|
LadyPact -> RE: Diapers (9/25/2010 10:57:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued
The list I gave wasn't meant to dictate acceptable hard limits for dominants and nor was it meant to suggest that a dominant's hard limits shouldn't be respected. I do think there are certain "super hard limit" activities that kinksters generally agree on, even the most edgy of us, top or bottom. For example, when creating a personal BDSM checklist, I don't list "no play intended to cause death" because this is presumed a commonly held ideal and later checked based on the character of the person I'm negotiating with. Some may disagree with a few things on my list, but I'd be surprised if there is, amongst the mainstream kinkster population, huge deviation. Heh! There's an odd, if not ironic, turn of phrase: "mainstream kinkster population". :-)
The point being, elan, that a person's hard limits are not up for popular vote. When it comes to My personal hard limits, it really doesn't matter if the majority of the kink population finds them acceptable or not. A hard limit is not decided by committee. It is determined by the individual by the boundary that they have set.
quote:
Needle play used to be on my hard limit list as was cross dressing. I've now done both because these were interests partners of mine wanted to explore. Leaving aside the acquiescent nature of submissives in their BDSM dynamics, I don't think it's uncommon for people to re-consider activities or for people to try things they're not necessarily interested in but that there partners are. About the only absolute I can think of when it comes to people is change. People grow and change. Now granted, I understand people get together based on their negotiated understanding of compatibility. To a degree though, this negotiation is simply a snapshot in time. At a later date, I see nothing wrong with partners discussing things they agreed not to do, but that are now stroking curiosity. Sometimes this discussion may be mutually initiated and other times one of the partners may initiate. If one partner wants something the other cannot provide (or is unwilling to provide), that's when the value of the activity really gets questioned and evaluated. This could lead to a breakup, to the initiating partner dropping the request, to an agreement between the partners that the activity can be satisfied elsewhere, or to the partners agreeing to learn about the activity and giving it a try. There are likely many more possibilities than I've noted here.
Doesn't the very concept of a hard limit say it is an area that is not up for negotiation? Should a person choose to change a hard limit, that is one thing. If they are not, they were well informed (hopefully) from the beginning.
I hear this concept of "people change" on a semi-regular basis. This is all well and good for the person who has supposedly changed. What about the person who hasn't? When Master decides he is poly after the slave has told him time and time again that she is wired to monogamy? How about the inquiries on getting the spouse to be kinky when they are vanilla? We're always so quick to tell the person who hasn't changed that they have to try because their partner has. All the kink community has ever done was ask that people accept them for who they are and the activities that they want to pursue. Yet, where are we when someone says that a kink is not who they are or what they are willing to engage in? We have this attitude that the person with the most kinks in their bag wins. It's the wrong approach, in My opinion. If we say that what we want is for it to be ok to engage in our kinks, it also has to be ok for the ones we don't want to include. Anything short of that is hypocrisy.
quote:
I suppose my thinking is skewed by two things: (1) I'm largely monogamous, and (2) my BDSM partner is typically my romantic partner too. Thus, when something like this comes up, I've got great investment to find middle ground; it's not just a question of negotiating with my BDSM partner, but rather of negotiating with my partner across the board. Still, I'm inclined to think (and I may be incorrect in doing so) that long-term BDSM partners, be they romantic or not, do make allowances for these kinds of things. Some activities may remain hard limits, but others may have room for leeway and/or may actually end up in the domain of "things we enjoy together". Am I way off base to think this is not that uncommon amongst long-term partners? For myself, I can certainly say a large number of things in my current, "favourite activities" repertoire used to be on my hard limits list. Some got to be favourites because partners asked me to try them (and I agreed to) and others are things I became curious about (and my partners agreed to try them).
Let's put it this way. Can you think of anything on your remaining hard limits list that would be an unacceptable activity? If you can, and considering your intelligence level, I'm betting that it is possible, it's no different. Something that you can say to yourself that you never want in your life or in your dynamic. Everybody has something that, for whatever their reason, just isn't acceptable in their relationship.
Neither of us started doing this yesterday, elan. We've had years to come to our own conclusions. I enjoy a lot of things, but at the same time, there are kinks out there that I don't want anything to do with. I'm very much reminded of that old manipulation tactic "if you love, you'll do it because I want you to". It's emotional blackmail no matter how you slice it.
|
|
|
|
