Posted by Matou on Tue 13 Apr 04, 8:17 PM to Matou's blog.
I'm going to start this log off with an apology.
Well, that got your attention, didn't it? The apology is to anyone who misunderstood the section of my last weblog dealing with thinking before acting. At least one person did since I got a very polite memo taking me to task on two of the points and on risk-assessment in general. So, just in case anyone else misunderstood I will explain.
Firstly, the items I chose to rant about weren't necessarily 'high risks', merely topics that had come up in weblogs or from personal chat with people. I didn't make that clear at all.
Cerrynn has explained our view of risk-assessment very well in her latest weblog but I want to reiterate it. Neither she in her last weblog, nor I in mine, are telling anyone how to play or otherwise lead their lives. We are recommending that people think about risks before they act then act based on their own decision of whether a risk is acceptable. Risk assessment is a very personal thing if you doubt me, look around you at other drivers on the road. I defy you *not* to find someone taking risks that you wouldn't dream of and vice-versa. In addition, it is based around variable factors.
The IC member who wrote to me was of the opinion that what I described in relation to being tied to the bed was a highly unlikely scenario and it might be better to advocate the use of smoke alarms. Matou Mansions has a smoke alarm and yet nearly got burnt down by yours truly with me in it. One smoke alarm in the hall wasn't enough. It's a personal choice but even if I *had* more alarms, better placed, I still wouldn't want to be scrabbling for the key to the padlock with alarms screaming. But it's a valid point so rewrite my advice slightly: Think and decide whether you have enough smoke alarms before you get tied/chained/locked to the bed all night.
The IC member suggested that my comment regarding metal collars was misguided and dramatic. Perhaps so, but the original sentiment came from a scene-friendly, working paramedic. His concerns were not limited to metal collars but anything around the throat which could interfere with breathing that couldn't be cut off with paramedic's shears. It was also asserted that the Fire Service has a response time of five minutes with equipment capable of cutting anything off. In truth, that depends on where you live. Where cerrynn was living in Wales before she moved here the response time was more like 30 minutes. Also, what about if you are abroad?
The member was also of the opinion that my comments regarding metal detectors were inappropriate as security people were quite reasonable as long as they could see what was causing the problem. I am fairly well-travelled in Europe and would agree that there and in the UK security staff use their common-sense. I'm not so sure about the US at the moment. From some of cerrynn's experiences, the extra guards being employed at some US airports are being selected for their aggression, not to mention having originated from the shallower parts of the gene pool. (Don't forget it's a Federal offence in the US to be rude to security staff, and some of those security staff take advantage of this. Ask cerrynn.)
As I said, risk-assessment is a personal thing. I take the difference in our heights and weights into consideration when we play so we never indulge in suspension play when we are alone. I take my age and lifestyle into consideration and so, when we are alone, I very rarely ever tie cerrynn so she cannot get out of it. A heart attack is a possibility for me remote, I hope, but one I take seriously. It's likely that I will be a compulsive risk-assessor even in my dotage (Are the bondage points on my Zimmer frame strong enough?) and when they eventually cart me off in a somewhat less than six foot pine box you will probably hear a voice from inside the box crying plaintively, Think are there enough smoke alarms in the crematorium? Maybe that's why cerrynn trusts me so much I will be far more paranoid about safety than any reasonable person has any cause to be. I don't think it is an unhealthy paranoia and it doesn't get in the way of us having a good (and exciting) time.
This is all we recommend to you think what risks there are for *you*, assess their importance and likelihood of happening and do what you consider to be safe for *you*.
On another note, last week's VE was truly awesome. So many new people and (as far as we could ascertain) everyone went away having had a good time. Kitty, a belated happy birthday and despite your complaints to the contrary I hope you enjoyed your spanks! Hellsbells and Jon, it was a delight to meet you at last. And hellsbells, you will just have to get used to compliments if you continue to dress as you did. The corset was great and we both thought you looked lovely. Claire, you looked equally wonderful and I was quite envious of Jim's shirt! I won't mention pflsagain, the cage and flexisex (as long as you send the bribes in on time!) Paul, I still think you cheated by using your cake decorating experience in the Hot Cross Buns competition we wuz robbed! (Actually we weren't Paul's caning technique has got disgustingly good!) It was a truly wonderful evening in no small part due to the ambience created by Blue Velvet and cerbie and the (new) management of Ceasar's.
Be happy, be safe
Matou
P.S. I *did* write back to the IC member mentioned above, asking if that person would have any objection to my responding to their concerns in a subsequent weblog. Since that person did not answer my email, I am assuming that they did not have any objections. If I am mistaken in that assumption, I apologise.
Edited Tue 13 Apr 04, 8:22 PM by Matou
