RE: no limits period

RE: no limits period (Full Version)

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

Message

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 8:36:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Care to read what I actually wrote? I didn't claim to have no limits. Care to read what I wrote? I didn't say that you claimed you have no limits. I wrote "Trusting someone so much that you tell yourself you would be willing to do anything they asked because you're certain they will never ask for something ultimate is not the same as having no limits." Nowhere in that sentence will you find anything which means "Ishtarr has no limits." quote: Can you also stop replying to only those things that you think work in your favor, and actually reply the questions asked? I'm not going to go back and comb the thread for every reply that might possibly demand a response from me. I'm replying to you enough, and we clearly have a fundamental disagreement about this whole "no limits" thing. quote: It all makes it seem like you're unwilling to actually logically debate this, and are instead set on staying hung up on your own dogma. I've got the logic, you've got the ... something else, let's make lots of money. It's hard to take seriously a reply which consists mainly of erroneous accusations.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 8:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Care to read what I actually wrote? I didn't claim to have no limits. Care to read what I wrote? I didn't say that you claimed you have no limits. I wrote "Trusting someone so much that you tell yourself you would be willing to do anything they asked because you're certain they will never ask for something ultimate is not the same as having no limits." Nowhere in that sentence will you find anything which means "Ishtarr has no limits." You're implying in that statement that I said that "trusting someone so much that you tell yourself you would be willing to do anything they asked" is the same as "having no limits". Seeing that I've never said that they are the same thing. I don't see any point in you pointing out that they are not the same thing. Besides trying to imply that I suggested that they are the same thing. But fine, maybe that wasn't what you where trying to do. So, if that's the case, what -if anything- was your actual point in stating that they aren't the same thing. We're pretty much in agreement on that, as would have been very clear from my previous posts. quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Can you also stop replying to only those things that you think work in your favor, and actually reply the questions asked? I'm not going to go back and comb the thread for every reply that might possibly demand a response from me. I'm replying to you enough, and we clearly have a fundamental disagreement about this whole "no limits" thing. Fine, I'll re-post the relevant questions then... You claimed that you could demonstrate that everybody has at least one limit. How exactly are you able to demonstrate that? (Never mind the fact that those who claim not to have limits with their dominants don't necessarily claim to have no limits in general, so I'm not even going to bother asking you to demonstrate that those who claim to have no limits have at least one limit with their respective dominants...) You claimed that a non-consensual relationship isn't possible in the U.S., because when a relationship is non-consensual (like a husband locking his wife in the house) it's also crime in the U.S. How does the fact that a crime is involved proof that a relationship is no longer a relationship? You claim that it's impossible to enter into a non-consensual relationship in the U.S. How is it impossible to voluntarily have yourself locked up in somebodies basement with the agreement that you won't be released, even if you change your mind. You claim that it's impossible to consent to be the victim of a crime. How is it impossible to consent to being flogged, or engage in sodomy, or engage in knife play, or engage in amputation? All of which are crimes in at the very least part of the U.S. quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr It all makes it seem like you're unwilling to actually logically debate this, and are instead set on staying hung up on your own dogma. I've got the logic, you've got the ... something else, let's make lots of money. It's hard to take seriously a reply which consists mainly of erroneous accusations. It's hard to take seriously a reply of somebody who fails to provide any actual evidence for ANY of the arguments he presents, when asked to do so. Ishtar

sexyred1 -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 9:08:25 PM)
Fast reply to no one in particular: Why are you upset if people claim they have limits? As long as you are not part of their relationship, what is the big deal? Seems odd to me to keep belaboring the point when many have already stated they feel that in their relationship there are no limits. I think people can define their own relationship without opinions from people not in the relationship with them.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 10:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Fine, I'll re-post the relevant questions then... You claimed that you could demonstrate that everybody has at least one limit. How exactly are you able to demonstrate that? Show me someone who claims to have no limits. That's not you, by your own admission. quote: You claimed that a non-consensual relationship isn't possible in the U.S., because when a relationship is non-consensual (like a husband locking his wife in the house) it's also crime in the U.S. How does the fact that a crime is involved proof that a relationship is no longer a relationship? I suppose that a criminal and a victim share a relationship, but I really think that by "relationship" here we mean a romantic, sexual or other mutually satisfying physical or emotional relationship. quote: You claim that it's impossible to enter into a non-consensual relationship in the U.S. How is it impossible to voluntarily have yourself locked up in somebodies basement with the agreement that you won't be released, even if you change your mind. As soon as you change your mind and ask to be released, consent to be locked up is withdrawn and the relationship, if you insist on that term, becomes "criminal/victim," not "legally consenting lovers." quote: You claim that it's impossible to consent to be the victim of a crime. It is impossible, legally. Therefore one cannot legally consent to being sodomized in a jurisdiction where sodomy is illegal. If you think that scores some sort of point for you, yay you. All of this disregards, properly in my view, circumstances like the religious guru who entices and convinces his or her followers to commit crimes and such. In my view, that kind of behavior is beyond the scope of the discussion, which is "no limits" and "consent" in D/s relationships. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I think people can define their own relationship without opinions from people not in the relationship with them. If someone puts what happens in Vegas on the internet, then what happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 11:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Fine, I'll re-post the relevant questions then... You claimed that you could demonstrate that everybody has at least one limit. How exactly are you able to demonstrate that? Show me someone who claims to have no limits. That's not you, by your own admission. Seeing that you've yet to demonstrate that MaxsGirl has limits towards her owner, lets start with her. quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr You claimed that a non-consensual relationship isn't possible in the U.S., because when a relationship is non-consensual (like a husband locking his wife in the house) it's also crime in the U.S. How does the fact that a crime is involved proof that a relationship is no longer a relationship? I suppose that a criminal and a victim share a relationship, but I really think that by "relationship" here we mean a romantic, sexual or other mutually satisfying physical or emotional relationship. If I take what you said literally, a criminal/victim relationship is a relationship under your own terms, if they have sexual intercourse. But fine, let's go from what I think is the spirit of what you said, instead of the letter of what you said... Demonstrate to me how it's impossible for a relationship where the participants would legally be regarded as criminal and victim (seeing that below you point out that it's legally impossible to consent to criminal activity, I'm taking that you want to debate legalities here) such as that between a top who is into edge play like knife play, bestiality, pimping out his submissive, or a number of other acts that would make his a criminal and his submissive a victim, cannot be a romantic, sexual or other mutually satisfying physical or emotional relationship. If it's possible for a top engaging in illegal activities that make him a criminal and make his submissive a victim under the eyes of the law to have a romantic, sexual or other mutually satisfying physical or emotional relationship, then it's possible to have a relationship under your terms that involves a criminal and a victim. I'm sure that there are many many many people on this board that can testify that their relationship falls under those parameters. Now... if you're going to argue that legality is not what matters in this instance, and the feeling of both participants is what counts (which would be odd considering that you're arguing legalities below) consider this: There are many people who have mutually satisfactory co-dependency relationships with their abusers. For instance, abused wives who refuse to leave their husbands, not because they can't, but because they won't. Refusing help from government officials and family, because they love the person who is abusing them. The may feel victimized, but still get some sort of satisfaction from the relationship that makes them refuse to leave. There are other types of relationships that I can give as an example under this category, but I'm sure you get the point (or you probably will refuse to get the point). It's perfectly possible to have an other legally criminal or morally criminal relationship, and at the same time, still have a romantic, sexual or other mutually satisfying physical or emotional relationship. quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr You claim that it's impossible to enter into a non-consensual relationship in the U.S. How is it impossible to voluntarily have yourself locked up in somebodies basement with the agreement that you won't be released, even if you change your mind. As soon as you change your mind and ask to be released, consent to be locked up is withdrawn and the relationship, if you insist on that term, becomes "criminal/victim," not "legally consenting lovers." Euhm yes.... a non-consensual relationship sort of implies that you're not "legally consenting lovers". If you where "legally consenting lovers" it wouldn't be a non-consensual relationship... Are you going around in circles here trying to proof your point, or do you just not have a point? Your argument was that non-consensual relationships are impossible in the U.S.; NOT that non-consensual relationships are not the same as "legally consenting lovers". I asked you to proof to me that non-consensual relationships are impossible in the U.S.; not that they are not the same as "legally consenting lovers", I already knew that... So again... do you have any actual grounds for claiming that it's impossible to enter into a non-consensual relationship in the U.S? In other words (seeing that you seem to have a hard time grasping what I'm asking) do you have any proof that it's impossible to enter into a situation where you are no longer PRACTICALLY able to revoke consent, in the U.S? quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr You claim that it's impossible to consent to be the victim of a crime. It is impossible, legally. Therefore one cannot legally consent to being sodomized in a jurisdiction where sodomy is illegal. If you think that scores some sort of point for you, yay you. So you want to argue strictly from a legal point of view, fine. It's impossible to LEGALLY have no-limits, in the U.S. This is because it's impossible to LEGALLY enter into a situation in which you have no rights, in the U.S. Therefore, it's impossible to LEGALLY be a no-limit slave, in the U.S. It's also impossible to LEGALLY enter into a non-consensual relationship, in the U.S. And further it's impossible to LEGALLY consent to be the victim of a crime, in the U.S. Are you satisfied now, I just agreed with everything you've been saying. Now let me restate what I am claiming, in more precisely defined terms... It's possible to IN PRACTICE have no-limits, in the U.S. This is because it's possible to IN PRACTICE enter into a situation where you are unable to exercise your rights, in the U.S. (Like agreeing to be locked in a basement.) Therefore it's possible to IN PRACTICE be a no-limits slave, in the U.S. (Because you're able to get yourself into situations where you no longer can revoke consent.) It's also possible to IN PRACTICE enter into a non-consensual relationship, in the U.S. (Because you can consensually enter into a relationship that turns into a non-consensual one, like abuse; or chose to be locked in a basement.) And further it's possible to IN PRACTICE consent to be the victim of a crime. (Because it's possible to consent to acts like knife-play that will necessarily legally make your victim.) Do you disagree with any of these statements, and if so, on what grounds (pleas do defend your position by actual providing an argument this time...) quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr All of this disregards, properly in my view, circumstances like the religious guru who entices and convinces his or her followers to commit crimes and such. In my view, that kind of behavior is beyond the scope of the discussion, which is "no limits" and "consent" in D/s relationships. I see no reason to dismiss cult like tactics, like brainwashing, Pavlovian conditioning and such from the D/s repertoire seeing that I've know a lot of people that quite actively use these tactics to gain mind control over their submissive. I also know of people who use hypnosis to attempt to remove the ability to consent, or to train in other behaviors, as well as seeing Freudian psycho-analitic tools used, and even, mind-altering drugs like LDS and XTC. The fact that somebody is a cult leader, or uses cult-like techniques doesn't exclude them from practicing D/s (unless you can demonstrate to me that it's impossible for cult leader to engage in D/s). You might want to check out the http://www.enslavement.org.uk/ website, which deals specifically with "brainwashing" submissives into a state where they no longer are able to revoke consent. quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I think people can define their own relationship without opinions from people not in the relationship with them. If someone puts what happens in Vegas on the internet, then what happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas. That's the only thing you've said in that post that I agree with. If people make a claim on an open forum, it's theory of that claim is open for debate at that point. However, TELLING people that you unconditionally know that statements they made about themselves are incorrect, and that you as a total stranger, know them better than they know themselves does not fall under "debating the theory of a claim", instead it falls under "being so close minded and trapped in personal dogma that one cannot even consider the possibility that not every person feels the same way you do". Ishtar

tazzygirl -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 11:02:23 PM)
I cant speak for sexyred... though she is incredibly yummy... But I took her post to mean that no one can speak for a relationship except those within that relationship. You can state your belief. You can give your impression. You can offer an opinion. But you cannot state for a certainty.

tazzygirl -> RE: no limits period (1/27/2011 11:04:38 PM)
quote: There are many people who have mutually satisfactory co-dependency relationships with their abusers. For instance, abused wives who refuse to leave their husbands, not because they can't, but because they won't. Refusing help from government officials and family, because they love the person who is abusing them. The may feel victimized, but still get some sort of satisfaction from the relationship that makes them refuse to leave. Been there, done that. Mark me down as one of those people.

WyldHrt -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 12:28:17 AM)
Coming in late, but first off- I will say that I don't believe in 'no limits slaves'. dodges a few thrown bottles [8D] That said, I do believe in no limits relationships. Once the framework, compatibility, and whatever other essentials of a given relationship are set, what happens next is completely up to those in said relationship. If the sub/slave chooses to give up hir right to limits, that is between the people involved. While it is true that such a slave could legally walk out the door if xhe really wanted to, and no one to stop hir, that fact doesn't take into consideration the concept of being completely committed to something that one doesn't control in any way. I think that the term 'no limits slave' is often the cause of the disconnect in these discussions. The words, in that order and all, tend to conjure images of someone who will fall at the feet of anyone identifying as a Master and immediately give themselves over completely with no discussion... a perception often not helped by the 'slavier than thou' posts sometimes seen on other threads. As most of us know, that isn't how it really works. Posted on the profile of a single s-type, unless they are stating what they seek to become in the context of a relationship, 'no limits' is a bit ridiculous, IMO, and screams 'online newbie who doesn't know what they are asking for'. [sm=2cents.gif]

RCdc -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 1:47:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt I think that the term 'no limits slave' is often the cause of the disconnect in these discussions. The words, in that order and all, tend to conjure images of someone who will fall at the feet of anyone identifying as a Master and immediately give themselves over completely with no discussion... a perception often not helped by the 'slavier than thou' posts sometimes seen on other threads. As most of us know, that isn't how it really works. Posted on the profile of a single s-type, unless they are stating what they seek to become in the context of a relationship, 'no limits' is a bit ridiculous, IMO, and screams 'online newbie who doesn't know what they are asking for'. [sm=2cents.gif] I think you are probably right on that Wyld (grabs a smooch) With anyone saying they are a 'slave' and are yet unowned, it's down to both parties to realise that these are just guidelines. It would be easier if some people didn't take things quite so literally. I mean, if you say 'it's cold outside' someone else may think it's fairly 'warm' ... even if the temperature is deemed to be below a certain ideal setting and is defined by weatherpeoples as 'cold'. Like I said earlier, not one of us here can state in a literal sense that we are 'slaves'... let alone 'a submissive'... words do not work like that. And yet in a BDSM context it does work like that... confusing huh? I have to agree with Ishtarr in the sense that I don't think Max'sgirl is making a very good case for no limits. I never bother trying to discuss this issue with people who think like Chulain (no offence intended) simply because I don't think it is worth the time talking with someone who is insistent that they know everything and how everyone else's relationships obviously work. Whilst I understand that there are other people reading this and it might help them, it just get's all bogged down in the back and forth, rather than the core of the issue. This is when I wish beth was here...[:(]

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 2:03:55 AM)
I totally agree with WyldHrt too. People who claim to have no limits mean this in relationship to a specific person, or context (usually in the sense of a wishful statement to the relationship they want to have). I've never actually heard somebody claim to all round, in all context, with all people, to not have limits. If they would claim that, I'd be highly skeptical about their claims, and if I thought they where serious, I'd conclude them to be suicidal. I also agree that most I've heard make the claims are just playing the "slavier than thou" game, or are a newbies who have never actually consider the implication of what they are stating. I therefore want to express again, explicitly: I'm not trying to argue that MaxsGirl, or anybody else in particular for that matter has no limits. I'm arguing that it's absolutely impossible to definitely state that it's impossible for a human being to not have limits... human nature and human relationship are too complex and divers for that. Ishtar

kalikshama -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 2:55:26 AM)
quote: That said, I do believe in no limits relationships. Once the framework, compatibility, and whatever other essentials of a given relationship are set, what happens next is completely up to those in said relationship. If the sub/slave chooses to give up hir right to limits, that is between the people involved. While it is true that such a slave could legally walk out the door if xhe really wanted to, and no one to stop hir, that fact doesn't take into consideration the concept of being completely committed to something that one doesn't control in any way. You are indeed a smaht kewkie.

tazzygirl -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 4:16:35 AM)
quote: That said, I do believe in no limits relationships. Once the framework, compatibility, and whatever other essentials of a given relationship are set, what happens next is completely up to those in said relationship. If the sub/slave chooses to give up hir right to limits, that is between the people involved. While it is true that such a slave could legally walk out the door if xhe really wanted to, and no one to stop hir, that fact doesn't take into consideration the concept of being completely committed to something that one doesn't control in any way. I think that the term 'no limits slave' is often the cause of the disconnect in these discussions. The words, in that order and all, tend to conjure images of someone who will fall at the feet of anyone identifying as a Master and immediately give themselves over completely with no discussion... a perception often not helped by the 'slavier than thou' posts sometimes seen on other threads. As most of us know, that isn't how it really works. Posted on the profile of a single s-type, unless they are stating what they seek to become in the context of a relationship, 'no limits' is a bit ridiculous, IMO, and screams 'online newbie who doesn't know what they are asking for'. QFT...... and should be Quoted daily!

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:07:56 AM)
it is possible to be 'no limits' within the criteria of what is agreed upon. 'no limits' to pain, degradation etcetera with the understanding that those involved get nothing at all out of scat etcetera and that is therefore, not so much a limit as an area everyone has agreed isnt going to happen because no one involved enjoys it. i think its fairly well understood that a 'no limits' slave tends to gravitate towards Dominants with similar tastes - THEN the 'no limits' agreement between them is safe and secure and not the mad, stupid, nuts thing that people go on about. i would say to the OP that if this is youre thing go for it, but if youre doing this to in some way prove to youreself or to the people involved that you can withstand extreme play then that is a bad reason to go ahead. whats wrong with his pic, ive seen plenty of mens bums here, along with womans bums, penisis, vaginas, you name it. i dont see him say anywhere, in his OP or his profile that he is a 'no limits' slave. its the people organising the session that have coined that phrase. he came here for some genuine thoughts and got lambasted. why?, did i miss something here.

tazzygirl -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:10:38 AM)
Dont recall saying anything about pics or bums.

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:12:47 AM)
someone did, a few someones in fact - at the start - shrugs, maybe my eyes are playing tricks with me. anyhoo........

tazzygirl -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:26:58 AM)
ah so your reply was a fast reply. havent you been around long enough to know how to do that?

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:29:22 AM)
ive been around here on and off for about four years - i forgot to put FR - sorry to confuse.

tazzygirl -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:41:39 AM)
Its ok, im easily confused. [:D]

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:00:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Seeing that you've yet to demonstrate that MaxsGirl has limits towards her owner, lets start with her. Are you going to answer for Maxsgirl? quote: It's possible to IN PRACTICE have no-limits, in the U.S. No, because as you seem to have agreed, "no limits" is tantamount to "non-consensual." You seem to agree that on-consensual is legally impossible in the U.S. The limits of "no limits" is whatever the sub/slave agrees to. And as I stated, I will always find someone's limits, even if it's an illegal activity. But, to reiterate, as Marc2b stated, "no limits" is absolutist. Either you have no limits or you have limits. This is because it's possible to IN PRACTICE enter into a situation where you are unable to exercise your rights, in the U.S. (Like agreeing to be locked in a basement.) No, because you can always withdraw consent to be locked in the basement. Without the force of law to back up the owner, the owner has no remedy other than what the slave is willing to accept. quote: Therefore it's possible to IN PRACTICE be a no-limits slave, in the U.S. (Because you're able to get yourself into situations where you no longer can revoke consent.) Nope. If you can't revoke consent, there was no consent in the first place.

xssve -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:04:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain We're not talking about sodomy, we're talking about consent and limits. Care to stay on topic? In fact it's entirely cogent to the argument, and on topic - given that were there a law against it, then consensual "sodomy" would be consenting to a criminal act - as it happens, there are no laws against sodomy anymore, they have been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Lawrence vs Texas. Domestic abuse is still against the law in pretty much every corner of the US however, and the vast majority of BDSM practices consist of things that could readily be called domestic abuse, thus, the concept of consent (criminal), which is very much a real legal principle - somebody giving you permission (consent) to borrow their car for instance, constitutes the entire distinction between somebody helping you out, and Grand Theft Auto.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625