RE: No Limits: How far would you go?

RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (Full Version)

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

Message

Rover -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 2:48:59 PM)
Fast Reply.... Again I state that many of you are taking serious what is, to say the least, not serious. Somehow people are more prone to do so on the internet (there are studies in support of this phenomena). John

MadRabbit -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RRafe quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: RRafe Cuz I only care about the kink part. Why the hell would I want to control anyone's life but my own? A question which would probably be better asked of a dominant rather than myself but I do understand the top mindset. You see things in term of kink only, so that's cool. Many of us see kink + other stuff and that's cool, too. No harm, no foul. I was just being nosy. Celeste Hey, I've done both-it's all fantasy. Don't let my reality interfere with yours. I just have a difficult time with power perverts expressing thier style as "the norm." I agree with a lot of what you write, but this particular junction of thought is where our trains go different ways.

RRafe -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: RRafe quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: RRafe Cuz I only care about the kink part. Why the hell would I want to control anyone's life but my own? A question which would probably be better asked of a dominant rather than myself but I do understand the top mindset. You see things in term of kink only, so that's cool. Many of us see kink + other stuff and that's cool, too. No harm, no foul. I was just being nosy. Celeste Hey, I've done both-it's all fantasy. Don't let my reality interfere with yours. I just have a difficult time with power perverts expressing thier style as "the norm." I agree with a lot of what you write, but this particular junction of thought is where our trains go different ways. I have no issue with that-I'd be astounded if anyone agreed with everything I thought.

daddysprop247 -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Fast Reply.... Again I state that many of you are taking serious what is, to say the least, not serious. Somehow people are more prone to do so on the internet (there are studies in support of this phenomena). John how exactly is it not serious?

Rover -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:45:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Fast Reply.... Again I state that many of you are taking serious what is, to say the least, not serious. Somehow people are more prone to do so on the internet (there are studies in support of this phenomena). John how exactly is it not serious? Because it's simply not believable. I'll believe that you'd willingly walk off a cliff to your death at your Master's order when I read your obituary. Until then, it's just online drivel. Please stand in the corner with the ancient European houses of 1,000 year lineage. John

camille65 -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:49:33 PM)
Why do you feel the need to be so dismissive? If it is something that you don't like or something you don't get that's fine. You protest so much against this, that it makes me wonder why you are so vehement about something that doesn't touch your life.

Rover -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:51:42 PM)
It's a free world. Be as gullible as you like, and I'll be as dismissive as I like. John

MadRabbit -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 3:55:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin 3. What does "no limits" means to those who apply the term to themselves? Over and over again those who claimed no limits explained they were bound by the limits of their masters. That indeed there were limits, but that the source of those limits was not the slave, but the master. Where UR2Badored's confusion comes from, I think, is that these slaves are not admitting that during the selection process, when they were seeking a master, they were made aware of their master's ethics, morality, honour, pride, etc, all the things that go into the making of limits. They did not surrender to the first person who came along. They were selective in whom they choose to serve. So they had a deciding vote over the limits they would live with. None of this shouts "insanity". But in such a relationship it is the master's perogative to change the limits. This is a risk the slave takes in accepting these conditions of imposing no limits over her master. The change may be beneficial for the slave. Or it may not. In theory, as Submittous pointed out, everyone has the "universal safeword: goodbye". But it can be difficult to enforce that safeword if you're kept chained in a cage with no access to anyone but your master upon whom you depend for food, water, warmth, etc. Or if you're dead. Submittous wrote: "No limit is a responsibility for the Dominant even more than a commitment by the submissive". True, because the master must resist the temptation to push limits and ignore limits and thus risk the life/health/well-being of his slave. The master is out to disprove that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Perhaps the most difficult of ethical tests an individual can face. Again, from Submittous: "from our experience those relationships work very well and are the most intense kinds of bdsm we have ever experienced ... the time and effort involved are more than paid back by the intesnisty and M/s bond that can develop." Indeed, it is rare to know anyone uncorruptible by absolute power over another. Again, none of this shouts "insanity". Is this for everyone? No. Is it do-able? Submittous claims experience, as do I in my previous relationship. Is it insane? If it is, it's my kind of crazy. Hope that helps clear out the confusion. I might buy into this theory if it actually entertained some resemblence of reality... The notion that any mentally healthy, self respecting individual will enforce their own boundaries when they are crossed. Perhaps some people want doormats as slaves who will just stand there and bow their head when a Master exercises his "absolute power" over them to do something harmful to them. I personally dont which is why I consider the "absolute power and no limits" theory to be mostly delusions of self grandeur and a power high. Some people like to come here and claim different about their relationships and then proceed to claim how healthy and great those relationships are. Well....hey...guess what.... People lie on the Internet.

Bobkgin -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin 3. What does "no limits" means to those who apply the term to themselves? Over and over again those who claimed no limits explained they were bound by the limits of their masters. That indeed there were limits, but that the source of those limits was not the slave, but the master. Where UR2Badored's confusion comes from, I think, is that these slaves are not admitting that during the selection process, when they were seeking a master, they were made aware of their master's ethics, morality, honour, pride, etc, all the things that go into the making of limits. They did not surrender to the first person who came along. They were selective in whom they choose to serve. So they had a deciding vote over the limits they would live with. None of this shouts "insanity". But in such a relationship it is the master's perogative to change the limits. This is a risk the slave takes in accepting these conditions of imposing no limits over her master. The change may be beneficial for the slave. Or it may not. In theory, as Submittous pointed out, everyone has the "universal safeword: goodbye". But it can be difficult to enforce that safeword if you're kept chained in a cage with no access to anyone but your master upon whom you depend for food, water, warmth, etc. Or if you're dead. Submittous wrote: "No limit is a responsibility for the Dominant even more than a commitment by the submissive". True, because the master must resist the temptation to push limits and ignore limits and thus risk the life/health/well-being of his slave. The master is out to disprove that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Perhaps the most difficult of ethical tests an individual can face. Again, from Submittous: "from our experience those relationships work very well and are the most intense kinds of bdsm we have ever experienced ... the time and effort involved are more than paid back by the intesnisty and M/s bond that can develop." Indeed, it is rare to know anyone uncorruptible by absolute power over another. Again, none of this shouts "insanity". Is this for everyone? No. Is it do-able? Submittous claims experience, as do I in my previous relationship. Is it insane? If it is, it's my kind of crazy. Hope that helps clear out the confusion. I might buy into this theory if it actually entertained some resemblence of reality... The notion that any mentally healthy, self respecting individual will enforce their own boundaries when they are crossed. Perhaps some people want doormats as slaves who will just stand there and bow their head when a Master exercises his "absolute power" over them to do something harmful to them. I personally dont which is why I consider the "absolute power and no limits" theory to be mostly delusions of self grandeur and a power high. Some people like to come here and claim different about their relationships and then proceed to claim how healthy and great those relationships are. Well....hey...guess what.... People lie on the Internet. Yes, Rabbit, we all know our kink is not okay with you. So what?

MadRabbit -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:26:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Yes, Rabbit, we all know our kink is not okay with you. So what? Bobgkin, how you have somehow managed to turn my very logical post into making me look like a "Kink hater" is beyond me. Perhaps if you had said "My kink is flapping my arms and flying" and I were to say "Hmm pretty sure its not possible...", that would make me a "Kink Hater" as well. It would also be nice if you would stop contradicting yourself. In several past posts, you have spoken out against "slaves being doormats." Doormats being a slave who will allow a Master to do anything to them. Well, if a Master trully has absolute power over a slave, then he can do anything to that slave. Because thats what absolute means if you arent familar with the definition. If a Master trully has absolute power, then the slave is a doormat. If she is not a doormat, then he doesnt have absolute power because he doesnt have the power to do ANYTHING. So either....your past slave is a doormat....or she wasnt a doormat and your talk of "absolute power" is bullshit and a self delusion. Further more, you have said spoken against the idea of "no limits" being real serveral times in this thread...but then proceed to argue in its favor. It would be nice if you would make up your mind. You would look less silly. It would also be nice if you logged off your computer and actually had some contact with the actual public scene. If you did, then you would understand why I consider your thesis (as well as a lot of what you write here) to be so funny. My opinion is the same. Anyone who entertaining the idea that boundaries and respect of them isnt applicable in a healthy relationship is either a) full of shit or b) pretending they have all this absolute power while never asking something of a slave that would require her to say "No". You can view your relationships however you want in whatever perspective. Dont blame me that your logic is lacking. (P.S. I am still waiting to see the 50 years of experience and not the 5 minutes of bullshit)

chellekitty -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:49:41 PM)
psssst angrybunny....this is you [sm=banghead.gif] why do you keep doing that? ps...not trying to be condesceding....trying to speak in code....

Stephann -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:53:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 Why do you feel the need to be so dismissive? If it is something that you don't like or something you don't get that's fine. You protest so much against this, that it makes me wonder why you are so vehement about something that doesn't touch your life. I'm accepting that people live their lives as they wish. Pretending limits don't exist seems like fairy tale makebelieve time. This isn't the crux of the topic though; I agree, those who argue about limits existing or not are usually stuck in cyber fantasy land. Stephan

MadRabbit -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty psssst angrybunny....this is you [sm=banghead.gif] why do you keep doing that? ps...not trying to be condesceding....trying to speak in code.... Pssstt....He's cute when he gets indignant.

chellekitty -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:58:53 PM)
i have no limits and i have warded my house against vampires and werewolves and evangelical christians.....

Mercnbeth -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 4:59:37 PM)
quote: Well, if a Master truly has absolute power over a slave, then he can do anything to that slave. Because thats what absolute means if you aren't familiar with the definition. If a Master truly has absolute power, then the slave is a doormat. If she is not a doormat, then he doesn't have absolute power because he doesn't have the power to do ANYTHING. MR - You and others fail to make one important consideration. Your arguments and points are well founded and logical. Isolating the "no limits" Master and the "no limits" slave does, as Rover points out, create a position where the factual representation of "no limits" is fantasy. However not one person on this thread has made that claim. In fact everyone representing "no limits" only puts it in context of a relationship; specifically in the relationship that they are living. Another common denominator, and I'll stipulate to not checking every profile from a naysayer but checking quite a few, none are in a relationship. Is that germane to the argument? If nothing else it speaks to the position that I have which is its difficult to appreciate a perspective that you've never experienced. To that point, my voice would have been added to your chorus if I saw this thread and posted to it 5 years ago. "No limits" wasn't possible because it was my experience that no person could accept my limits, let alone a broader spectrum. I have beth do things all the time that she would love to have the ability to say no. You think third person speech was her idea? Yet, I know I haven't exhausted the list and most likely never will. For instance, I would get nothing from the experience of having her eat a 'scat pie'. Remember as a "Master" its been stated that it should be "all about me". Well this is outside me and my limit. Do I have to exceed my limits to prove a point for you? I need no such validation, better yet, WE need no such validation. I doubt the others representing that they too are "no limits" within their relationships feel any differently. I'd also bet that all the "no limits" represented would only have commitment and huge element of trust in common and few practical similarities. The bottom line is, what you and others think and belief has no bearing on how we live, nor should our way ever be taken as any "one true way". Appreciate that your position is not seen as an attack. Similarly, my response shouldn't be seen as anything but a rebuttal. I ask only for an appreciation for the differing perspective and point out that "no limits", similarly to the terms "slave" "sub" "Dom" and "Master" are irrelevant outside the relationship that defines them. Frankly I hate the overwhelming need for labels and absolutes; but I'm reminded that the importance of them seems more pronounced in the on-line world which unfortunately is the only experience and reality for some.

chellekitty -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 5:02:28 PM)
well...i double checked your profile...and i thats what i thought...so....are you hetero-flexible or...just an admirer or the indignant male form?...oh and is that a new pic...nice btw...too skinny though...i'd feed ya meat and potatoes...while i am working you out in the bed room [:D]

bandit25 -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 5:09:52 PM)
What I don't understand is why this thread is still going on. Bita, Owned and prop say they have no limits. OK. It's not like it touches my life one way or the other. They do...they don't...I still have to do laundry every week. Need/don't need/want/don't want/limits/no limits. Unless it's my relationship, it only matters to them and theirs. At least, that's the way I see it.

RRafe -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 5:20:43 PM)
Machts nichts.

MadRabbit -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 5:30:21 PM)
I dont mind the alternative perspective at all. "No limits" in terms of the structuring of a relationship dynamic is not something I will argue against. Several friends of mine in real time and online have such dynamics and its how I work in my own personal lifestyle as well. You dont have to provide validation nor do I want it. But I will always argue against the notion of "absolute power" in the literal sense of the word. My main argument was against mainly Bobgkin's thesis about how that relationship works, and not against that perspective itself. I found it to be an overinflated fantasy, blowing the "power" of a Master way out of porportion into a fantasy perspective with no consideration for the fact that slaves are autonomous creatures who might just try and reinforce their own boundaries when the "Master" became corrupt.

Mercnbeth -> RE: No Limits: How far would you go? (9/18/2007 5:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I dont mind the alternative perspective at all. "No limits" in terms of the structuring of a relationship dynamic is not something I will argue against. Several friends of mine in real time and online have such dynamics and its how I work in my own personal lifestyle as well. You dont have to provide validation nor do I want it. But I will always argue against the notion of "absolute power" in the literal sense of the word. My main argument was against mainly Bobgkin's thesis about how that relationship works, and not against that perspective itself. I found it to be an overinflated fantasy, blowing the "power" of a Master way out of porportion into a fantasy perspective with no consideration for the fact that slaves are autonomous creatures who might just try and reinforce their own boundaries when the "Master" became corrupt. MR - We have more agreement than disagreement.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625