RE: no limits period

RE: no limits period (Full Version)

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

Message

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 10:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaxsGirl Just a quick note. I did not "abandon" the discussion. I have this little thing called a job that keeps me away from my computer screen for long hours at a time. Excuses, excuses. quote: Not that I have much interest in continuing the argument, so it's clearly unwillable on both sides. Circular logic gives me a headache, and I have no futher interest in arguing against it. And you just stopped by to post saying, essentially, "I'm not going to post on this topic any more?" Kinky.

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 11:23:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The meaning of the phrase "no limits" is not open to subjective interpretation. Either someone has limits, or they have no limits. The rest of the discussion, whether or not people who claim to have no limits actually have no limits has been mostly put to rest as well. Those who claim to have no limits actually have "no limits, except for these here limits." Look at the OP as an example: the scene was to have "no limits." Oh, other than scat and illegal stuff. i did look at the OP and i looked at his profile and nowhere in either does he say that HE has no limits. the limits, im assuming were placed there by him, but beyond those limits there are no limits with anything else. he invited comments on the aspect of play where no limits had been placed and straight away we get the predictable whooha about the phrase 'no limits' and the OP is lambasted for asking a perfectly clear question. namely 'what do people think about the 'no limits' on the play agreed upon'. this thread was never meant to be a discussion on no limits at all. people continued to miss the point by accusing the OP of calling himself a 'no limits' slave on this thread when his profile clearly states he is not. the absolute point here is that he placed limits on certain aspects, which is his perogative and the Dominants involved placed 'no limits' on the rest of it. so...., from my perspective i would ascertain from that, that with regard to the play agreed upon there is a situation of no limits, and by that it means, the Dominants can take this slave as far as they like and the slave cannot safe call. THAT was the question all along. there is 'no limits' with regard to everything under the sun and there is 'no limits' with regard to the levels of play agreed upon within the remit of a relationship or play session. two different things, both perfectly viable, acceptable and understandable, i would have thought.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 12:12:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter It is true that almost everyone will act in accordance with the limits set by their society and their perception of how to survive sucessfully within that society (not going naked to the grocery store, not displaying a kink in front of children, etc). I perceive it as true that almost everyone has SET limits for themselves for physical/mental/emotional activity which they use to determine compatibility with a potential partner. I perceive it as true that some find a relationship in which they feel safe enough to abandon their adherence to the limits which they set for themselves prior to that relationship, and leave the setting of limits within their relationship to their dominant partner. Speaking from the perspective of the general BDSM definition of limits, I perceive that these last are correct that they, as an individual, are "no-limits" because they have set none for themselves. They will still adhere to the limits imposed by their dominant partner and by the society in which they live, but they have imposed no limits themselves. Quoted for Chulain.... Look sweetie... this is a good an nuanced opinion about no-limits. Notice that he's speaking from personal perspective, and NOT telling other people directly that their perception of themselves is wrong and he knows a stranger better than they know themselves. Notice also that he's speaking in nuances... he uses "some" and "almost everybody" to indicate that there are always exceptions to the rule. This way he doesn't have to come back later to redefine his own words and statement. It also keeps him from making ridicules absolutist claims like being able to demonstrate things about every single human on the planet. Just purely for stylistic and debate purposes... read his post a couple time and maybe you'll learn to express your opinions in a way that actually make logical sense... quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter Perhaps it would be a less argumentative position if the label were to be "no-personally-set-limits"... I totally agree with this. The no-limit label is very poorly chosen in name as are a bunch of other labels in the BDSM community and it doesn't help at all when some people want to go ahead an redefine words and concepts that already aren't self-evident. I guess that's the way it goes when communities grow organic over time. Thanks for your post, Ishtar

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 12:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The meaning of the phrase "no limits" is not open to subjective interpretation. It's not? You mean unlike: - the word "relationship" (a strictly romantic, sexual or emotional bond between people; excludes the number one definition of the word "relationship": the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected) - the word "everybody" (used to denote only those in the D/s community; excludes soldiers) - the word "possible" (within the realm of what is legal; excluding things as impossible on the basis that they aren't legal) - the word "consent" (agreeing to something you're legally allowed to agree to; excluding the possibility somebody can agree to something that isn't legal) - the words "mentally disturbed" (people who possible can have no-limits; excluding human beings) - the words "red herring" (any analogy used that indicates Chulain may be incorrect about something; excluding the actual definition of "red herring" which is "an argument intended to mislead or distract" also excluding the fact that analogies -IF used incorrectly- don't fall under the "red herring" fallacy and are instead a fallacy of weak induction... more specifically, a fallacy of "weak analogy") - the words "logical fallacy" (any argument Chulain doesn't agree with; excludes any argument he makes himself, based on the fact that he knows -without proof or justification- that he cannot possible have committed a logical fallacy) quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The rest of the discussion, whether or not people who claim to have no limits actually have no limits has been mostly put to rest as well. Those who claim to have no limits actually have "no limits, except for these here limits." Look at the OP as an example: the scene was to have "no limits." Oh, other than scat and illegal stuff. It's not put to rest, because you've been unable to provide any proof to back up your claim that it's impossible for somebody in the D/s community to have no-limits. You've just continuously redefined your argument so that your target group has become smaller and smaller, admitting that certain groups can have no-limits, after you first claimed that this wasn't the case. Further than that, you've continuously ignored the fact that no-limits as a concept has many common usage definitions, and that to evaluate whether or not somebodies claim is accurate, one has to evaluate the context in which they use the concept. Because your complete blockage on accepting that the concept of no-limits is usually a contextual one, you insist that you can make absolutist claims by entire groups of people -or the entire human race- because, according to you, context has no impact on the definition used. This is bizarre, if nothing else than for the fact that with certain other words like "relationship" you categorically refuse to accept that the definition of that word can be used in different contexts, and instead you insist that only one context could possible be applicable to this debate. Ishtar

MaxsGirl -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 2:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain And you just stopped by to post saying, essentially, "I'm not going to post on this topic any more?" No, I stopped by to say that I don't plan to argue the subject with you anymore, because it's a one sided debate. I can explain my relationship until I'm blue in the face, but you continue to ignore what I say and come up with extreme examples and untrue absolutes. You also don't seem to understand what constitutes insanity or mental illness, and I don't feel like explaining it to you (especially since I think you'd argue it with me, even while I waved my psychology degree at you).

MaxsGirl -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 2:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter It is true that almost everyone will act in accordance with the limits set by their society and their perception of how to survive sucessfully within that society (not going naked to the grocery store, not displaying a kink in front of children, etc). I perceive it as true that almost everyone has SET limits for themselves for physical/mental/emotional activity which they use to determine compatibility with a potential partner. I perceive it as true that some find a relationship in which they feel safe enough to abandon their adherence to the limits which they set for themselves prior to that relationship, and leave the setting of limits within their relationship to their dominant partner. Speaking from the perspective of the general BDSM definition of limits, I perceive that these last are correct that they, as an individual, are "no-limits" because they have set none for themselves. They will still adhere to the limits imposed by their dominant partner and by the society in which they live, but they have imposed no limits themselves. I missed this post the first time, but it is exactly right. Thank you for summing it up better than I did. The part in the last paragraph about adhering to societal norms doesn't quite fit my situation, though. It is up to Alpha to decide which of those rules we observe, and which we ignore. Thankfully he tends to fall on the conservative end of the spectrum, and keeps the kink side of our relationship behind closed doors.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 5:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The meaning of the phrase "no limits" is not open to subjective interpretation. Either someone has limits, or they have no limits. You know what...I concede. You're right. Everyone has limits. Like needing to maintain their heads attached to their bodies in order to remain humanly functional. And being unable to move physical objects solely with their minds. And being unable to physically survive a freefall from 30,000 in the air or levitate once a height of 50 feet is achieved in order to avoid the collision. And...

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 5:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You know what...I concede. You're right. Everyone has limits.... And being unable to physically survive a freefall from 30,000 in the air LOL I get the point you're trying to make BUT.... [:D] Vesna Vulović holds the world record, for surviving the highest fall without a parachute: 10,160 meters (33,330 feet)...

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 5:15:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Vesna Vulović holds the world record, for surviving the highest fall without a parachute: 10,160 meters (33,330 feet)... Impressive story. I'll amend the stipulation to a freefall without surrounding constraints or cushionings from 30,000 feet. Just a body, the sky, and the ground. [8D] Edit: Or maybe I don't need to amend my statement! quote: In January 2009 German ARD radio correspondent Peter Hornung-Andersen together with German journalist Tim van Beveren and Czech journalist Pavel Theiner published a report based on newly found documents, mainly from the Czech Civil Aviation Authority and the Czech Republic's National Archive, concluding that the plane may have been shot down by mistake by the Czechoslovak Air Force.[6] They claim that the plane broke up only a few hundred meters above the ground, not the 10,000 metres claimed by the official investigation.[7] This claim was backed by evidence, e.g. secret reports in which several eye witnesses said that they saw Vesna's plane flying below the clouds before it crashed and maps drawn by Czechoslovak investigators showing that the largest parts of the plane were found in an area rather small which would not have been the case if the plane broke apart in 10,000 metres altitude. This is shown on a disaster area map which was published by Czech Republic's National Archive : No. 1 and 2 show fuselage and cabin being less than 1 kilometre apart. The Czech Civil Aviation Authority nevertheless issued a statement denying the claim without addressing the evidence.[citation needed] The original statement has given rise to more recent reports.[7] Vulović, despite having no memory of the crash or the flight after boarding,[6] has challenged these new theories, denying the claim that the plane descended to a much lower altitude while attempting a forced landing.[citation needed] A representative of Guinness World Records stated that "it seems that at the time Guinness was duped by this swindle just like the rest of the media."[6] [insert unavailable shock smiley here]

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 2:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You know what...I concede. You're right. Everyone has limits.... And being unable to physically survive a freefall from 30,000 in the air LOL I get the point you're trying to make BUT.... [:D] Vesna Vulović holds the world record, for surviving the highest fall without a parachute: 10,160 meters (33,330 feet)... ... but possibly not something we should all try without ensuring plenty of 'dumb luck' goes with us.

bornbothsexes -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 2:22:29 AM)
I am alway asked what my limit is so far it has not been a proble with none but you do have to have a safe word and yes do know who you are with

TotalDiscipline -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 2:50:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bornbothsexes I am alway asked what my limit is so far it has not been a proble with none but you do have to have a safe word and yes do know who you are with mmm interesting. Makes me wonder if you need a safeword...if you have no limits? ( I would say yes..but don't they contradict eachother)

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 3:18:29 AM)
i was told once that a safe word is also about giving the Dominant the opportunity to go deep too, relax and enter the swing, knowing and trusting that if the sub gets into problems they will make the call. a safe word isnt just there for the sub. i believe that most who use the safe word as a safety net do so only as an absolute last resort and do not wish to use it or use it inappropriately. therefore it isnt a contradiction at all. its just a safeguard when play gets seriously intense.

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 3:24:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bornbothsexes I am alway asked what my limit is so far it has not been a proble with none but you do have to have a safe word and yes do know who you are with ..... however, i dont agree that *you do have to have a safe word* - that isnt so for everyone and for every relationship and some people prefer not to have one. if a Dominant insisted i have one then i would, his choice and his decision, but personally speaking id prefer not to. but then i dont play casually. in the end if i cant squeak out, 'stop im feeling sick' and im with someone who ignores that because it didnt sound like 'red' id reckon i was playing with a complete dufass anyway. i prefer things to be a little less formal and alot more natural - two human beings interracting with each other. but thats my take.

TotalDiscipline -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 3:27:48 AM)
quote: i prefer things to be a little less formal and alot more natural - two human beings interracting with each other. but thats my take. yes, that is how I like it too Read eachother..feel eachother...know eachother. (but perhaps for sessions with strangers...people should use it...but that is not my thing)

SourandSweet -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 4:57:16 AM)
I haven't read all the posts, but it seems that there's confusion between consentual non-consent and non-consent. Our relationship is 'no limits', but ultimately we both know that this is just a phrase. I could walk out the door. I choose to stay. I choose to obey. My vegetarianism annoys him at times. He's more than once teased me by saying he'll make me eat fluffy lil lambs etc. We both know that if he did I would - and that I wouldn't walk out. We both know that he wouldn't do that because he respects my principles, even if he doesn't agree with them. It's called 'trust'. That little word that is so banded around in the d/s world. Within our relationship I have no limits - that's the important distinction for me. I can however, because we live in the UK, remove myself from that relationship at any time I choose. I can't forsee any reason why I would want to, but the fact remains that I could. I've had discussions with subs before who insist that they can't leave hence they are really totally no-limits, that they have no choice but to stay and obey, that it wouldn't be possible emotionally etc. I can't speak for them, but I know if my dom developed an interest in snuff then I'd be gone like a shot. I don't care how emotionally involved I am: my desire to live is pretty strong! I am only in a 'no-limits' relationship because I know I can trust him - with my physical and emotional health and well-being. It doesn't mean I don't have a say. It doesn't mean that, after listening to my viewpoint, he doesn't sometimes change his mind. We're both responsible, mature, educated, professional adults. It does mean that if he's doing something I don't like and I ask him to stop he's the one who decides whether he should or not, and I've agreed to accept his decision. I don't have a safe-word. I'm a wimp - I'd be crying it out as soon as he reached for his strap. What I do have is a dom who knows me as well as one person can know another, who listens to me, who watches my reactions carefully, and who, ultimately, loves me. :-)

MasterDarkSadist -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 1:59:30 PM)
Once you're tied up, the only limits that truly constrain your dominant is his reputation. Choose wisely before you play and you'll never have a problem.

BenevolentM -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 3:30:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll Well fuk-a-diddle, so much for shoving an ICBM up his ass and sending him across the pond. LOL, you must be old school with terminology like ICBM. Concerning the OP quote: ORIGINAL: asubsydneymale quote: I have been asked to take part in a play session that will have a period where there will be no limits, no permanent marks or injuries will occur, nothing illegal, no scat. During the no limits period, I will be bound, blindfolded and have been informed that excessive screaming will result in my mouth being taped, I want to and don't want to - what do you think ? A safer approach would be to develop an agreed upon list of options for the tormentor, a menu, that goes into detail concerning the particulars. For example, suppose enema was on the list. There are different kinds of enemas. There are details such as to how much fluid can be used. In the end you are putting a lot of trust in the hands of your tormentor. It is possible to think of no limits as you don't get to chose what items on the menu will be chosen. Such a menu may already be implicit. It is usually safer not to make any unnecessary assumptions, however.

BenevolentM -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 4:29:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr - the words "red herring" ... which is "an argument intended to mislead or distract" also excluding the fact that analogies -IF used incorrectly- don't fall under the "red herring" fallacy and are instead a fallacy of weak induction, more specifically, a fallacy of "weak analogy" - the words "logical fallacy" ... Ishtar I've heard enough. I've in love with Ishtarr, tee-he, if she has taken the time to understand any of this stuff. I like the idea of females who could defend me or take out a target. It turns me on. Don't take this wrong, not as an act of submission on my part, but that of everyone else, "Put them into submission!" I hope my words have not offended you Ishtarr. I thought to share something of myself with you. To shift the discussion toward what the OP wrote, I don't disagree with what Ishtarr wrote.

BenevolentM -> RE: no limits period (1/30/2011 8:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b In my experience people who want a no limits situation are simply engaging in a fantasy. A fantasy that ends when the orgasm does. This is a problem I have with a great many females I encounter online. I have a list of unspoken limits, the sort of limits that few if anyone every talks about. A common limit is, if it doesn't end in an orgasm, get lost buddy! I find this limit shocking in that it causes me to wonder who they think the Dom is. My usual thought is, "I'll give you an orgasm if I feel like it." Many of the so-called submissive females I encounter online are controlling.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875