RE: Question about a no limit slave

RE: Question about a no limit slave (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

gloriousangel -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 3:42:26 AM)
This is beginning to get a good post. May I just say how grateful I am for all you kind words and support in this matter.

Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 4:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WilliamWizer it's only that I sick of that. everytime somebody deals with the "no limits" thing everybody I see somebody writing such kind of examples to show that slaves that say "no limits" have limits. I was writing such examples to say that, unless those things are okay with her, she should make that clear, as her idea of what her slavery will entail may otherwise be quite different from that of her future M, which can only lead to Bad Things(tm). quote: being this consensual there's always at least one limit. I never said that, nor do I agree with it. There may usually be one or more limits to what the slave will be capable of going along with, but those don't have to be limits of the relationship, or limits to their slavery. If they accept having no limits, their M can use psychology or other means to remove the former kind of limits if s/he wants to, etc., and as daddysprop pointed out, the slave can be without that kind limits, as well. quote: the slave could say no and end the relationship at any moment but that examples are simple wrong. If a slave says no, without any limits having been violated, it remains (ethically speaking) the M's choice whether to let the slave go or to forcibly keep things going, as long as there aren't terms that indicate otherwise in their original agreement. That's what prior consent is all about. If you tell the doc that they can treat you with something that'll require you to remain in the hospital for a week, and part of this treatment causes you to see things differently (e.g. paranoia as a side-effect), then they'll still keep you in there until you're done, even if you start telling them to let you go (e.g. because you think they're "out to get you"). This isn't unethical; you gave consent up front to go ahead. Same thing should apply to everything else in life, and the law doesn't really apply, because most of us are, technically speaking, already operating in a legally grey-to-black area of law. quote: I think it's common sense to belive a master should take care of his slave and that includes keep her safe. "Common sense is the sum of all prejudices accumulated by adulthood." - Albert Einstein. I'm not saying it's not common sense. After all, I've specifically tried to avoid developing any "common sense", so I couldn't comment what is and what isn't. I'm just saying that Albert had a point; common sense doesn't have anything to do with anything, it's just a collection of prejudices. quote: whoever doesn't do that can't be a good master. Correction, whoever doesn't do that isn't taking good care of their property. Saying "good master" or "bad master", and particularly "not a good master", is just pointless. What constitutes a "good" or "bad" master? There's endless threads about that, and no-one can agree. As someone once said to me in one thread about this, give the slave a bit of credit; don't assume the M s/he chose isn't right for her/him. quote: sadly there are slaves that fall under those so called "masters" and are forced to do cruel and dangerous things. I don't see anything "sad" about it, provided that gave it careful consideration up front. If they didn't, there was no informed consent, and the sad thing is then that yet another person loses to Darwin. quote: do you consider moral to being careless with your own property? like for example not taking proper care of your childs? If I had children, and couldn't get rid of them in any way, I wouldn't consider them property. That said, I consider the consequences for person A when person X does action Q to be entirely irrelevant for any consideration of the morality of person X or action Q, for any values of A, X and Q that satisfy the condition that person A has given person X specific prior informed consent to action Q, or person A has given person X a generic prior informed consent that covers action Q without explicitly excluding action Q. In the case of no-limits slavery, the consent is generic and does not exclude any actions. Now that the no-limits slave has been shown not to be part of the equation for me, I'll say that I consider it to be moral for a person to act in accordance with their own morals and, conversely, I consider it to be immoral for a person to act in violation of their own morals. Whether I agree with their morals has no bearing on whether I find their actions moral or immoral. That said, not taking care of a person that I have not accepted an obligation to take care of is not in conflict with my morals, although for reference I have accepted the obligation of taking care of nephandi and shall do so. But the specifics of my morals are neither the topic of this debate; nor required for a discussion of the general principles of no-limits slavery, or the suitability of a given person for such slavery; nor would the specifics of my morals make any sense without a huge overhead, and I don't think the board would even accept a post of that length, if I cared to provide such an extensive level of detail about mysef, which I don't.

severetorture -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 4:19:36 AM)
This debate is easily one of the more hotly contested here or anywhere else for that matter.The basics of this are relatively simple,no limits is one of the most misused and abused terms in BDSM.I have yet to meet anyone who has no limits.I seriously doubt they exist for one simple reason.Practicality.All we can really do is find someone who fits in and agrees with what we like to do or not do.It's the same as good and evil,good is what you like,evil is what you don't like,and their definitions are defined by those who question another's definition,it all depends on circumstance. The only things that really drive people one way or another are perspective and circumstance.Nothing else really matters.

AquaticSub -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 4:31:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gloriousangel Need some help here can you tell me what entails me to becoming a no limit slave what do I need to do Also remember that no limits means that they have the right to stop you from seeing friends and family.

AquaticSub -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 4:33:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar quote: ORIGINAL: spanklette I think I'll put you on block too...and don't come around here quoting me either.[:D] i wont even go there because i won't stoop to demean myself. Sometimes trying to talk to others is futile when they are filled with so much hate. minnetar If you aren't going there, why did you respond? [:D]

Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 4:44:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx I respect your position from one perspective. Well, without a quote, it's a bit hard for my goldfish-mind to be certain about which position you're talking about, but I'll take what I can get. ~lol/grin~ [:D] quote: From another perspective, the "no limits" slave intrinsically establishes their limits by the master they intentionally choose through the exercise of control and self-will. In general, yes. It would be highly advisable for someone seeking no-limits slavery to search out an M that is likely, to within an acceptable risk margin to the slave, to be the right M for them. Although, of course, people change, so it would also be advisable for the slave to seek out someone that is likely, again to within an acceptable risk margin, to let them go if they change enough that the exchange wouldn't have happened de novo. However, there are several conditions under which this is not sufficient, or will not be possible, but the majority of them are either subsumed under the point about "acceptable risk margin" or beyond what we may debate on this board according to the terms of service. Whether you agree with my position may be addressed by changing the angle somewhat, for I think we agree on what I've replied so far in this post, particularly based on what you said about "very low probability of violating their limits". The alternate angle, to more accurately decide whether we agree or disagree, is simple enough: is it your opinion that a no-limits slave whose M has, for whatever reason, chosen to act in a way that the slave cannot accept, is obligated to do their best to allow their M to go ahead with it, and/or that their M is entitled to do so? And is it your opinion that it would be ethically agreeable for their M to do so, provided s/he had in no way deluded their slave upon entering the relationship (e.g. the "people change" bit) and had obtained informed consent up front? If your answer to one or more of these is "yes", then we are at least in partial agreement over parts of this position as well. If it is "maybe" or "no, but I can respect your position", then there is probably something we should discuss in further depth. quote: They choose a master with a very low probability of violating their limits; or they are self abusive -- which is not "no limits," but is destructive. On the one hand we have those who choose someone with, as you say, "a very low probability of violating their limits", which is what I would advise someone looking to get into no-limits slavery. And I'd make sure they realize that "very low probability" does not mean "no chance". If they play the lottery, I would take that as a negative predictor for their ability to make a valid risk assessment of this kind, and would probably recommend them to stay away from that particular relationship model, period. On the other hand, there are those who choose someone who might not have "a very low probability of violating their limits". I would also agree that it is important to consider whether there may be pathological reasons for them to make this choice, and that they are not competent to give informed consent if such pathologies are present. However, there are probably those who can thrive on it, or at least live with it, and there are those who can make such a choice without an underlying pathology. It mostly comes down to the usual question of "acceptable risk". Consider, however, that there are people who take significant risks in their lives without an underlying pathology. For instance, base jumping, professional boxing, and so forth. Some of these may be thrill-seekers, others may have a specific goal in mind that justifies the risk in their own opinion. In this, I feel that a mentally competent adult has the right to exercise their free will and make such a choice, and accepting the responsibility for their choice, as well as the consequences of such a choice. Whether it ultimately makes them happy or not is a risk that is up to them to take or not take. I would not presume to pass judgement on such a choice by a mentally competent adult. P.S. Has anyone ever told you that your avatar bears a certain resemblance to Simon Templeman?

MsKChicago -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 5:39:54 AM)
Coming out of lurking mode. So, if the term "no limits slave" is being misused within what it is that we do, what term would one suggest being used instead? MK

MyMasterStephen -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 5:45:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsKChicago Coming out of lurking mode. So, if the term "no limits slave" is being misused within what it is that we do, what term would one suggest being used instead? MK Also emerging from the lurk... The very concept of "no limits" is bullshit. Everyone has limits. Anyone who claims not to is either lying or psychiatrically disordered. Why do we need a term to define what is intinsically personal and different for everyone? "Mild", "moderate" or "extreme" is the best we can do. Let's leave it at that, and allow each relationship to find its own level. Further debate is pointless.

MsKChicago -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 6:09:36 AM)
Exactly, MyMasterStephen! MK~ who hopes when the "rulebook" comes out, it will also contain "true" definitions <wink>

IrishMist -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 6:48:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsKChicago Coming out of lurking mode. So, if the term "no limits slave" is being misused within what it is that we do, what term would one suggest being used instead? MK its not really being misused; it's just that everyone has their own perception of what would be a limit. Some only use it in regards to the physical; others emotional; others psychological; and then others combine all into one. it's important that each person look at what the word entails, and then draw their own lines.

Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 6:58:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsKChicago So, if the term "no limits slave" is being misused within what it is that we do, what term would one suggest being used instead? I have not suggested using a different term. I have suggested stopping the misuse of the term. Ideally, people would just be specific about saying what they mean, e.g. "My terms of consent are that my physical and mental health not be jeopardized", more rarely "I am property, and there are no restrictions on what may be done to me", or the even rarer (argued by many to be nonexistant, though I doubt that) "I am property, and not only are there no restrictions on what may be done to me, but neither are there things I would resist or object to". The use of labels can make for a useful shorthand notation, but the utility drops when people don't agree on what the labels mean, so spelling it out can be helpful. As for the relative rarity of the types, I'm rather fond of something a friend of mine once said: "One in a million means there are six thousand more out there."

Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 7:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen The very concept of "no limits" is bullshit. Everyone has limits. Anyone who claims not to is either lying or psychiatrically disordered. Most who claim to have no limits simply haven't given it the proper amount of thought. Some who claim to have no limits have psychiatric disorders. Some who claim to have no limits are mentally competent, have no psychiatric disorders that have any bearing on their choices in this regard, and do not have any limits that they impose on the relationship, although their M's will impose his/her own limits. Some of these will not resist and/or object to anything. At this point, we're probably down to the "one-in-a-million" level, which as I pointed out, means there are some six-thousand-odd more out there, but that you've most likely never encountered one. What is bullshit, is giving these people a lot of flak for their choices and refusing to accept that some of them can make a valid choice, while on the other hand accepting that people can undergo risky voluntary medical procedures, including refusing the use of blood transfusions during surgery, or accepting that people can have unprotected sex without being ready for a child, or that a person can sign a do-not-resuscitate order, or engage in base jumping, or become a professional boxer, or do private security detail work in Iraq outside the "green zones". quote: Why do we need a term to define what is intinsically personal and different for everyone? "Mild", "moderate" or "extreme" is the best we can do. Let's leave it at that, and allow each relationship to find its own level. Further debate is pointless. Every person's experience of anything is intrinsically personal and different for everyone. That does not mean that human interactions beyond "could you pass me the salt?" has to cease, nor that sharing different views on experiences is invalid, nor that debating views on the various kinds of human interaction is pointless. If you truly felt that, you should not have delurked. I don't think too many people here are advocating anything other than allowing each relationship to find its level. However, in some cases, people may start out at a level they are obviously not prepared to go to, and in those cases, a bit of friendly advice might be useful and appropriate. As for your proposed terms of "mild", "moderate" and "extreme", I would like to hear some objective definitions for these, because in my experience they are the vaguest and least useful terms anyone has ever come up with, except when used in a more relative sense in the presence of a frame of reference, such as an example. For instance, what some might consider "extreme" kinks, I might consider "mild" and practice on a daily basis, and vice versa. As another example, when I say "extreme torture", I generally mean something that would be in a range that only POWs and such usually experience, which most people wouldn't call anything at all, except "unacceptable". Unless the use of specific terms turns us on, we often tend to use the term "mild" to describe something we do frequently, or something "below" the level at which we usually play, while "moderate" tends to denote something we do less frequently, or our regular level of play, while "extreme" tends to denote something we rarely do, or something we wouldn't do but recognize as valid when others do it. Obviously, this depends on what you're used to.

jaunty1 -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 7:32:26 AM)
quote: Also emerging from the lurk... The very concept of "no limits" is bullshit. Everyone has limits. Anyone who claims not to is either lying or psychiatrically disordered. I disagree. There are some who truly do NOT have any limits as to what they will and have done on orders from their owner/partner. Such sweeping generalizations show a lack of knowledge and acceptance. What you are conviently forgetting is that what you see as a limit; another may not. Live well Alex

daddysprop247 -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 9:08:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied There is no such thing as a no limits slave .... they just haven't yet met their limits. Of course there is. And making such a statement on a thread that isn't about that is just inviting a huge detour. Suffice to say that there are people who are willing to give prior consent to having any hard limits they might have be violated if their M so chooses. One might point out that, for instance, BeingChewsie has commented that if her Master wants her dead, he will have her dead, and that she hopes to be able to exert enough self-control not to impede him in seeing it done, although she can't be sure she'd be able to. Just about everyone will have some things they will resist having done to them, i.e. some things they will not consent to at the time. But some people are willing to give prior consent to their M overcoming their resistance by force if necessary. Some of these, in turn, are willing to give such prior consent in all matters. That is a "no-limits slave", in the true sense of the word. Whether one will resist or not isn't the issue; the issue is whether they give the M the right to do anything, regardless of whether they try to resist or not. Aswad...this post, and the one before it, where you define no-limits slavery as: being a no-limits slave entails imposing no restraints on what your owner may do to you, or with you, and making no demands of your owner...are the most clear, insightful, logical posts on this subject that i've ever seen. have you ever considered writing and publishing a lifestyle textbook? [;)]

drawntothedark -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 9:12:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaunty1 quote: Also emerging from the lurk... The very concept of "no limits" is bullshit. Everyone has limits. Anyone who claims not to is either lying or psychiatrically disordered. I disagree. There are some who truly do NOT have any limits as to what they will and have done on orders from their owner/partner. Such sweeping generalizations show a lack of knowledge and acceptance. What you are conviently forgetting is that what you see as a limit; another may not. Live well Alex Very well said.

GloriousJen -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 9:16:29 AM)
Thanks again all very good reading and i think I understand it better now Aswad you should write a book on this

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 9:19:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsKChicago So, if the term "no limits slave" is being misused within what it is that we do, what term would one suggest being used instead? MK Shared limits or "my limits are those which my owner places upon me"

masterelf -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 11:36:35 AM)
Before you go and make yourself a no limit slave to someone, there are tons of things to consider as you have already read. It is not finding the right Dom/Master with the limits you have it is finding the right one that thinks those things are not exactly a thrill, or even a possibility in the relationship. I am a no limit slave to Master Elf, and I love every minute of it, BUT and this is the big important part, I did not jump into this. I found out what I liked and what I didn't like we talked about it and ended up he didn't like what I didn't either. So IF you find the a Master that is like minded in ways to you then being a no limit slave is nothing that big besides the fact of the words you have "no limits". In theory though even though I am this type of slave I believe that we all have our limits deep down, and had Master wished to do things to me that I found immoral in all ways such as crime, gang rape, etc etc. Then no I would have never became a no limit slave to him. All I can say is wait it out find what you like and try to find someone that shares your likes but doesn't enjoy most of the things you find completely wrong. This is very hard, and sometimes doesn't sound very right, almost sounds like you are demanding them to be in likeness of your interests. But if they volunteer such interests and disclaim to hate those that you disilke then if you know them well enough your good to go :-). It's okay to correct me if I'm wrong, I've been Master slave for over a year and six months now, branded, collared and owned. But as I say its all in finding the right person. And if you feel uncomfortable about things that they want and you couldn't compromise on em, Then do the smart thing and KEEP YOUR LIMITS. :-) Slave Francine Slave to Master Elf Of House of Elf

OsideGirl -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 11:45:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaunty1 quote: Also emerging from the lurk... The very concept of "no limits" is bullshit. Everyone has limits. Anyone who claims not to is either lying or psychiatrically disordered. I disagree. There are some who truly do NOT have any limits as to what they will and have done on orders from their owner/partner. Everyone in this world has at least one thing that they won't do. I believe that there is a threshold there for every person, unless they're a sociopath. Some people just have that threshold further out than others.

slavegirljoy -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 11:46:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: MsKChicago So, if the term "no limits slave" is being misused within what it is that we do, what term would one suggest being used instead? MK Shared limits or "my limits are those which my owner places upon me" ABSOLUTELY!!! Everyone has limits, no matter what your kink or your fantasy might be. Best Rule: Discuss what your Master is expecting of you & going to require of you BEFORE you agree to submit. Ask questions about what is meant by having to _____ and willing to do _______. BE HONEST, with yourself and others about what you can & can't, will & will not do for someone else, no matter how amazingly, fantastic they make you feel. slave joy Owned property of Master David

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875