Stephann
Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
|
Hiya MR,
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
In fact, my own model of relationship falls much the same pattern as most of the "No Limit" relationships narrated here. I just don't call it that. I call it "Taking on My Limits".
I personally don't beleive in "No Limits", because whether I narrate my relationship as a negotatied relationship where the slave specifcally sets limits or a non negotatied limits where the slave doesn't set limits and trusts me to make responsible decision is merely semantics to me. Regardless of whatever formal structure we construct, limits are still objectively there and I have to give them a lot of consideration when making my decisions.
I have a girl who has a great deal of trust in me. She is coming to visit in a few weeks. The basic premise of this is that it's my way and what I decide. There is no negotations or limits defined by her in a formal sense of what I can or cannot do.
However, to me its a moot point, because I realize she does have limits and those limits will affect my judgement. So whether or not I limit my actions by my own sense of ethics or am limited by her in some formal structure matters very little to me. The only thing that matters is one gives me the abiity to push as I see fit and the other doesn't which is my I choose the first.
For the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to establish something.
Several years ago, when I first started exploring these concepts of D/s, I read (or was told, I don't remember) about the concept of 'Hard Limits.' It was explained to me in a way that essentially said "A sub sets hard limits. If you break those rules, you're a bad person." Fair enough; making my slave kill her sister would probably be the act of a bad person.
Yet, when the concept of Total Power Exchange was explained, I couldn't reconcile how a TPE slave could have Hard Limits. Either the slave gave up all power, or she didn't; either it's TPE, or it's D/s. Full obedience on the part of the s is what TPE was defined to me.
Ahhhh how I sometimes long for those days of black and white clarity. Yet we must all come of age, ne?
As I still understand 'Hard Limits' I don't find the term applies to my relationships. Neither woman is permitted to say to me "Master, you are a bad person for what you have just done" unless they truly believe I am a bad person. I believe the Institution of Hard Limits (IHL) is what I rebel against. I'll refer you back to my knife example (here? on the other thread? I don't remember.) My slave would have instituted knifeplay as a hard limit, if she had the chance. I would have been a Bad Person if I broke that limit, and we both would have expected the end of our relationship there and then. But because I forced her to rely on good old fashioned communication, instead of the IHL, we learned that knifeplay is Bad because it could remind her of when she used to cut herself. Through that communication, we've established a dynamic that allows her to engage in knife play and enjoy it, without any of the emotional fallout related.
This is the long way of saying I don't subscribe to the IHL. I subscribe to my own, personal, honest assessment of what my girl can and can't do. They trust my judgment. Like you, if I were to flip, lose my mind, and order them to do something they knew was wrong, dangerous, and horrible, I expect them to defy me and flee as fast as their legs can carry them.
The whole point I'm driving at, is I don't subscribe to IHL quarterly. Limits, as we commonly understand them in a BDSM context, have no place in my relationships. Webster was a subbie after all; dictionary definitions of these specialized concepts aren't very useful.
The folks in la la land exist in all walks of life; I'd say considering the subject matter, we have relatively few crawling through our ranks here. For folks who don't buy that, I suggest looking at ten people who go through the checkout at WallMart and tell me how many you would look twice at to date.
On the movie Collateral:
quote:
Now, how is the logic that Tom Cruise the sociopath uses to absolve himself of guilt from his wrong doings any different then the logic that was presented here in absolving guilt for slaves?
Obviously, it's not. Consider, then, that the person who uses such logic isn't willing to accept responsibility in the first place, though.
Consider another form of logic though:
A man dons a costume that allows him to blend into a crowd. He sneaks into a house, with the express intent on putting a bullet through a powerful man's skull from a half mile away. He does so, and sneaks away.
This is murder, ne? Except when performed by a U.S. Marine sniper.
It's the same activity. The Marine isn't personally responsible for this act; his commanders, and the US government bear that responsibility. In a court of law, the man would be guilty of manslaughter (simple 'causing the death of another); it would be his commander guilty of murder. The commander, the sociopath, whomever knows that if I send a person out to kill for me, I am literally using that person as a human weapon. That person does have a will; but if I know full well that I've paid this man to pull the trigger, it is my will that bears the responsibility.
An insanity defense would be a powerful defense for a slave in such a trial. A smart defense lawyer would simply show how the slave is no different than a soldier at war, taught to do exactly and only what she was told to do.
We know the difference, of course; which is why I still say that the dominant and slave bear equal responsibility for their actions.
Regards,
Stephan
_____________________________
Nosce Te Ipsum
"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer
Men: Find a Woman here
|
RE: Hiding behind domination - 
Profile
)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread