|
ShaktiSama -> RE: The Power or " Right" (3/28/2009 11:11:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
You probably don't know how that feels, and I pity you.
This, like a great deal of the rest of the nonsense in your post, is pure out-of-the-aether ignorance. You have no idea what I know and what I don't, what I've experienced and what I haven't, what I feel and what I don't feel. The only thing you know about me is that I am completely repulsed by the idea of sharing my partner with others, and that I find the notion of "No Limits Slavery" increasingly laughable as people who profess to be part of these relationships speak up more and more about them.
Trying to draw so many inferences from my response to other people's bizarrely hypocritical and self-contradictory posts is ridiculous. Trying to infer inexperience, lack of sophistication or insecurity from my monogamous orientation is also ridiculous--and childish, foolish, and sadly typical of people who have some sort of poly/swinger orientation. So is the false belief that one aspect of their own sexuality--their polysexuality--is automatically associated with other aspects, like their BDSM orientation, and therefore that the two should automatically be associated or socially imposed on everyone they meet as somehow being the norm. (See the OP)
This is not the case. Polyamory, like homosexuality, is an orientation that is natural to only a small percentage of the population, kinky or otherwise. Nothing you do or say, no matter how pompous and superior you become, will make it "natural" to the rest of us, any more than stamping your little feet and throwing a tantrum will make someone gay. Nevertheless I cannot tell you how many times, by how many idiots, I have been informed that polyamory and swinging behavior was a sign of moral superiority and greater sexual sophistication, the "Twue" version of any other sexual identity, including BDSM. Over the years I have become increasingly hostile to this rhetoric being bandied about in ANY public space that I occupy. Polyamorous evangelism is every bit as tiresome as any other kind, believe it or not.
So if you want to pity me because I do not "hire out" my partners? Please feel free to combine it with pity that I am not a lesbian, black, a Jehovah's Witness, etc.. That way I can tell you to go fuck yourself in a lot of different ways at once.
If, on the other hand, you pity me because I do not need my partners to lie to ME and THEMSELVES about the "limitless" nature of our relationship in order to get off--feel free to do that as well. But be aware that the more "No Limits" dominants and submissives talk in this thread, the more clear it becomes to me that "No Limits" relationships do not exist unless they are eventually fatal for one or more people.
The rest of the relationships being described as "No Limits" are very obviously and stringently limited in a wide variety of ways. Calling them "No Limits" is rather ridiculous when the minute you scratch the surface and seriously challenge the people involved, you find that these relationships are limited in ALL the same ways that other normal bdsm relationships are. The only difference turns out to be that the partners in these relationships need a label that makes them "special".
quote:
You're in it for the 'fun' and the 'kink'. That' your idea of 'noble'.
Lol. Telephone for the pot. It's the kettle? He says "You're black."
You have no idea what I consider noble, what I am "in it" for, etc. You only know what I consider deplorable. To clarify: I consider people who harm or destroy their partners deplorable. I consider it equally deplorable when people vapidly hand themselves over to be destroyed. This is the only definition of "No Limits" which has any real meaning in my opinion. All other definitions are a lie; limitations exist and are observed by both parties., they simply call their relationship "No Limits" because they like to imagine they are Kinkier-Than-Thou.
Both sides of the real "No Limits" equation are equally despicable to me: I despise destructive sadists and I despise self-destructive masochists. I loathe both types equally, especially when the self-destructive mashocist so often places other victims in the path of pain and destruction, including other family members, friends and children. I cannot tell you how many times in law enforcement you see a woman in an abusive male-dominant relationship whose children are even more battered and abused than she is, and who are maimed or killed long before she goes. The sort of dominant who enjoys victimizing those who are truly weak has NO LIMITS on what he or she is willing to do, and to whom. I think maybe the fucking slave should grow a pair of ovaries and stand up for herself and others by placing some "limits", myself.
Don't agree? Don't like my tone? Don't care. Absolutely nothing you say will give me one iota of respect for people who do not place and ENFORCE some moral boundaries, in their own lives and the lives of others. Nothing you say will eroticize or ennoble in my eyes the person who completely abdicates all adult responsibility, submissive or not.
The fact that you assume that because I recognize limits that I trivialize BDSM relationships, that I use "safewords", etc.? Speaks volumes about how you construct your "real" D/S relationship versus those you imagine to be less real because limits are more openly and honestly discussed by the partners. Believe it or not, not everyone who dislikes the "No Limits" label is a casual player, a not-real submissive, or a dominant who abdicates responsibility. Quite the opposite, in fact; I take my power over others rather seriously, and I would no more collar a real "No Limits" submissive than I would beat a small child, kick a friendly dog to death, or tie up and rape a farm animal.
You can imagine that this is because I am lacking in confidence and "afraid of Twue Dominance" if you like. From my point of view, it's because I am not a sufficiently weak human being that I require such an abject victim.
|
|
|
|
