I find the whole "no limits" thing a bit unrealistic.

[SubbieHubbie]

Pure, thank you for your post - made me think deeply. It's certainly an interesting point that the 'hardest' (?) limits are set by society, not the sub. Yet, I would say, they are still limits (and limits some are willing to go without in some situations, albeint when someone is willing to go without limits costing them their life one could question sanity). So, I guess, interpretation of 'no limits' is interpretable as either LITERALLY no limits, even those socially mandated, or no limits other than those socially mandates.*shrug* Not something I will even pretend to be able argue as it is personal word usage and definition that declares the meaning.

I would question one thing you say though: that it is right that a sub bolts from an abusive dom, but not that they set limits. If a sub DOES this, haven't they set limits anyhow. Just because I don't tell you what my limit is, doesn't mean I don't have it. If I pull myself out of a relationship because you violate an unstated limit only, to my mind, confirms I had a limit.

 

[Snazzona]

"Never" limits

Monster66 brings up the 'well oiled chainsaw' as eliciting a limit.

SubbieHubbie makes a similar point All these are excellent points, in my opinion. I don't know if these should be called 'hard limits', nor is it accurate to say they are set by the sub, or set in negotiation Dom/me and sub.

The area of agreement is this: A sub, even a slave, can have certain BASIC, legitimate expectations about preservation of life,
health, bodily integrity, vital functioning; and stearing clear of mental breakdown; inability to think, plan and execute a plan; and serious trauma. A basic half dozen. It's to be noted that the 'law' enforces many of these. The State charges a person who cuts off another's arm (except perhaps to save a life) or infects them with AIDS. The State, with rare exceptions, is right to view such harmful events as NOT ones that can be consented to.

Snazzona's proposal is quite different; Snazzona's "will never do" [D] category can include anything, such as sit nude in a sauna with several other nude people.

So my opinion is that the 'sub', **to the extent that s/he is such,** has no business **setting** hard limits outside the 'basic area' described (but the sub has a duty to inform of 'touchy areas' and how extreme is the sensitivity). If OTOH s/he is a game player after 'spicey' sensual treats, let her enjoy!

Then comes MLadyPain's situation. She set a hard limit about an area connected with trauma, the Dom/me violated it, seeking allegedly to make a perfect sub, and she bolted. Good.

Does this show it's fine to for the sub to announce and set 'hard limits'.? I don't think so. My view is that the Dom/me was clumsy; he apparently was informed, so he should have known where to tread lightly (not unlike a therapist). If 'his' sub bolts, he fucked up. In my view, the moral is, the sub should inform, not direct, the Dom/me about these areas; the dom. is expected to have--in the presence of information and in the *absence* of direction--a bit of finesse in dealing with them, or, so to speak, be out of a job.

But were the sub to direct the Dom/me, 'don't go here' (in an area less crucial than the basics), s/he is exercising control and is possibly on the slippery slope to micromanagement of encounters. Which is to say, the 'sub' is procuring entertainment, or perhaps dominating the so called dominant person.

The Dom/me is going to use power; is going after pleasure and delight. IF there is a degree of submission, power is genuinely ceded or surrendered to the dom/me for those ends. To set limits beyond the basics (in a known and relationship situation) is to avoid any but the most minimal cession or transfer of power.

I suppose a *Never will do* limit could consist of never going into a sauna nude with other nude people if that peson had a bad experience with a situation similar to that. By stating ahead of time things that you will never do assures the person that their dom won't push that limit because they know ahead of time that if they were to push it that the experience could damage the relationship. When the *never* limits are stated perhaps the 2 involved can talk about why. I feel that if this is known then the dominant will respect that and stay within the set boundaries. They can always revisit the list and talk about different things in that category and see if perhaps the person has changed their mind.

 

[Guest]

limits.

SubbieHubby,

Let me say your posts are very captivating and thoughtful. First rate. There is no reason to uncritically accept views of me or others as authoritative.

That said, I will respond to your question.

[Subbie Hubby said ]
I would question one thing you say though: that it is right that a sub bolts from an abusive dom, but not that they set limits. [/]

Yes, that's roughly my view, though I don't talk of the 'right' of it. It's not a moral question. If you're a speed walker, you don't lift both feet off the ground at the same time; that's running. I don't say it's not 'right' to lift one's feet; but it makes you a runner or jogger, not a walker. In general a 'sub' doesn't go around **setting** limits; if she gets very specific in insisting 'do this and don't do that' she's Vera's 'kinky sensualist'--or even a domme--setting up something to tickle her fancy. That's not wrong.

[Subbie Hubby]
If a sub DOES this, haven't they set limits anyhow. Just because I don't tell you what my limit is, doesn't mean I don't have it. If I pull myself out of a relationship because you violate an unstated limit only, to my mind, confirms I had a limit. [/]

Has the sub set a limit if s/he leaves. Does s/he have a limit if she leaves. ... Well, if she could not leave, she'd be a prisoner. The Law would have something to say about that; it wouldn't simply be up to her; s/he's a member of society protected from 'kidnapping and forcible confinement.'

You speak of violating an 'unstated' limit. The situation [of MLadyPain] however, was of a 'stated' limit, as far as I could see. Also I think [as I said, above] a sub should fully inform the dom/me about sensitive areas, else s/he has only herself to 'blame' as it were, for mishaps.

Think of it this way. Suppose you become a Catholic priest and pledge to obey and serve. If you're then assigned to clean the toilets to teach you something (or just because the head person feels you need it), you don't really have a right to say, "I'd rather peel potatoes, or teach in a classroom."

On the other hand, a priest (or nun) may leave that calling. He or she opts out of the arena, so to speak. A sub may, in this fundamental way, 'opt out.' But: if she or he starts saying in detail, what will happen, that's not submission.

NOTE: all of the above points apply in known, properly trusting situations; every person with strangers or acquaintances, esp. every woman, should set up safety procedures, and it helps if the stranger or acquaintance is *told* of what steps are in effect.
Further, regarding 'trusting' situations: society declares no spouse shall be murdered, and denies any spouse the right to murder, torture, or maim.

The above are my opinions, and I hope they address your question.

 

[Pure]

That's my posting

Drat!
The above posting about limits, walking, priesthood, is mine,
Pure.

I guess registrations get timed out.

 

[MzChrista]

I see what you're saying, and I don't think we really disagree. The negotiation of hard limits vs. soft limits (those that can be pushed) has been a subject of discussion many times here. I'm referring to the articulation of hard limits. Soft limits, of course, are there to be pushed as pleases the Dominant partner (and likely, the sub as well).

Also, I think it's a mistake to categorize every BDSM relationship as though it's a Master/slave union. Such unions are actually quite rare.

I'm glad you said that. Not everyone is relationship oriented. I think its funny when people think a REAL Domme is one that has a 24/7 relationship with a sub, and those of us who dont are something less. Actually I can make the point I am MORE REAL of a Domme, because I dont bother doing anyhting with subs except have my fun and send them home. What they do with the rest of there time, I couldnt care less.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

bump from your friendly librarian

 

[ownedsubgal]

thanks for bumping this one up Anelize.


i'm a slave with no limits...i actually think that statement's a bit redundant...slave with no limits...(as a slave you have no control or power so obviously you have no limits)...but in an attempt to be a bit more politically correct, i state that i am a slave with no limits. i don't understand why so many find the idea of having no limits so difficult to believe...having no limits doesn't mean that i think everything and anything my Master may wish of me is super duper fun time or anything, it simply means that it is not my place to say what i will or will not do. i belong to another person, my life is in their hands. as someone in this thread posted earlier, i trust my Master with my life, i do not trust him to never make any mistakes or to only do things that i'm "comfortable" with. my life is his, just as his truck is his, his home is, and just as he could send a wrecking ball crashing through his living room if he so chose, he could destroy my life or sanity if he so chose. i happen to know that of course that is not in his plans. but the fact is, he has that right. my fate, my destiny, is his to shape.

 

[Quint]

And to go back to what Pure said on the last page, because it's an excellent point: what if your master decided to "shape your life" with a chainsaw? Yeah, you trust him not to do that, and that's a very good thing. Doesn't answer the question. This is one time that I think trust and intentions should be put aside for the moment. Is your sense of self-preservation strong enough that you would protest his control over you in defense of your very life?

Even if I were into scat, children, all the normal hards, even if I let myself be beaten to a bloody mess every morning and ate nothing but Master Burgers (or whatever Pure called them in that Everlovingly Long List of Commands thread), I would not let my master kill me. That's too high a price to pay for any satisfaction derived from being controlled, for ANY form of life. I ask every no-limits submissive out there to answer the same question.

Pure, since I'm doting on you (you dominated this thread and brought up some terrific ideas), I am seriously thinking about the points you made of "limits should be told to the dominant and that is the extent of the control a 'true' submissive should have." Would you say that safewords are a technique needed only by those who have not developed sufficient trust between their partners that the submissive can assume their most sacred of rights will not be violated?

 

[ownedsubgal]

"I would not let my master kill me. That's too high a price to pay for any satisfaction derived from being controlled, for ANY form of life."

for me this isn't about "satisfaction" from being controlled, it's about love first and foremost. just total and complete, unconditional, head over heels style love. and when i love to such an extreme degree, i give myself completely. having limits, for me, would be placing a limit on that love and that commitment, and those are things i'm just not capable of doing. my life does not belong to me. it's like if the guy down the street wanted to wreck his own car with a baseball bat, just for kicks...what place would i have to tell him, "no, stop that", or protect the car from harm?? it's not my property, i have no say over it. the same is true for my life and my body. i am my Master's property, that's not just some cutesy little label, it's reality. and because i am his, he can do whatever he wants with me, and it is not my place to tell him he can't do something to what is his. as for a self preservation instinct? my strongest instinct is to submit.

i fully understand that my life and relationship would be considered heck on earth to many people, but for me, it is absolutely the only way i can be happy and fulfilled.

 

[Pure]

Hi owned, you said,

it's like if the guy down the street wanted to wreck his own car with a baseball bat, just for kicks...what place would i have to tell him, "no, stop that", or protect the car from harm?? it's not my property, i have no say over it. the same is true for my life and my body. i am my Master's property, that's not just some cutesy little label, it's reality. and because i am his, he can do whatever he wants with me, and it is not my place to tell him he can't do something to what is his. as for a self preservation instinct? my strongest instinct is to submit.

Well, you consider yourself his property, and wouldn't object to destruction. OTOH, you're not legally his property; it's not true "he can do whatever he wants with [you]"**. If he kills you, or even just cuts off your arm, he goes to jail. If it's not 'your place,' it's everyone else's: we as a society have agreed we won't let killings or 'suicides by another' take place. These destructive acts are NOT like rape or robbery; they do not become legal because of consent (like rape or robbery).
In effect, legally, others are protecting you. What if anything he'd do, in the absence of that, we don't know.

Maybe you'd 'die for your lover'; nothing illegal about that: if a car's coming and you push him out of the way, at the expense of your own life, that's cool. Mom's have done that with kids. It's a sign of great devotion, nothing special about bdsm or even 'total' or 24/7 slavery.

**Though it may be true that, as far as your wishes go he can do what he likes with you.

J.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Again I say...no more 'limits' for me!! I'm going to do whatever I want to do with my sub, dammit!

OTOH, what I want to do with my sub is train her to ultimately submit gladly to every single deviant desire I have...and breaking her, body or spirit, simply doesn't play into that long-term plan.












Lucky for her...

 

[ownedsubgal]

Hi owned, you said,

it's like if the guy down the street wanted to wreck his own car with a baseball bat, just for kicks...what place would i have to tell him, "no, stop that", or protect the car from harm?? it's not my property, i have no say over it. the same is true for my life and my body. i am my Master's property, that's not just some cutesy little label, it's reality. and because i am his, he can do whatever he wants with me, and it is not my place to tell him he can't do something to what is his. as for a self preservation instinct? my strongest instinct is to submit.

Well, you consider yourself his property, and wouldn't object to destruction. OTOH, you're not legally his property; it's not true "he can do whatever he wants with [you]"**. If he kills you, or even just cuts off your arm, he goes to jail. If it's not 'your place,' it's everyone else's: we as a society have agreed we won't let killings or 'suicides by another' take place. These destructive acts are NOT like rape or robbery; they do not become legal because of consent (like rape or robbery).
In effect, legally, others are protecting you. What if anything he'd do, in the absence of that, we don't know.

Maybe you'd 'die for your lover'; nothing illegal about that: if a car's coming and you push him out of the way, at the expense of your own life, that's cool. Mom's have done that with kids. It's a sign of great devotion, nothing special about bdsm or even 'total' or 24/7 slavery.

**Though it may be true that, as far as your wishes go he can do what he likes with you.

J.

hi Pure...

first, my Master and i are not ruled by the laws of the land. the only way he could possibly go to jail for anything he did to me, would be if he were to turn himself in or something...which um i can assure you he would not do, lol. i am a slave, for me there is no power in my life greater than my Master. not even the boys in blue or the supreme court.

and i agree that there's nothing special about being willing to die for the love of your life...but that is not really what we were discussing. of course i'd die to protect my Master's well being. i am saying that my life is my Master's to do what he wills with, the destroying of that life included.

 

[Netzach]

first, my Master and i are not ruled by the laws of the land

That's interesting, diplomatic immunity perhaps?

Everyone else seems to be.

Whether we follow the law or not, you break it and get caught consequences will be paid. Sometimes even without breaking it, simply raising enough suspicion without a sufficient alibi or money for a good lawyer.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

first, my Master and i are not ruled by the laws of the land

That's interesting, diplomatic immunity perhaps?

Everyone else seems to be.

Whether we follow the law or not, you break it and get caught consequences will be paid. Sometimes even without breaking it, simply raising enough suspicion without a sufficient alibi or money for a good lawyer.

I found this statement interesting as well. Having been a victim of spousal abuse in the past, (Pure can probably confirm this as well), if an officer of the law were to see your SO hitting you in public, or something like that, whether you cared to press charges or not, the officer would be well within HIS rights to press charges. I understand the nature of your relationship with your Master, and while it is not one that i could ever see myself in, i accord you your right to your kink so to speak. However, that statement, in particular, bothered me quite a bit. No-one is above the law, however much they wish to be.

~anelize

 

[ownedsubgal]

smiles...

ah no, unfortunately we do not have diplomatic immunity. what i meant was that we do not NOT do things because it is against the law to do so. we have our own ways, our own values, our own moral code. my Master would never strike me in a vanilla public in any noticeable way (that's just common courtesy to others), so there is no danger of someone seeing something and alerting the coppers. and yes, he does have a very good attorney.

 

[emer]

thanks for bumping this one up Anelize.


my life is his, just as his truck is his, his home is, and just as he could send a wrecking ball crashing through his living room if he so chose, he could destroy my life or sanity if he so chose. i happen to know that of course that is not in his plans. but the fact is, he has that right. my fate, my destiny, is his to shape.

This exact feeling is what sent me running away from the idea of a Master/slave union. I'll never give anyone permission to destroy my life or sanity. During my marriage I lost my sanity ... and almost lost my life ... loved without limits ... lied under oath ... begged, borrowed and lied some more (didn't steal but would have). Found myself waking up every morning either incredibly sad or pissed that I hadn't died in my sleep. Woke up one morning with a Plan to end the pain ... thought about it some more after I sent my kids off to school and called a psychiatrist friend instead. So I'm still here!

How does someone react when a hard limit is broken and that someone doesn't have the strength anymore to object? On the surface, maybe you hated it, tolerated it, or even ... surprise ... enjoyed it. My only HARD limit was reached with the very real threat of death for myself and my children. I'll never give anyone that power.

I submitted entirely to the belief in marriage. Also, by necessity, "Mastered" the marriage. There was nothing of BDSM in the marriage but it's the only longterm relationship i've had so it's all i can compare it to.

He's working and healing and slowly becoming, again, the man I fell in love with. Maybe we (he and i) can rework the dynamics ... i'm trying to let go of the control ... love the look of surprise and confusion on his face when i push Him to be in control! (does this mean I'm topping from the bottom??)

Wondering,
emer

(forgive me ... maybe i'd make more sense or be more literate if i wasn't posting after 16 hour shifts but its the only alone time i have with the computer)

 

[Arden]

When it's qualified with "I trust my Dom to always do the right thing." The basis of any relationship is trust. I think you can say "I know my Dom's limit's, and I'm comfortable underneath his umbrella of judgment." In my opinion, with that line of reasoning, a purely nilla wife in a vanilla marriage could also claim no limits.

Joining this conversation late, but appreciate it nonetheless...

One thing that I'd like to add is that in a 'new' BDSM oriented relationship, some limits might be requested so that a submissive may have time to become comfortable with a particular desire of his/her Dominant. One can have complete trust, but still need time to physically, emotionally and psychologically attain a level of comfort that allows performance of a particular request.

Everyone is different in their view of limits. Some may have sexual limits, some may have moral limits. Some may have issues regarding language or body image. Everyone has limits or issues of some kind.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is communication. A Dominant must be understanding of limits, why they are in place, and not push just for the sake of proving him/herself. A submissive that is new to BDSM could potentially be set back by too much, too fast. I am not saying don't push, I'm saying "get to know" your partner as well as you know yourself.

A Dominant that can recognize when a new submissive can and should be pushed, setting their own desires aside by showing consideration and patience, is worth their weight in gold.

 

[Etoile]

Oh man, I forgot all about this thread! Thanks for bumping it up, Anelize. I'd even replied to it back in July!

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

You are quite welcome Etoile

~anelize

 

[catalina_francisco]

That is correct.

But

I had no limits, I belonged to him, I was his. At the time this was what I needed and it was what I got, good, bad or indifferant it was what was needed at the time. It wasn't like I woke up one morning and said "you know what Honey as of right now your free to do whatever you wish, I no longer have limits". The no limits came about because of a medical stituation where I was unable to do anything for myself and he was in complete control of every part of my life, this included food water bathing wiping my butt, he had to do everything for me, for a long period of time. As I got better and stronger I knew I could trust him with my life because he clearly cared about my life as much if not more than his own.

After that, I trusted my Dom not to harm me, but to do as he wished. Trusted him not to ask me to do anything illegal or immoral (by our standards), basically anything else was a go. He has/had limits yes, but were they mine? NO. Did I do things I wasn't truely thrilled about ? YES. Were certain things crossing my limits? YES. Often? NO

I didn't say I trusted him to always do the right thing, I said I trusted him with my life, there is a differance. I also didn't say that I trusted him to stay within the limits he knew where mine, I trusted him to only stay within his own moral code.

I think this post describes so well something which is often challenged and regarded as not possible to do, by some who do not understand what the term 'no limits' means within a D/s relationship. So often I see people placing personal ads where they say they have no limits, and then say except of course a, b, and c, (sometimes all the way to z) but that the list is because everyone has those limits. Apart from the fact not everyone does share that list of limits, having no limits does mean the submissive/slave has no limits, and not that their Dom/me doesn't. The limits within these relationships are set by the Dom/me and yes, it is possible to then say and live authentically in a 'no limits' D/s relationship as a submissive/slave. I cannot imagine living any other way, but also can understand why some others do.

Catalina

 

[sexymom]

How we think of ourselves is very important, and often colors the terminology we use. I can understand why some submissives/slaves want to think of themselves as having no limits, even though this is unrealistic to many others who aren't in that particular relationship.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

There is no such thing as no limits. Survival mandates limts. Anyone giving away these are on a direct route to destruction and are in need of serious help.

 

[Kajira Callista]

There is no such thing as no limits. Survival mandates limts. Anyone giving away these are on a direct route to destruction and are in need of serious help.

i dont agree giving these away to a person that you trust is far from a direct route to destruction.

 

[catalina_francisco]

i dont agree giving these away to a person that you trust is far from a direct route to destruction.

LOL, well said KC....I often think some of the disbelief comes from fear.

Catalina

 

[sexymom]

Definitions

I think the two sides in this never-ending controversy are not as far apart as it seems on the surface. The two sides don't mean the same thing when they say "no limits", or "my limits are my Master's limits". What this means to me is that they know the Master won't make them violate their limits, so they are safe in the "no limits" posture.

This issue is sort of like the lumberjack who said he used the same axe for fifty years. When questioned about that, he clarified what he meant. "I had to replace the handle nine times, and the head three times, but other than that it's the same axe."

To say you have limits is to somehow make you less submissive- to place restrictions on your Master's controls, and many subs just aren't comfortable with that idea.