of those.

