tsatske
Posts: 2037
Joined: 3/9/2007 From: Louisville, KY Status: offline
|
I have a problem with how many people define 'limits'. I don't mean I have a problem with how they define it for themselves in their own relationships, they are free to do what works for them. I mean that often, on these boards, the 'limit' is defined, basically, as, anything you do not like. Many people seem to take the attitude that if it is not a limit, you must like it, or want it. Someone in this thread said that, in their opinion, 'no limits' usually meant someone wanted scat. I do not like scat. I find the idea disgusting. It is not, however, a limit when I am owned. I have never done it, and have no desire to. I didn't do it with my last master, for instance, because he also found the idea of doing it very unappealing. As he said, it smells bad. What he did like, however, was discussing it from time to time, threatening me with it, leaving the possibility open. It was clear that, in our relationship, he had the right to that, if he wanted it. And he liked having that right. I have also never done k-9. Find the idea repugnant. But my contract with my last master specifically spelled out that he had that right. He would have had that right even if it were not spelled out specifically, in that the contract was clear that he had the right to any kind of play he chose. But, as with scat, the reason we didn't do K-9 is, he didn't like dogs. He did like having the right to do something to me that I detested the idea of, so he put it specifically in the contract, because it pleased him to have it there. One question that has not been discussed much here, among the discussions of death and dismemberment and other more unlikely things, is how the OP, and others considering no limits slavery, feel about monogamy. I am not a monogamous person, so it is not an issue for me. My last contract said, "It is ridiculous for a slave to expect monogamy from a Master, and equally ridiculous to think a Master would have to ask permission from his slave to do anything." My contract limited my sexual contact with others very clearly - I could play with women if I told Master about it at the first opportunity, in as much detail as he wished. I could not play with men, or bottom to anyone, without his prior consent. He, however, was free to play with whomever he wished, whenever he wished. He did not have to tell me about it, although he agreed never to lie to me about it. I have known other takes on the lying issue, BTW. I have known slaves whose contracts specifically gave their Masters the right to lie to them, if they found it necessary, expedient, or simply wished to. My last contract identified a couple of what I call 'gift limits'. Things master agreed to, but, being clearly identified in the contract as gifts from him, he had the right to change his mind and revoke the limits, should he chose to. For instance, he agreed to neither have sex with, nor require me to have sex with, any relative of mine. But our contract identified that as a gift from him, revocable if he chose. My contract also stated some of my preferences, without in any way limiting master on account of those preferences. For instance, my contract said that, when we played with other couples, I preferred not to be required to have insertion sex with any man other than my Master. It was in no way a limit, though, and Master was free to use me in that way at any time he wished to.
|