@VV: I agree with you that those are all probably good signs in a dominant, but I would stop short of calling a lot of them "responsibilities." I think of responsibilities as the things which, if a person failed to live up to them, I would think the person abusive or dangerous. It's very easy for me to get into a mode of thinking my way is the good way and other ways are no good, so I purposely tend to err on the side of being less prescriptive.

As examples, a few things you mentioned that I don't think are necessarily what I would classify as responsibilities:

  • The idea that people should act the same online as they would face to face seems iffy to me. Why should they? If a person is different online vs off does it mean they are irresponsible?
  • Some of the best submissives I know have clearly not been taught to be respectful or polite. I don't think any less of their dominants though...their dominants have taught them to be what they want, not what strangers want.
  • I know people who punish when they are angry. It doesn't mean they lose control, but they want their submissive to be able to feel the anger and disapproval that goes along with the punishment. Is that irresponsible?
  • Why should the dominant take responsibility for seeing to the submissive's wants and desires? That certainly seems like a valid path, but I think Consent offers a pretty large blanket for behavior between adults. Different people's dynamics may not take the s-type's wants into account at all and still be responsible so long as they are informed, honest, and consensual.


Anyway like I said I think all the things you pointed out are really good signs in a dominant, but I'd be leery of saying that a dominant was irresponsible for not following one or more of them.