RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

domtimothy46176 -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (3/31/2005 9:35:34 PM)

You have touched on an intriguing aspect of wiitwd, Alexander. One of the battles I've fought within myself was how to battle the urge to cruelty with the compulsion to nurture. I've met some who seemed out of balance and those who appeared to be drawn to submit themselves to the unremitting pain, emotionally and physically.
Frankly, both the complete sadist and the complete masochist scare the bejeezus out of me. I find it darkly fascinating and wonder what it would feel like to completely give myself over to the beast within. I tend to avoid interacting with those bottoms that I feel would want so much that I might be tempted to unleash myself completely. I'm simply not comfortable with where that might take me. I don't know that I could draw the line at where ' mutually beneficial cruelty" ends and 'unnecessary cruelty' begins if I ventured too deeply. In my mind I see it as standing at the edge of a precipice and looking down, wondering what it would feel like to fall. Dangerously fascinating to me, I prefer to step back to a safe distance.
Timothy



FLButtSlut -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (3/31/2005 11:00:54 PM)

I think that Merc stated it best, as in looking to find that perfect someone who you don't need limits with. But what I see here is that while I'm sure the "limitless" exist (and they scare the hell out me too, erin), is that these issues arise from a great deal of negotiation and getting to know one another.

Doesn't that in truth mean that while one might accept the dom or master's limits and decisions, that they do so only because you actually share the same values and ultimately the same limits? Therefore, in essence, all slaves do indeed have limits, it is just that they are the same limits shared with their masters. With Merc's definition, it makes complete sense, just as the other comments about the differing limits. While some might greatly enjoy or desire watersports and scat, others don't and it seems obvious that the two should not commit to each other.

Dark Angel, I see that you are in the UK, and I am very sorry for your friend and her family. As erin has pointed out, things do tend to work differently here in the states, and while it does happen, it is rare that the totally incapacitated are able to continue caring for their children.

It just seems to me that "no limits" and "absolute" only truly exists as long as everyone is on the same wavelength. Should the master suddenly stray "off course" into something totally against slave's inherent values, then it seems that limits would begin to occur and the "absolute" suddenly change.

Again, Merc, you have given the best explanation I have seen of what (hopefully) most people mean when they state that this is what they are seeking. To me that doesn't sound anything like BDSM, but more like the ultimate relationship. I get the feeling that while Beth will obviously do anything for you, you would go to the ends of the earth for her as well (I could be wrong, but I don't really think so). Sounds more like the perfect idyllic love to me than just an M/s relationship. We should all be so lucky, and I know I, for one am green with envy that you each have found something so perfect in each other.






EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/1/2005 5:33:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alexander
That urge to really hurt someone, true sadism, is something I believe, and its only opinion, we control more then release, or at least should. I think this needs an example.

This is the experience of every owner I've been with.

Sadists are scary, sick people and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one whose ethics didn't necessitate some form of consent before acting upon their urges.



krazij9 -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/2/2005 9:23:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic


quote:

ORIGINAL: krazij9

I believe it means they will not insist on any rules other than the Dom look after their health and safety. It means a true submissive, not one who will have all kinds of rules, conditions, and stipulations on their submission.



Stipulations like "I will not harm others" or "I will not violate someone's informed consent"? I think you're taking a too-simplistic view of this.


I'm not talking about someone at a kink club that you play with on weekends... For people who are scening, and don't necessarily known each other intimately like a full time D/s would, the /s should specify their limits and their preferences very clearly, and there should be safe words.

I'm talking about a full time TPE relationship. If the dom is worth a shit, and if they know each other well enough to know each other's physical limits, the sub will not need to specify limits.

The way I see it, limits are things a sub can't do, and rules are things a sub wont do. I wont take on a sub who comes with rules. Limits will be found, and they will be tested, real limits should be respected.



perverseangelic -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/2/2005 9:38:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: krazij9
I'm not talking about someone at a kink club that you play with on weekends... For people who are scening, and don't necessarily known each other intimately like a full time D/s would, the /s should specify their limits and their preferences very clearly, and there should be safe words.

I'm talking about a full time TPE relationship. If the dom is worth a shit, and if they know each other well enough to know each other's physical limits, the sub will not need to specify limits.

The way I see it, limits are things a sub can't do, and rules are things a sub wont do. I wont take on a sub who comes with rules. Limits will be found, and they will be tested, real limits should be respected.


(Upfront, I very very seldom play or casually scene and am invovled in a full time TPE. So that's the POV I'm coming from)

Hrm. I think the line between "can't" and "won't" is -still- too blurred to look at it so black and white.

Is a mental problem a "can't" or a "won't"? A phobia? Is refusing to face "triggering" material? (for those of us who have dealt with self-injury or eating disorders.) What I'm saying is where is the line and who draws it?

(Mostly a rhetorical question. The people inthe relationship, of course. You don't get invovled with someone who's rules you can't accept and respect.)

I think I agree with you, in practice, but that you're coming down too black and white on something that -isn't- What I do agree with is that the people invovled should know each other very well.

Still, why should limits be tested? To me, that shows a huge lack of trust in the submissive partner. As I see it, in a relationship like this, a dominant partner needs to trust that the submisisve partner is being utterly honest. As such, he/she should trust that when the submissive partner says "I cannot do that" s/he is saying it honestly and not facetiously. This is why I tell people that if someone wants to "push" or "test" my limits they don't respect me. I do -not- lie about what will break me, and I prefer to think I'm not unusual in that.



Padriag -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/2/2005 11:03:05 PM)

This has been quite an interesting thread to read with a number of intersting points. The question of limits is one I think anyone even semi-serious about this lifestyle will wrestle with at some point, and given the volume of discussion about it I'd say that theory has been validated in this forum. Like most others I've seen the words "no limits" in profiles, heard it from new "slaves" to the lifestyle, heard it from new "dominants" who sought it, and sometimes heard it uttered by those with enough applied experience to deserve to be heard out. And like everyone else I had my own reaction to it which was at first my instinctive response and then later a more analytical response.

My first response to hearing the idea of "no limits" was Bull S**t, no such thing. After quite a bit of pondering it, I still feel more the less the same. I don't believe anyone can actually have no limits and still be mentally healthy. However, it did cause me to take a long look at how we view limits, how we determine them, and what we actually mean. I like understanding things.

As a side note for those who don't know me (which is most of you reading this), and just so you know whereof I speak, I've been active in the lifestyle since late 1994, of that I'd say about 7 or 8 years of that would be "applied experience" (applying what I've learned over the years, not just talking / reading / learning about it). I also have a background studying behavioral psychology going back to my late teens (thanks to a HS teacher who began that odyssey), and I tend to rely on that heavily in this lifestyle.

I don't believe in "no limits" because as human beings we all have limits of some kind, and usually of a variety of types, which hold us back, restrain us and handicap us in various way. What I believe most people really mean when they say no limits is that they want TPE, a relationship in which the submissive gives up all the control they possess, all the power they have over themselves. In effect they surrender their freedom of choice, their right to make choices, but not their ability to make choices.

But in such situations they do still have limits, even if they are only very basic ones. This seems like a conundrum until you take a look at it from a different perspective.
If we say that in most cases no limits really means TPE...
and if we also say that TPE fundamentally means the surrender of all the power the submissive posseses...
and if we agree that there are some things over which a submissive has no power, no control (such as a phobia, an allergy, a deep religious belief, etc.) then we solve the conundrum.

In that context you can say you have TPE, total power exchange, over everything the submissive does have control over. At the same time the submissive still has recognized limits, those being things over which the submissive has no control. Thus for example, a submissive is claustrophobic and has no control over this fear... a limit then is that forms of play that would trigger it are on the list of limits. The submissive may be willing to submit to anything else, and may even wish they could do things that would trigger the claustrophobia, but for simple reasons of mental health and common sense something like locking the submissive in a closet would be a limit a responsible dominant would observe. In this example you have a submissive who has given up all control they have (TPE), but still retains a limit that results from something they have no control over, even though they may be willing to attempt to violate that limit. That, in my experience, fits with most of the "no limits" relationships I have encountered.

To some it may seem like arguing over semantics, and sometimes it is. I like to be very precise in my usage of terminology, I think if we had more "standardized" definitions of things in this lifestyle a lot of confusion and arguments could be avoided.

In summation, in my considered opionion there is no such thing as an actual no limits slave (someone absolutely having no limits) in a mentally healthy relationship. There are those who in practical terms have no limits. This may be because of either a happy arrangement where the dominant has limits that match that of the submissive (but this is only the appearance of no limits, in practice, there are still very real limits present); or in the case of deep levels of trust where the submissive has completely surrendered their right of choice in a TPE relationship and so in practice have given up the right to set limits. But even in the later case I find that limits still exist, either set by the dominant or things that ulitmately beyond the capacity of the submissive regardless of their desire to please (something I call natural limits in my personal lexicon).

That's my two bit on the topic, YMMV,



sweetpettjenny -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 7:14:17 AM)

Hello.... I would like to start off and say , i have been in the lifestyle about 13 years as a slave. My first owner i was married to for almost 12 of those years. I could honestly say i was a slave of "no limits" but to me that meant my limits were set ...but only because they were my owners limits. Being in a Master/slave relationship...requires trust ..key one.
without trust how could you move to those deep places your owner might take you. I do know i would not be owned by someone i did not know cared about and had the same beliefs as I. So really...did i need limits??? NOO . I knew he did not like to share, wouldn't cut me , wasn't a pedophile...I had no worries about doing whatever he wished, Because i knew he would never harm something he valued and loved as much as I. He also knew that anything new he wanted to try i would willingly...because i trusted him. Limits are good for those who truelly are with many partners or someone who really doesn't have that deep undying trust. I can honestly say.... ive never had a safe word either. But i can also say he knew every inch of me to know my bodies reactions. Being with a sadist who knew ALL of me ......life was gooooddd



slaveanwyl -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 8:49:49 AM)

Fomr my point of view as a 24/7 TPE slave it means that when i came to Master of course i had limits i had a list of them as long as your arm and there were thinfs i did not know but my hard limits met his and an agreement was made that these would NEVER OCCUR.. and as for soft limits they were just that soft ones and Master went through them with an ease one after another till the list was gone ... and now i have no limits as such only those that Master and i agreed upon at the beginning .
now i ahve none with Master unless he creates some ..

but i have looked at you definitions and although i am TPE and have no limits with him i know he wil NEVER do stupid things with me.
i am his treasure and special slave girl and he will do nothng to HARM me he may beat me and use me but he wont HARM me EVER love slave anwyl



FLButtSlut -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 1:45:23 PM)

slaveanwyl,

That was my point exactly. You and your master agreed from the beginning on the things that would NEVER OCCUR. Should master come home one day and say he would now like to cut you (as you mentioned this was a hard limit you both didn't want to partake in), your having "no limits" could undoubtedly change based on this sudden interest in something that was not an interest to either to begin with. It would then be YOUR choice as to how to move forward from that request. Yes, you could agree to let him cut you, and are free to make that choice, but obviously, things would no longer be absolute and YOU would be making a choice, whether it was yes or no. Obviously, we all change over time, as you said your soft limits no longer exist as the two of you worked through them together, but when one person suddenly changes in a manner that was not part of the relationship before, even a slave who claimed "no limits" would find themselves questioning that statement.



krazij9 -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 2:31:37 PM)



[/quote]

(Upfront, I very very seldom play or casually scene and am invovled in a full time TPE. So that's the POV I'm coming from)

Hrm. I think the line between "can't" and "won't" is -still- too blurred to look at it so black and white.

Is a mental problem a "can't" or a "won't"? A phobia? Is refusing to face "triggering" material? (for those of us who have dealt with self-injury or eating disorders.) What I'm saying is where is the line and who draws it?
[/quote]

I think that would depend on the degree of mental illness. But an adept D/ should be able to recognize a limit and not do anything that would cause injury to his/her /s. Personally, I work want to help my /s work through that kind of issues if they existed. I think the D/s lifestyle is a great forum to enable a couple to work together to fix such problems. The line is drawn by the D/. That is the nature of being in that position. That being said, the D/ has a large responsibility for the safety of the /s, and if he/she isn't knowledgeable to deal with things like that, s/he should treat them like a hard limit. Prior to entering into a relationship, it is the /s's responsibility to ensure they pick a D/ that understands and is committed to his/her responsibilities to the /s. Once picked, short of deciding they made a wrong decision and requesting to be released or just leaving, the /s shouldn't be in a position to make demands, expectations, requirements.

[/quote]
I think I agree with you, in practice, but that you're coming down too black and white on something that -isn't- What I do agree with is that the people invovled should know each other very well.
[/quote]

I guess it depends on what you want out of your arrangement. As far as the /s is concerned, everything should be black and white. Isn't that what they're desiring? They want to live a lifestyle where they make no decisions for theirself. They want to be provided everything they need, they want to be provided direction, and security. Maybe that's not your idea of what you want when you think of living in a D/s relationship, and that's ok, because we all have our own ideas of what a D/s relationship is to us.

[/quote]
Still, why should limits be tested? To me, that shows a huge lack of trust in the submissive partner.
[/quote]

I disagree with you on this. I don't think it has anything to do with trust in the /s or with the /s being honest. I could tell you that I am terribly afriad of snakes, and I'll do anything you want me to as long as it has nothing to do with snakes. Granted there may be no direct practical application for helping me to overcome my fear of snakes, but in doing so, you build my level of trust in your ability to protect me and know what's going to hurt me and what isn't... That exercise can make other, more important issues easier to overcome in future sessions.

[/quote]
As I see it, in a relationship like this, a dominant partner needs to trust that the submisisve partner is being utterly honest. As such, he/she should trust that when the submissive partner says "I cannot do that" s/he is saying it honestly and not facetiously. This is why I tell people that if someone wants to "push" or "test" my limits they don't respect me. I do -not- lie about what will break me, and I prefer to think I'm not unusual in that.
[/quote]

Just because the /s says they cannot do something, or handle something, that doesn't necessarily mean they cannot, and it doesn't mean they're not being honest, specially when you are dealing with irrational fears or a lack of self esteam. There are many cases where a person really believes they cannot do something when they actually can.

I am not unfamiliar with eating disorders. My exwife was anorexic when I met her, addicted to valium, and she was sexually disfunctional because of self esteam issues created from past trauma. By the time we parted, she had overcome her eating disorder, her drug addiction, and she had made large strides in her self esteam issues. She's a much healtheir and happier person as a result of it.







painworthy -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 3:10:47 PM)

Hi Mistoferin. When we place ourselves in a position of submission where the Top has complete control, in bondage for instance, haven't we in essence placed ourselves in a no limit state? Oh sure, we may have expressed our limits, but they are just that, expressed, those in control hold all the cards, including the power to decide if they will honor our expressed wishes or not. So, i guess that we all as submissives are 'no limit' subs to an extent if we give all the power to our Dominants. I see little difference between the fact that some of us have stated that we don't want this or that to happen, then trust the Dom to abide, and those who do not state a limit and trust their Dom to act in safe and sane manner. Consentual is in a manner of speaking, no?



mistoferin -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 3:38:59 PM)

quote:

Hi Mistoferin. When we place ourselves in a position of submission where the Top has complete control, in bondage for instance, haven't we in essence placed ourselves in a no limit state? Oh sure, we may have expressed our limits, but they are just that, expressed, those in control hold all the cards, including the power to decide if they will honor our expressed wishes or not. So, i guess that we all as submissives are 'no limit' subs to an extent if we give all the power to our Dominants. I see little difference between the fact that some of us have stated that we don't want this or that to happen, then trust the Dom to abide, and those who do not state a limit and trust their Dom to act in safe and sane manner. Consentual is in a manner of speaking, no?


I completely understand and agree with your view. The dynamic you describe is one that I comprehend and have lived.

On this thread however, you will find that there have been replies that suggest a different mentality. That is where my lack of understanding lies. Those "no limits" subs and slaves who declare this from the onset before trust is ever established or those who say that they would do bizarre things that are physically HARMful, up to and including death, at the mere command of a Dominant.



painworthy -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 4:32:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

I completely understand and agree with your view. The dynamic you describe is one that I comprehend and have lived.

On this thread however, you will find that there have been replies that suggest a different mentality. That is where my lack of understanding lies. Those "no limits" subs and slaves who declare this from the onset before trust is ever established or those who say that they would do bizarre things that are physically HARMful, up to and including death, at the mere command of a Dominant.

i guess i just don't believe that there are many, if any, that would REALLY knowingly submit themselves to long term permanent extreme disability or death. Like society in general, there are a small percentage of those that would do themselves harm or commit suicide, and i, in my current state of mind and level of psychological knowledge cannot fathom why. Perhaps a great majority of those who claim to consent to 'anything' don't consider the possible consequences like a smoker never considers the consequences of smoking to a great enough extent to quit. The exhilaration they crave must override their instinct for self-preservation. That being said, i believe that if most of those 'no limiters' were clearly told up front that they very probably could suffer severe damage or death, they would not submit.



Padriag -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 9:21:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: krazij9

quote:


As I see it, in a relationship like this, a dominant partner needs to trust that the submisisve partner is being utterly honest. As such, he/she should trust that when the submissive partner says "I cannot do that" s/he is saying it honestly and not facetiously. This is why I tell people that if someone wants to "push" or "test" my limits they don't respect me. I do -not- lie about what will break me, and I prefer to think I'm not unusual in that.


Just because the /s says they cannot do something, or handle something, that doesn't necessarily mean they cannot, and it doesn't mean they're not being honest, specially when you are dealing with irrational fears or a lack of self esteam. There are many cases where a person really believes they cannot do something when they actually can.

I am not unfamiliar with eating disorders. My exwife was anorexic when I met her, addicted to valium, and she was sexually disfunctional because of self esteam issues created from past trauma. By the time we parted, she had overcome her eating disorder, her drug addiction, and she had made large strides in her self esteam issues. She's a much healtheir and happier person as a result of it.


That touches on something I wrestled with. I was never particularly satisfied with the soft / hard limits concept. To me it just did not fit well. So after some thought I came up with four categories instead. Known Abilities, Accessible Potential, Inaccessable Potential, and Natural Limits. Briefly, Known Abilities are anything the the submissive has done and is confident they can do. Accessible Potential is anything the submissive hasn't done, but believes they can do. Inaccessible Potential is anything the submissive has not done, believes they cannot do, but for which there is no rational reason they could not perform the service. And lastly Natural Limits are those things the submissive cannot do for rational reasons that are beyond their control. As I worked this system out I found I could categorize almost everything into one of these groupings. What is interesting to note about it and echoes your comments about belief and self esteem is how important a role belief plays in three out of the four categories. The chief difference between Accessible and Inaccessible Potential is that self belief. That belief may be entirely honest and sincere on the part of the submissive, past experience my have convinced them of it. But that doesn't mean the submissive is correct. In changing Inaccessible Potential into Accessible Potential, some of the steps that the dominant must take is to first determine rationally if the potential can be reached, then convince the submissive of this in order to change that belief (for example, if a submissive feels they can't dance, have them take dance classes and as they improve show them with praise from their peers, etc.). In that way you are changing "limits" without ever breaking the trust... though in reality what you are doing is changing self beliefs and helping the submissive grow in a healthy way.



GentleLady -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 10:39:02 PM)

I think I know what You mean Alexander and it is a really good point to bring up.

I can always feel when the anger is coming up inside Me and I am very careful not to touch a submissive during that time...or even be in the same room as people in general until I have it under control. I do as much damage verbally as I could with something in My hands. But I do consider that separate from thinking of Myself as a Sadist because those feelings of deep rage are a lashing out at the world around Me and a deep disgust and hatred of someone or something.

When I was growing up I did not have as much self control and a few times I lashed out in anger to deliberately hurt someone. I was fortunate enough to have to see the results of My actions/words and to have to help repair some of the damage. Some of those instances still haunt Me.

I enjoy giving pain but do not enjoy hurting someone. It may be a fine line but it is a crucial line for Me. I will not give pain to someone who is only accepting the pain because it gives Me pleasure. I need the person to crave the pain so together we can find the balance point between pain and pleasure and ride that point. I would not say I am proud of being a Sadist but it is a part of who I am.....I am not proud of being a perfectionist or a workaholic either.

Gentle Lady



Gemeni -> RE: NO Limits Subs and Slaves (4/3/2005 11:01:39 PM)

I think one of the things about the truly "no limits' sorts, is that some sort of ill defined death wish seems to reside there.

Most people who state this ,actually mean that they will agree to limits from a REASONABLE person who won't actually do away with them. Someone who would actually go all the way-and no, I would not want to be around them-it's like staring into the face of madness and chaos, day in and day out...........................

Wondering when I might weaken, and give into something truly unspeakable. Not exactly the most secure feeling one can have..knowing that the beast has real meat that can be consumed without resistance at any moment.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.785156E-02