RE: "No harm" limits

RE: "No harm" limits (Full Version)

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

Message

Evility -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 7:16:16 AM)
I think your limits are pretty common and pretty reasonable. I don't know why you were told that they were a little left of the norm. The last one would preclude play between us but it is still a fairly common limit. I wish we could dispense with the second one altogether and just call it a given (as it should be) but sadly there are creeps out there who call it a kink. I leave out the harm reference myself. I promise not to kill, maim, cripple or intentionally leave any permanent marks. I have accidentally breached that last one but luckily it is in a fairly inconspicuous place. I also refrain from leaving temporary marks anywhere that normal seasonal wardrobe won't hide. She has a real life outside of our fetish pursuits. Beyond those parameters I decide the limits in our relationship and she complies. It's not the free for all that the 'no limits police' will paint these situations as. It works quite nicely. In my opinion as long as two people enjoy what they are doing then the parameters that they are working within (and which party dictated those parameters) is not terribly relevant. I might not participate under those conditions but I am not them so I do not count.

mindlessobject -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 7:26:11 AM)
i think we all have those same limits. as a sub it is hard to set limits because if you do, you are accused of being a wannabe, or topping from bottom. in general i try to pick Dom/mes i'd be confident of being sane and trust them to set limits. - its worked so far, i've not had to use a safeword in 8 years.

IrishMist -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 7:59:31 AM)
quote: I was basically wondering what constitutes an action that would be "harmful" to those of you who define your limits in this way. for myself, and myself only...there are only two things that I could put in this area. One can not be mentioned on the message boards; and the other would be death. [:)]

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 10:06:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan I was basically wondering what constitutes an action that would be "harmful" to those of you who define your limits in this way. This is the basic language I use for limits in all of the contracts I sign. Some slaves have additional limits, but there are really what I consider my limits: 1. At no time shall Owner or slave take part or perform illegal activities. 2. At no time shall the slave be subject to permanent bodily harm, including but not limited to; death, internal bleeding, drastic loss of circulation, broken bones, and scarring from burns. 3. At no time shall the Owner or the slave be exposed to transmitted diseases. 4. At no time shall the Owner or the slave involve persons under legal age. 5. At no time shall the Owner or the slave be involved in the sexual use of animals. In addition, I also have this language elsewhere in the contract: The Owner: ... b. shall accept full responsibility for the slave. This includes but is not limited to the slave's survival, health, physical, financial and mental well-being. ... j. shall endeavor not to inflict physical harm upon the slave that may result in the attention of someone outside the relationship. Those are my "harm clauses" as I feel doing any of those things would "harm" my slave... Taggard

IvyMorgan -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 11:50:47 AM)
My question was; what do people who say "My only limit is 'No harm'." mean by the statement "no harm", a list of examples or actions is what I am seeking. I don't think you're the only person who missed my question in amongst my other comments. The thread makes interesting reading though. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Not sure I understand your question, actually, but I can tell you that I don't see what No. 3 has to do with harm. Seems like it has more to do with your own dignity and self-respect. quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan 1. No permanent damage; broken bones, tattoos, piercings 2. No people underage 3. No recruiting - I'm not going to go find You more subs 4. No drawing blood, including needles.

IvyMorgan -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 12:01:18 PM)
I know you aren't the only person to talk about needles, but your post popped out as I was scrolling back, must be something about bold text smiles quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: 4. No drawing blood, including needles. Again not a limit for me. On needles - I'm interested in playing with them, and the same goes for more extreme versions of knife/blade play, the kind where you do draw blood but don't leave scars. But, medically speaking, it would be stupidly dangerous for me to do those activities. I have to be careful when having a routine blood test, so playing with someone would be idiotic. On piercings/tattos, they are permanent, and my "faith" proscribes them as a "harm" that is forbidden. It's a moral objection, basically, that I've carried since childhood. I have no objection to other people having them, and probably wouldn't give a hoot about performing them as a top, should I ever have the skill to. They just don't work for me. But, I've never described myself as a "no harm" submissive/person. I've always said, "these are my limits, deal with them."

Owner4SexSlave -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 12:17:23 PM)
Tattoos, piercings are options that I myself enjoy having with a submissive/slave. Regardless if I excercise having these things done or not. Ironically, some kinds of piercings I actually don't like, and some I do like. The world according to my taste. The whole bit about what pleases and displeases me. Tattoo's and other branding options, something I want to do in a serious committed D/s relationship. In terms of recruiting, I'd love to have somebody who is open to swinging/sharing and is into recruiting. I've actually have had girls ask me in the past express a desire to recruit or ask another girl to come into the picture. Mind you, at the time, I was the one wanting to get things in a mono arrangement. The thing about recruiting is that there should be realistic expectations, not unrealistic ones. It's a difficult process finding another person at times. This is a task that can not be always achieved overnight, right away. Actually recruiting is a form of pimping your Dom out to somebody else, if you think about from a twisted angle. Depends upon your orientation and frame of mind. Sure just as much, as you are finding somebody else for your Dom to play with, you are also pimping your Dom out to a degree to another submissive or whatever type of person that's desired. Blood, well.. it can be a very intimate exchange between two people tasting and licking and sharing blood between one another. Not a practice I've done with strangers and only in committed relationships. A lot of things, the actvitities being done, won't kill somebody. Most of the things, I assure you, you'll live through to see another day. You'll keep your body parts in tact too. I don't like to break bones personally. At times some minor sprains or even fractures can occur. Hell, and that's even a two way street. I've felt those pains from simply playing rough. But never any true serious injuries that would cause long lasting permanant damage to myself or my partner.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 1:54:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan My question was; what do people who say "My only limit is 'No harm'." mean by the statement "no harm", a list of examples or actions is what I am seeking. I don't think there -is- a comprehensive list. 'Harm' is a subjective state where a person believes that their existence has been compromised by some externally-applied force. To me, 'harm' in a kink relationship would be anything that meets the above criteria. If you freak out around blood/needles, and even -watching- needle play or cutting is going to cause someone to puke and/or faint, I sure as heck am not going to involve them in a blood-play or cutting scene. If humiliation sends someone into a deep depression, it is completely senseless for me to use humiliation as a discipline for that person. So much of this is simple common sense. If you want to have any kind of long-term, consentual relationship, it makes no sense to totally screw up the person you're going to be in a relationship with. It's a little less clear-cut if you're participating with someone on a "casual play" basis. Unless it is a known partner, you have to ask the questions about what you will and won't be doing. I've done an intense flogging (duration and strike speed/intensity) with my 'gentle' moose-hide flogger without negotiating terms, but once I get beyond that or a foot massage, I want to know specifics -- can I break the skin? Can I break the skin intentionally using a blade or needle? What if I break the skin unintentionally, because a cane, crop or flogger gets that intense? What if I want to use a truly vicious flogger (yes, I've used vampire floggers on occasion)? I don't do a lot of mindplay, but my Darling loves the 'mindfuck', including all kinds of sensation play from ice to blades to... She also does humiliation and cruelty. Some folks just can't handle those things (there are some that even consider them 'edge play'). Before we accept someone for casual play, she wants to know if they have any issues with sensory deprivation, light bondage or being trapped, and 'fear escalating' play like blindfolded/gagged sensation play, etc. She also wants to know if the person's psyche will handle humiliation or if the person has the tendency to shatter under the strain -- same with cruelty. If you're discussing harm, it comes down to what the person you are with considers "harmful". There are some things I don't do because I don't like them -- those are -my- limits. I don't do what I don't enjoy. On the other end of the fence, though, I depend on the other person to tell me what they can or can't handle -- or, if they've never experienced something and find out that it's too much, their capacity to open their mouths and say "Uh... NO MORE!" or the like. The only thing that I believe causes harm in every case is when you start talking about non-consent. I can't think of a single time when it is not harmful or in any way ok to do something to someone that xhe hasn't either said xhe wants done, or at least said "Ok, I'll try it." That includes 'forcing' hard limits just because someone has entered into a 'slavery' relationship and trusts you (IMO). Calla Firestorm

Prinsexx -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/27/2008 2:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan I'm curious (as always). In a lot of discussions on limits I've seen, people on both sides of the whip say they have no limits, or only the limit "not to harm" the sub they are playing with (or not to be harmed, if they're a sub). This includes physical, emotional, and psychological harm. I was basically wondering what constitutes an action that would be "harmful" to those of you who define your limits in this way. Obviously this will differ depending on the individual, hence, the more the merrier in terms of replies. I ask because, recently, I was told I was a little left of the norm, limit wise, when I'd always thought of myself as fairly normal. Perhaps it's just my messed up view of me and the world, but, I have 4 limits that are hard, and everything else is negotiable. 1. No permanent damage; broken bones, tattoos, piercings 2. No people underage 3. No recruiting - I'm not going to go find You more subs 4. No drawing blood, including needles. The last one is for health reasons, the first three are basically moral, though no broken bones also boils down to common sense. A girl has to work/drive etc. I'm wondering if I've been reading more into "no harm" (as in, thinking more activities are potentially included) than was meant. Projecting, if you will, myself onto others. Perhaps a little imput from you guys would get me some clarity? Ivy. i don't have a safe word and i don't have limits. My limits are my Master's limits it's as simple as that. There are some on your list you mention that He and i mutually adore; piercings and tattoos. They'll be cutting and branding also. The age limit limit is an interesting one as in my life time the age of consent has shifted and especially within the GLBT community. i have two remaing in my household under the so-called age of consent and i am fortuneate enough to be entrusted by them and their peer group with sexual disclosures. No legal age limit under the sun is going to stop sexuality. It is the fear of: one being found out and two trying to appear old enough to be of the age of consent which actually causes most of the issues. i say this with my hand on my heart and have told the young ones concerned that there are condoms freely available. Also to add: if others in the bdsm community break bones it's of no concern of mine. Added finally: it's taken me a lifetime to arrive at this awarness and to be the authority of my limits. It has also taken that amount of time for me to hand over that authority (meaning rights and knowledge) willingly to someone else to master.

SurrenderForMe -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/28/2008 12:31:40 AM)
My limits are no children, no animals, no scat. My style is no harm. What I mean by no harm, is that if someone is with me, within even more restrictions supplied by subs, I will do my best to not physically damage them to the point of needing a medical facility ( I do piercing, cutting and branding, they are not harm) or losing pieces. Mentally, I am responsible for not only taking them apart, but putting them back together so that they leave my presence as whole or better than when they entered it. Ditto for emotional.

Guilty1974 -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/28/2008 1:25:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan 1. No permanent damage; broken bones, tattoos, piercings No permanent damage would exclude a lot of activities that are inherently risky (suspension bondage, breath play). But I wouldn't consider broken bones permenent damage. They can heal. Permanent nerve injuries or death (suspension bondage) and brain damage or death (breath play) seem much more permanent than what you mention. As I happen to like both, I'd have a hard time with this limit. Not because anyone is out to cause permanent damage - on the contrary - but because I'm taking the risk.

pixidustpet -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/28/2008 6:31:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guilty1974 quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan 1. No permanent damage; broken bones, tattoos, piercings No permanent damage would exclude a lot of activities that are inherently risky (suspension bondage, breath play). But I wouldn't consider broken bones permenent damage. They can heal. Permanent nerve injuries or death (suspension bondage) and brain damage or death (breath play) seem much more permanent than what you mention. As I happen to like both, I'd have a hard time with this limit. Not because anyone is out to cause permanent damage - on the contrary - but because I'm taking the risk. i broke my right wrist a few years back. i have nerve damage from that (the last 2 fingers on my hand are numb). i broke my foot in 1980...i still have difficulty walking at times from that, and despite the pic, high heels are not something i can indulge in if i want to be able to walk without crutches the next couple of days. broken bones can indeed cause permanent damage in some people. [:D] i'm more concerned about emotional/psychological damages to me...and yep my brain has some wicked booby traps to fall into. kitten

IvyMorgan -> RE: "No harm" limits (7/28/2008 7:04:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guilty1974 quote: ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan 1. No permanent damage; broken bones, tattoos, piercings No permanent damage would exclude a lot of activities that are inherently risky (suspension bondage, breath play). But I wouldn't consider broken bones permenent damage. They can heal. Permanent nerve injuries or death (suspension bondage) and brain damage or death (breath play) seem much more permanent than what you mention. As I happen to like both, I'd have a hard time with this limit. Not because anyone is out to cause permanent damage - on the contrary - but because I'm taking the risk. smiles I love both of those too, and do them whenever I get the chance. In the right hands, they are quite safe, I've found. This thread is teaching me that I might have to be clearer in wording the first limit.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02