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."

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Yes, Rabbit, we all know our kink is not okay with you.

So what?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chellekitty

psssst angrybunny....this is you  why do you keep doing that?



ps...not trying to be condesceding....trying to speak in code....

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.

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.