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

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



Message

KatyLied -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 11:58:13 AM)

quote:

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.


I agree with some of this.  I also think that if people proclaim to have "no limits", it leaves me wondering about their "boundaries" and if they aren't a bit unhealthy in their relationships.  It is healthy to have boundaries and the confidence to act upon them.



gloriousangel -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 1:44:56 PM)

What is branding is that when they burn you and it scars

I am quiet sure that my master would not hurt me in anyway.

He knows what some of my dislikes are already

Property of Master Rob



slaveish -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 1:51:08 PM)

Branding is burning a specific ownership symbol into the hides of livestock and various other living chattel for the purpose of distinguishing it from a free-roamer or from someone else's property.



gloriousangel -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 1:53:58 PM)

So where would you have it done



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 3:50:18 PM)

daddysprop247 and GloriousJen,

[sm=biggrin.gif]

Thanks, but, no, I haven't considered writing anything. I don't think my writing style would go over well with particularly most people.




Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 4:51:52 PM)

quote:

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.


First off, most sociopaths have many definite limits. In fact, I think most sociopaths have more hard limits than regular people, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Second, limits can be removed. Every conditioned response can be deconditioned. Every instinctual response can be neutralized by conditioned inhibition. Every inhibition can be disinhibited. Every reaction can be desensitized. Any behaviour and/or thought pattern can be entrained. At least in a healthy person. That means that, given free reign, a Master or Mistress can shape his or her slave as desired, provided they put in the time to acquire and apply the requisite skills.

Third, some of us are more concerned with what the limits on the relationship are, if any, since those are inviolate in an ethical relationship, whereas the personal limits are insubstantial, in that they can be overcome, broken or violated, depending on what the limits, if any, on the relationship are.

Fourth, I see no problem with bringing a no-limits slave (i.e. one that does not come with relationship limits attached) to a state that is quite indistinguishable from sociopathy, or any other condition, if that is what the owner desires, provided there exists prior informed consent to the transition into being a no-limits slave. The responsibilities associated with such an alteration of the mind rest with the person responsible for the slave, i.e. the owner, who is then ethically accountable if their actions cause the slave to render harm to anyone.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 5:00:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

I agree with some of this.  I also think that if people proclaim to have "no limits", it leaves me wondering about their "boundaries" and if they aren't a bit unhealthy in their relationships.  It is healthy to have boundaries and the confidence to act upon them.


For most people, it is healthy to have boundaries and to act upon them. For some, it is not.

Regardless of what is healthy or not, I believe in individual sovereignty over self, and in free will. That means I respect a person's right to engage in an activity that may not be healthy for them, an activity that isn't healthy for them, or even an activity that is outright damaging or fatal to them, provided that person is competent and undertakes said activity after considering the consequences.

Thus, if someone makes a competent choice to give prior informed consent (what is known in certain scenarios, such as medicine, as an "advance directive") to a literal sense of slavery, I respect that decision, and see nothing wrong in holding them to the consequences of their decision.

Unfortunately, many are either not competent, or do not consider it to an extent that their consent can be considered informed. The latter is the most common case, in my experience. However, I fully respect a person who is competent and has considered the consequences before making their choice, regardless of whether that choice is yes or no.

And I admire the courage and/or trust of a person that makes the "yes" choice in such a way.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 5:15:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gloriousangel

What is branding is that when they burn you and it scars


A branding is when a third degree burn is purposefully inflicted in order to cause what is known as "keloiding", which is the formation of a particular kind of scar tissue which is usually slightly raised. People with darker skin keloid more than people with lighter skin.

As with any third degree burn injury, a brand requires proper care during the healing process, and will hurt a lot, although some means of branding go past the "a lot" point. It will not just hurt during the branding itself, but during the subsequent healing.

I would recommend that any branding be performed under the direction of a body modification artist that is experienced in performing brands. Many of these provide for a BDSM setting, if such is desired.

Note that the branding itself will often cause a serious endorphin rush, which may result in a strong "high", a sense of disorientation and nausea, occasionally to the point where it may cause vomiting. If you do not have prior experience with that level of endorphin activity, or prior experience with strong opioid analgesics (morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, etc.), you will want someone to explain this bit to you up-front, and will want someone present to help you deal with that part.

A brand will usually look good right after it's done, so that's the time to be taking any pictures you might want to take. It will start to look pretty bad after a while, until it has healed. There is no guarantee that it will keloid evenly, so you may need to go back for another branding to "touch up" the original brand in order to "get it right".

quote:

I am quiet sure that my master would not hurt me in anyway.


Good thing. Although some might consider a brand to be "hurting", given that it is a third degree burn.

quote:

He knows what some of my dislikes are already


That's a good place to start. Make sure he knows as much as possible about you, and that you talk about the issue of limits, if any, up front, and that you both have the same understanding of the arrangement between you.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 5:16:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gloriousangel

So where would you have it done


You would have a brand done in a body modification studio, or in your home.

If it is done in your home, you have to make sure that the person performing the brand absolutely knows what they're doing. I would strongly suggest that you have it done by some kind of professional.



OsideGirl -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 5:20:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad


First off, most sociopaths have many definite limits. In fact, I think most sociopaths have more hard limits than regular people, but that's pure speculation on my part.


That hasn't been my experience. Sociopaths have a hard time connecting to a moral stop point, have difficulty with emotions and have a lack of regard for others. My experience was that they would literally do anything, if it had some benefit to themselves.

It's defined as:
quote:

recognizable by the disordered individual's disregard for social rules and norms, impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others.

Which is why I stated that I believe that everyone has a stop point, with the exception of possibly a sociopath, who would have a problem discerning that stop point.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 8:35:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

That hasn't been my experience. Sociopaths have a hard time connecting to a moral stop point, have difficulty with emotions and have a lack of regard for others. My experience was that they would literally do anything, if it had some benefit to themselves.


Oh, you were talking about morals?

Sorry for misunderstanding. I was talking about limits, as in stuff they won't do. Not as in stuff they won't do for their own benefit.

I doubt very much you'd find many sociopaths that would be willing to consent to being no-limits slaves; there's a limit, for instance, albeit not a moral limit.

Interestingly enough, sociopathy without comorbidities corresponds fairly closely to the second "stage" of moral development in Kohlberg's model. Since I saw that, I've always wondered why their development differs from the norm in that regard. In at least one case, it seems to have been the case that there were no stimuli to merit moving on to the next "stage" that the person was able to grasp.

quote:

It's defined as:
quote:

recognizable by the disordered individual's disregard for social rules and norms, impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others.


I don't have the DSM-IV next to me right now, but I'm aware of how sociopathy, and the revised ASPD, is defined. Still, thanks for pointing it out.

Amusingly enough, I have been evaluated for this, due to my blatant and often demonstrative disregard for various social rules and norms, some early childhood issues with impulsive behaviour, and the ability to be indifferent to the "rights" and feelings of others. Basically, I despise some of the existing social rules and norms, so I break with them from conscientous objections; I had a problem with impulse control; and I have the ability to defer or compartmentalize emotions completely. To a lot of people who didn't have the benefit of insight into my head, though, I can in retrospect see why they'd be concerned.

I was given a clean bill of mental health in this regard though, and have been consistantly found to have a well-developed sense of empathy and ethics, although the latter is still not in sync with the mythological "common Western ethic", for instance in accepting the right of an individual to forfeit their so-called "inalienable" rights on their own terms and considering the "prior informed consent" bit to be more important than what is actually done in the relationship.

In short, I'm a nutjob/freak, and I have encountered other nutjobs who have been sociopathic, and endeavour not to meet them again, ever. Although I did collect a bit of data along the way.

quote:

Which is why I stated that I believe that everyone has a stop point, with the exception of possibly a sociopath, who would have a problem discerning that stop point.


Morals, stop points, limits... could you be a bit more specific as to what you meant?

I'm sure most people have things that would raise a mental stop sign for them, including sociopaths (although their set of signs, and the conditions that would raise them, are different), but I'm also not sure how you're tying this into the debate. The use of force in accordance with prior consent has been a fairly widespread practice among most D/s communities I've encountered.

By the wording, "no-limits slavery" or "no-limits slave", we can see that we're talking about the condition of slavery, in some permutation. The specification of no-limits could be construed to apply to personal limts ("stop points", you called them), but that just makes the term useless, so why not assume the meaning that isn't useless, namely that it applies to the condition of slavery for that person?

Basically, a slave whose slavery does not have limits intrinsic to itself.



starshineowned -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 9:08:47 PM)

Greetings..~smiles~

I identify with daddysprop in regards to the term "no limits".  This term like most out here comes with varied meanings but that does not mean it doesn't exist or there is no such thing.

I have to say that I really enjoy though how when it comes to debates like this how easy it is to throw out those most horrid of things..death and dismemberment etc. Since when did these become hallmark icons of BDSM lists? Since when does BDSM even stand for or represent such things? Seems like every fantasy a person could possibly conceive in their sick and twisted minds (love those) all falls under BDSM now.

I can't recall any relationship I've ever had in the last 25 years where I felt the need to sit down and list death or dismemberment as something I would disagree to. I fail to see where being in a M/s or D/s dynamic changes that to where questions of out right possible harm need to be asked. Is your last free choice really going to be to someone who says oh yes ..I can't wait to collar you so I can cut you up into little pieces. Booyah..lets get busy!

Really odd folks..just really odd.

Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin



lovewithoutfear -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/8/2007 10:01:37 PM)

Concerning branding.  I knew a wonderful gentleman in eastern Georgia (scene name Rick Hunter), who sadly has recently passed away, who gave presentations/demos on what he called "water branding."  This is a much safer way of achieving the branding/scarring effect, which takes advantage of the temperature limit afforded by the boiling point of water.  The metal branding iron in the desired shape is heated in the boiling water, then quickly applied to the skin.  Based on the content of the metal and length of contact, you can get a temporary red mark, or a semipermanent scar which can then be made permanent by re-striking the same place over time (a period of weeks or months).  His slave has a lovely brand from this method.  I haven't heard  of anyone else doing this or investigating doing it though. 

I love the brand that Sir put on me, and would like more, but if he does any more with me he says it will continue to be in the conventional fire-heated metal method.



gloriousangel -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 12:37:28 AM)

What types of branding are there?



tsatske -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 2:26:38 AM)


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.



leakylee -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 2:53:56 AM)

greetings starshine,

i have to agree with you and prop. when did everyone get so bloody insane or the need to be so politically correct. of course i still wonder why i have to mention the "um's" on a limit list. this again seems more to let people know that we arent all that warped and twisted.

did anyone ever stop to think that with or without "limits" some just trust thier Owners enough not to cross those lines? that some trust thier Owners enough to figure they want a healthy and functioning slave? what use is all this other nonsense in the long run?

aside from that, we can all run off about limits for days, and still have some idiot opt to hack you up into little bits. personally i would rather be able to trust my Owner to this point. to have the faith in to know me and either set my limits, or allow thier removal at the proper time.

but then i still trust to the fact that we are healthy human beings, not the twisted warped abusers that others attempt to portray us as, or is that not a politacally correct attitude?

love and light
lee



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 3:18:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: starshineowned

I identify with daddysprop in regards to the term "no limits".  This term like most out here comes with varied meanings but that does not mean it doesn't exist or there is no such thing.


Agreed.

quote:

I have to say that I really enjoy though how when it comes to debates like this how easy it is to throw out those most horrid of things..death and dismemberment etc. Since when did these become hallmark icons of BDSM lists? Since when does BDSM even stand for or represent such things? Seems like every fantasy a person could possibly conceive in their sick and twisted minds (love those) all falls under BDSM now.


Depending on the context, these things can be a part of BDSM, although it certainly throws "safe" and "sane" out the window.

People have a lot of different kinks. Some of these may be intrinsically harmful to practice. And, given the likelyhood of rejection or revulsion upon disclosure, they are kinks a person that has them might not want to speak out loud, even to their partner. Also, a person may discover an interest in such things at some point in time, or have an interest that is presently fantasy-only. People change, fact of life.

Cases such as Sharon Lopatka and Robert Glass, or Bernd Brandes and Armin Meiwes, indicate that some people actually do get off on it, mutually, so I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to bring it up.

Of course, in most stable western countries, there is little, if any, chance that such activities will become lawful at any point, but you never know. And then there's that whole "converting and moving to Iran or Somalia" thing. A religious epiphany is not something one can accurately predict.

I don't have a problem with whatever people might want to get up to, as long as all the involved parties have given prior informed consent and are competent to do so. YMMV.

quote:

I can't recall any relationship I've ever had in the last 25 years where I felt the need to sit down and list death or dismemberment as something I would disagree to.


We've got them covered, although under the general heading of "no significant, lasting physical harm". Among other things because there are certain activities that I might have an interest in that could or would involve permanent physical harm, and because neither of us is confident that we can predict the future with 100% certainty.

quote:

I fail to see where being in a M/s or D/s dynamic changes that to where questions of out right possible harm need to be asked.


As I recall, daddysprop mentioned physical harm as something she has experienced. You may be comfortable leaving certain eventualities up to "common sense"; I'm not so inclined, and prefer for there to be explicit agreement over exactly what is entailed in the dynamic.

quote:

Is your last free choice really going to be to someone who says oh yes ..I can't wait to collar you so I can cut you up into little pieces. Booyah..lets get busy!


No, I can't exactly see that at the moment, no. That doesn't mean I feel it's a good idea to skip the part where it's not okay.

I have a fairly literal interpretation of "no limits slavery", and to the extent that a slave has a different interpretation than me, I'd like to be clear on that up front.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 3:21:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gloriousangel

What types of branding are there?


You should really as a professional branding artist about this.

As a quick summary, there are (at least) regular heat brands in single- and multiple-stroke versions, liquid nitrogen brands, laser brands and electrocautery brands.

Single- or multiple-stroke heat branding is the "traditional" approach.

Electrocautery gives the best-looking results, I've heard, but is also exceptionally painful in comparison to heat- or cold-based brands, since it doesn't burn away the nerve endings straight away.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 3:34:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

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.


This is the usual problem of confusion of terms and semantic drift.

In the Norwegian community, or at least the parts of it I've been exposed to, a soft limit is something that you really don't want to do (e.g. you mentioned not liking scat), while a hard limit is something you will not allow your partner to do under any circumstance and which entails immediate revocation of consent (e.g. significant lasting harm is a very common hard limit), while no limits means the absence of hard limits.

Thus, in the Norwegian community, we avoid confusion, and don't have to spend a lot of time establishing a frame of reference for the terminology, while here on CM, we do have to spend a lot of time on that, or people just end up confusing the issue, leading to threads that go nowhere fast, along with the occasional mention of the four-letter nuclear bomb starting with "T".

I've always found it useful to divide things into orthogonal units and/or axes that can be combined to yield a clear and precise description of something, while many people are uncomfortable putting together parts, as opposed to dealing with a whole. For these, a term used to denote an orthogonal component has little value, and will frequently be adopted for a different use, and semantic drift over time causes all the terms to merge to say nothing at all.

quote:

Someone in this thread said that, in their opinion, 'no limits' usually meant someone wanted scat.


While I didn't reply to that, IIRC, I must say this has not been my experience. However, for many people, scat is the most "extreme" thing they can think of, so when they say "no limits", they often mean "the most extreme stuff I can think of anyone doing to me", which may not be the most "extreme" thing their partner can think of.

quote:

I have also never done k-9.


I think discussing this is a violation of the CM terms of service, so I won't comment.

quote:

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.


Fair enough, if that's acceptable to them. It's certainly something I'd want to spell out in unambigous terms either way.

quote:

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.


Again, potential violation of the Terms of Service, so no comment.



Aswad -> RE: Question about a no limit slave (5/9/2007 3:36:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leakylee

but then i still trust to the fact that we are healthy human beings, not the twisted warped abusers that others attempt to portray us as, or is that not a politacally correct attitude?


What's wrong with being a twisted, warped abuser? Or was that a very politically incorrect thing of me to say? [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875