RE: The Power or " Right"

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The Power or " Right"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: The Power or " Right"

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 8:42:42 AM

Posts: 401
Joined: 3/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: InTonguesslut

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: InTonguesslut

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

submissive by the definition has limits. period.

Oh please, now you want a sub / slave definition debate?

quote:

why do you insist on the "no limit" handle? your relationship contains limits, either they are your limits, or your owners, but the limits do exist. and thats why people are objecting to the lable.

I dare you to go back and read the posts which state that no limits means the limits of their owners.

so, if your owner has a limit for you, you disregard it?

Which part of 'no limits' for me and most who have posted here means taking on only the limits of my owner do you not understand?

the definition of no limits itself. you have limits.

I really feel like i'm banging my head against a brick wall.
I don't have limits, Sir has.

If Sir has a car it doesn't make it mine anymore than Sir having limits makes them mine.

Now if you'll excuse me i have to go to asda to but a meat cleaver for sir to kill me with.

Ok i'm lying i'm off to buy socks and cooking oil.

< Message edited by InTonguesslut -- 4/1/2009 8:48:37 AM >

_____________________________

Aka missturbation

It's not shopping if you buy 10 items or less.

If it fits in a toaster, i can cook it.

What you don't see with your eyes, don't witness with your mouth. Prov

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 8:50:05 AM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

ah i see. so your dont follow your Sirs limits, they are just his. that really makes sense now. thank you

~chuckles

Which part of 'no limits' for me and most who have posted here means taking on only the limits of my owner do you not understand?

you admitted your limits are those of your Sirs.
then you say you have no limits but those of your Sirs
then you say... i dont have limits, Sir does.

duh, thats what everyone has been saying. your limits are the limits HE gave you. which, by definition, makes you a slave WITH limits. if he says no, you dont. if he says do, you do. HE may view you as a woman with no limits to HIM. everyone else sees your limits the moment you say... i cant, Sir wont let me.

limits... boundaries.. rules. you have them

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 4/1/2009 8:53:51 AM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to InTonguesslut)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 8:51:40 AM

Posts: 1690
Joined: 11/4/2008
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan

The old mental health chestnut has long been bandied around in reference to no limits relationships and this in itself indicates a lack of comprehension of the dynamics of such a relationship and falls on an individual's biased perception without any basis of fact.

I think it's hard for people to wrap their heads around "no limits" because they interpret it to mean that the person has no healthy boundaries. ie---they would do anything under the sun if someone told them to.

I used to look at it that way too, and I couldn't make sense of it. Obviously they do have personal limits or it wouldn't matter who they belonged to. After watching and listening and talking to some of these no limits people, I realized that what they mean is that they don't have limits within the relationship...they don't have a list of things they're not willing to do or try, they don't have areas in which they want to maintain control, as opposed to someone who still wants to control A B and C. If it's viewed that way, it's not so hard to understand the term "no limits relationship". I think it was .thedark who said in essence that these terms sometimes have to be looked in a little bit different light, and you can't apply "standard definitions".

(in reply to MissMorrigan)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 8:53:45 AM

Posts: 401
Joined: 3/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

ah i see. so your dont follow your Sirs limits, they are just his. that really makes sense now. thank you

~chuckles

Wrong again.
Sir doesn't do anything outside his limits. Therefore how can i not follow them. Still doesn't make them mine though.

quote:

you admitted your limits are those of your Sirs.
then you say you have no limits but those of your Sirs
then you say... i dont have limits, Sir does.
quote:

Yes and?

quote:

your limits are the limits HE gave you. which, by definition, makes you a slave WITH limits. if he says no, you dont. if he says do, you do. HE may view you as a woman with no limits to HIM. everyone else sees your limits the moment you say... i cant, Sir wont let me.

You just don't get it. Sir does not do knife play, its one of his limits. I love knife play and it certainly isn't a limit for me, but he chooses not to do it. I don't choose, he does.

< Message edited by InTonguesslut -- 4/1/2009 8:59:55 AM >

_____________________________

Aka missturbation

It's not shopping if you buy 10 items or less.

If it fits in a toaster, i can cook it.

What you don't see with your eyes, don't witness with your mouth. Prov

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 8:59:04 AM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

marie, i do understand what she is referring too. i also have a relationship where i have no limits... in regard to his desires. what he wants, he gets. lables are funny things. maybe if more people were careful as to how they are applied, there wouldnt be as much confusion.

now, personally, i could care less what you girls decide to lable yourselves. it makes not one difference in my relationship or my reality. but for a group of girls to get this put out of joint over a handle when they are questioned, probably means they have been questioned before. you would think they would find a better way of saying... oh.. perhaps

i am in a no limit relationship with my Master/Sir/Dom, ect. now, that would be a handle no one could ever dispute.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to InTonguesslut)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:01:05 AM

Posts: 224
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2
...snip

Obviously they do have personal limits or it wouldn't matter who they belonged to.

...snip

Thank you.

(in reply to marie2)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:15:47 AM

Posts: 1641
Joined: 11/5/2004
Status: offline

i honestly don't get why this seems so hard to grasp unless it is the running into the wall of preconceived notions and the "right definitions". i classify as a submissive and not as a slave, but in the relationship that i have with my Dominant, who doesn't call Himself a Master, i do not limit what He can ask or demand of me. The only limitations that are "enforced" in the relationship are His limits on Himself, i have no limits that i place on Him or on where He wants to take the relationship because i trust Him.

Those limits, which i adhere to, just like i am sure that ITS adheres to the limits the her Sir has (not asking Him to go beyond what He wants as the limits for the relationship) are the Dominant's limits, not the s-type's limits. That is a point that seems to me to be obsurdly clear and to argue otherwise seems assinine. And to not get that that was what ITS was saying strikes me as being deliberately obtuse.

However based on recent posts to this thread, because i classify as an submissive and not as a slave, i must have limits that i place on my Dominant, because apparently that is part of the definition of what makes a submissive a submissive and not a slave. Because as a submissive, if i claim that classification, i obviously want to place restrictions on what the Dominant that i serve can and can't do.

i do not claim to be a no-limit anything, because there are lines that i will not cross. However given the relationship that i am currently in, given the PERSON that i am in relationship with, there is no chance that those lines will even be approached much less broached so any limits that i have become a moot point, they do not affect or impact the relationship that i am in. So i am not placing any limitations on the Dominant that i serve, so some would call me a no-limit s-type (can't be a submissive, as we have already been informed)

However to claim that there aren't any no-limit slaves is also in my opinion assinine. Because whether it is using the definition that the s-type doesn't limit what the D-type does in the relationship but rather trusts His or Her limitations that He or She places upon themselves, or using the definition that any treatment including actual harm (and yes including death) is allowable and within the owner's rights, there are s-types who are no-limit. They do exists and to claim otherwise seems absurd.

_____________________________

Life is an exciting business, and most exciting when it is lived for others.

Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood.

Life is either a great adventure or nothing.

Helen Keller

50 NZ points

(in reply to marie2)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:28:01 AM

Posts: 1690
Joined: 11/4/2008
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL:marie2 What a lot of these couples mean when they say "we have a no-limits relationship" is that the "sub"/"slave" has found someone that they will allow to lead them, because he/she has a desire to relinquish control and allow the "dom"/"master" to be the one to decide when, how, where, how far, how fast etc.

Yes, but the problem is this: what in the WORLD distinguishes the scenario you're describing from the vast majority of BDSM relationships that involve some sort of long-term commitment? In what way is this relationship supposed to be different from what anyone and everyone else is doing? Because what you're talking about here is not unusual or special, in my experience--it is actually much closer to the "standard practice" for the majority of d/s couples.

I don't disagree with this. The only difference that I've seen though, is that some couples do go into it with the submissive party having some cut and dried terms/conditions/limits, where the "no limits" person doesn't go into it giving any of those terms (or limits) to their partner. I don't think it's "special" or "uncommon". It's just the way they run their particular show.

quote:

The dominant leads/commands, the submissive follows/obeys. Absence of a formal safeword. Is this all that is required to qualify for the "no limits" label that so many people use to lord it over others, claiming superior intimacy and "purer" dominance/submission? And if this is all that is really involved, why do they so often feel the need to make outlandish claims about what they could do and would do if the mood struck them?

Sure, I've seen plenty of the "subblier than thou" stuff that goes on on these boards all the time with regards, to "no limits". But it also applies to the "no safeword" topic and the "sub vs slave" topic and the "who plays the hardest" topic, along with all the doms who sit here and have pissing contests with one another over various topics to see who will hail as the domliest of doms. At times I have definitely felt a very strong sense of people trying to claim they are somehow superior to another "type" of bdsmer. I've probably gotten caught up in my own convictions at one time or another and come off that way as well. I think a lot of this is human nature, where we (generic) need to make this stuff work in our heads and we need to frame it in whatever way works for us. And when someone comes along and upsets the apple cart that we've worked so hard to neatly arrange, we tend to defend it vigorously. Yes, some genuinely feel superior in the way they do things. And others yet, are simply trying to share or discuss different points of view.

quote:

Personally, I think if people want a serious answer to the question of "Why does this phrase stir such strong reactions?"--this is your answer. The rhetoric and the bravado of the "No-Limits" relationship is always centered on real harm. The dominant brags that he/she can and will do real harm if they please; the submissive brags that he/she will passively endure real harm and real abuse without resistance or complaint.

Not sure I've made the same observations. Sure, there has been rhetoric and bravado from some people about "real harm" and 'master can kill me or maim me if he wants' type of stuff....I keep in mind that some people will throw shit out here at times just for shock value, and to entertain themselves while they watch the masses go apeshit for a few days. But in most cases, the "no limits" people are coming from a less-extreme point of view.

quote:

This is not only a huge turn off for an ethically responsible human being--it also sets off an enormous number of alarms and red flags. It is political and social suicide to allow my community and by extension myself and my partners to ever be associated with the harms that these people are constantly bragging about.

Agree, but you can't just group every couple who claims to have a 'no limits' relationship into this basket. Sure, we (generic) condemn those we feel are ethically irresponsible. But I don't think it's a logical jump to assume that all couples who identify as "no-limits" must be ethically/morally bankrupt. Especially because we know from experience that there are many various interpretations of these bdsm terms.

quote:

Tolerating harm and abuse and defining them as "sexy" is NOT in my best interest as a member of the community, and a citizen of the real world--the place where real harm leads to real consequences.

Of course we all have different lines on what constitutes harm and abuse, but I'm sure that the majority of people ( in any community) would agree that if a person is in a relationship in which they feel harmed and abused, it's not a good thing, nor should it be touted as something positive or something to aspire to.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:31:31 AM

Posts: 1690
Joined: 11/4/2008
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantilena

quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2
...snip

Obviously they do have personal limits or it wouldn't matter who they belonged to.

...snip

Thank you.

Ok, but who is saying that they don't have personal limits in general? They're saying that they dont feel the need to maintain control over anything in the relationship, or give their partner a list of things they would never do since they trust he/she will know what is best.

(in reply to cantilena)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:35:29 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: InTonguesslut
Slaves give rights to their dom's, it's as simple as that.

At this stage of the discussion, I'm afraid the 'slave' doesn't matter (and she may well get off on that). It's the doms that make stupid statements like 'I have the right to your life' that need reminding, in a serious way, that they're out of their depth. It's one thing to ride a fantasy wave of omnipotence: but don't try and convince me that they have the right to kill their submissive/slave/servant because she 'gave him the right to kill her'. That's presposterous, and to compare it to spanking... even more so.

"Right" is a misleading term here. No one has the "right" because it is a legal term and no current, active and/or pertinent laws I'm aware of grant that luxury.

What we're really discussing is the permnission given by an s-type to a D-type.

Whether in a symbolic way (e.g. the sharing of secrets that, if made public, could drive us to potentially fatal depression) or in more tangible forms (e.g. trusting your rock-climbing belayer to not let go of the rope), we trust people with our lives at various stages of our lives.

Making continual active reaffirmation of such a realization/trust in someone is much different than the decision to mentally grant someone permission when it is expected/desired that they would end their life. And, truthfully, even then...anyone railing in any sort of a hard stance about that is being emotionally affected, as the grey area is so huge here. People enter into s/m relationships expecting some degree of abuse to happen, which (were we to follow domiguy's structure-less "common sense") would toss the entirety of the kink and/or lifestyle into suspicion...even at the mildest pole (say, spanking for instance?).

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:39:52 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

If you take someone...oh say...that's into puppy play, just as an example, and you tell them that they aren't REALLY a canine...well, they will readily admit you are right and that it's just fantasy. If you tell a self professed "no limits slave" that they REALLY aren't no limits, they often take it as some sort of personal affront that seems to imply that they aren't real, they aren't dedicated or committed enough or that they are less worthy somehow. The "no limits" tag they affix themselves with somehow validates them.

Being a canine is (probably) a biological impossibility. Now, some people are semantically broadening the scope of what "no limits" means in order to put it into a box just as preposterous (e.g. you can't flap you arms and fly across the Atlantic for someone, so a-ha! That's a "limit"!), but the context being obviously used is one that encompasses what is physically/psychologically possible for a human.

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to mistoferin)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:44:38 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantilena

quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2
...snip

Obviously they do have personal limits or it wouldn't matter who they belonged to.

...snip

Thank you.

Um...the words "limit" and "prerequisite" are not synonymous.

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to cantilena)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:47:10 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Note that I entered this debate with particular reference to one slave on this thread who claims that her dominant has the right to take her life away from her: whether she 'gave him that permission' or not is irrelevant, if you are of sound mind.

_____________________________

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 9:53:28 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Note that I entered this debate with particular reference to one slave on this thread who claims that her dominant has the right to take her life away from her: whether she 'gave him that permission' or not is irrelevant, if you are of sound mind.

So you're connecting the dots, immediately, between such an affirmation by an s-type and being of "sound mind"?

Would it be prettier had she said: "I give over trust of my life, entirely, to X"?

Again, there is a difference between handing over the tools to your demise to someone and doing so with the hope/desire/expectation that they'd bring it about. And even then, we're still is a deep gray area.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 4/1/2009 9:54:29 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 10:29:03 AM

Posts: 224
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantilena

quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2
...snip

Obviously they do have personal limits or it wouldn't matter who they belonged to.

...snip

Thank you.

Um...the words "limit" and "prerequisite" are not synonymous.

True. But they are close enough in concept for me to consider the whole 'no limits' debate nothing more than an exercise in either thinking too much, expressing a need for public validation, or (conversely) minding somebody else's buisness.

I'll go back to eating my popcorn now. Sorry to intrude.

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 10:39:59 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

So you're connecting the dots, immediately, between such an affirmation by an s-type and being of "sound mind"?

The 'sound mind' was not in reference to her, or her man, but to the casual and external observer who ought to see that whether the slave gives permission or not is irrelevant. Although I am sorely tempted to go there and talk about their state of mind, now that you mention it.

quote:

Would it be prettier had she said: "I give over trust of my life, entirely, to X"?

It wouldn't have sounded quite as horrible as 'he has the right to take my life', but it's still dreadful. I don't care how it's wrapped up. Either it's pure fantasy, and the posturing should be judged as such, or there's something wrong with the guy who tells his woman: "I can take your life away from you." I'm not quite sure what you're defending here, but these kinds of statements should be kept for behind closed doors, if you don't want pernickety people like me and others to pick them apart. Otherwise, I really don't see why people expose themselves like that, unless they get off on the exhibitionism? That's very possible too.

quote:

Again, there is a difference between handing over the tools to your demise to someone and doing so with the hope/desire/expectation that they'd bring it about. And even then, we're still is a deep gray area.

I disagree with you: it's pretty clear cut to me.

_____________________________

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 10:50:05 AM

Posts: 1712
Joined: 6/24/2005
From: DC Metro area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Just like I said, it's the uber Doms/owners/masters whatevers that are to be laughed at here, with their crazy claims that they have the right to kill. What are these people on, ffs?

it's only "crazy" by your own personal standards. by my own, by my Master's, by anyone else who believes in an Owner's rights the way we do, it is a simple statement of fact. He has the right to take my life because that is a right i gave him when i consented to be his slave. is it a "legal" right? of course not, the law does not even recognize slavery. but so what? because something cannot be legally enforced or permitted, does that make it not possible? we all know that's not the case.

now, did i give myself to him with the idea that there was a good chance that he would one day decide to end my life? of course not, i would not choose to be owned by a person with a murder/snuff fetish. but the fact remains that he has the right to do whatever he wills with my life as that is what i handed over to him when i became his slave.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 11:04:07 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

*Sigh*... And this after someone just tried to explain that it really wasn't about 'rights', but 'permissions'. This isn't about 'personal standards'. He doesn't have that right, no matter what you told him, and no matter what he told you, regardless of the promises you have made each other, the permissions you have given him are irrelevant. I'm not even going into the legal aspect of this here, because that, too, is irrelevant.

I ask you, since you are here, why there was a need for you to even mention the termination of your life by him on these boards, since it isn't something that will happen. I am genuinely curious.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 4/1/2009 11:05:11 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to daddysprop247)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 11:16:00 AM

Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline

Probably because you cannot get any more extreme than "the right to end a person's life".

If a person wishes to be seen as extreme, the extreme slave, saying that their master/mistress has the "right" to take that also, it is the ultimate show of extreme slavery.

Personally, I don't see it as something worth arguing about simply because it is such a purposeful hot button. But that's just me.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: The Power or " Right" - 4/1/2009 11:23:59 AM

Posts: 401
Joined: 3/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

marie, i do understand what she is referring too. i also have a relationship where i have no limits... in regard to his desires. what he wants, he gets. lables are funny things. maybe if more people were careful as to how they are applied, there wouldnt be as much confusion.

now, personally, i could care less what you girls decide to lable yourselves. it makes not one difference in my relationship or my reality. but for a group of girls to get this put out of joint over a handle when they are questioned, probably means they have been questioned before. you would think they would find a better way of saying... oh.. perhaps

i am in a no limit relationship with my Master/Sir/Dom, ect. now, that would be a handle no one could ever dispute.

Omg lol.
Funnily enough that is what we have been saying.
Just to add cos i canna help myself the only noses out of joint are certain ones of those who claim no limit slaves don't exist.

_____________________________

Aka missturbation

It's not shopping if you buy 10 items or less.

If it fits in a toaster, i can cook it.

What you don't see with your eyes, don't witness with your mouth. Prov

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: The Power or " Right"

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.082