quote:

Is there a bit of perception = reality and suspenssion of disbelief that is central to the idea? Certainly there is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExtremeOwnerIL

- a fast response -

I offer a few thoughts -
1. The etymology of "Master" and "slave" has come from their traditional use in the gayleather community. Any relevance to non-consensual slavery, in my opinion and experience, is simply in the minds of those who might make such a connection.

2. The concept of "no limits" is being taken to an extreme. We are all limited by law (consentuality), by physical abilities and by our own morals and sprituality. We all have limits, as Archer more eloquently pointed out. When I speak of my property having "no limits" - that is an expression that she has pledged her complete obedience to me.

If I make a stupid decision based on that pledge, then it is my responsibility to take the lead in correcting and repairing the damage that may have caused if she obeyed. And certainly, if I ordered her to do something that was illegal or something that I knew that would be personally self destructive and irreparably damaging, she should take responsiblity for being human and pointing such out to me.

But then... I treasure my property - I know how far to push and how far to go with my girl and I am quite satisfied to say "she has no limits with me."

Regards,
EO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
EO, I have no issue whatsoever in the dynamics you describe.  Nor do I actually have an issue with the dynamics other folks have described in this thread.
 
The issue I have is the "don't take what I say literally" that is so prevelant today (and I'm not picking on you, it's obviously commonplace).  What happened to saying what we mean, and meaning what we say?  Why must so much of WIITWD be couched in romanticized terms to evoke special "feelings"?
 
Personally, I think we do ourselves a disservice in many ways by doing so.  Not only does it convey a confusing message to newer folks, but it only serves to marginalize us all to the rest of society (and frankly, it should).  I simply don't believe that we should be in the business of creating self-inflicted wounds (outside of autoerotica, of course).
 
Who can, or should, take us seriously when we don't mean what we say (heck, I can't swallow much of it, how can we expect others to?).

 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExtremeOwnerIL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
EO, I have no issue whatsoever in the dynamics you describe.  Nor do I actually have an issue with the dynamics other folks have described in this thread.
 
The issue I have is the "don't take what I say literally" that is so prevelant today (and I'm not picking on you, it's obviously commonplace).  What happened to saying what we mean, and meaning what we say?  Why must so much of WIITWD be couched in romanticized terms to evoke special "feelings"?
 
Personally, I think we do ourselves a disservice in many ways by doing so.  Not only does it convey a confusing message to newer folks, but it only serves to marginalize us all to the rest of society (and frankly, it should).  I simply don't believe that we should be in the business of creating self-inflicted wounds (outside of autoerotica, of course).
 
Who can, or should, take us seriously when we don't mean what we say (heck, I can't swallow much of it, how can we expect others to?).

 
John

Having viewed this thread before responding, my answer to you is this - only YOU can answer those questions (and I'll also offer that you already have answered those questions in your previous responses).

I would also offer that there is little hope or use in trying to correct the BDSM community at large - past the purely physical aspects and the blantant issue of consent itself, there will be very little agreement on "wiitwd". I prefer, instead, to concentrate on "wiitId" and learn from experiences and thoughts. A blanket approach will, I believe, never work.

We take sexual and personal belief systems and wrap our words around them - to expect that we would have a consistent approach between the multitude involved in alternative lifestyles is a fallacy, in my opinion.

As a final thought, I would submit that politics and diplomacy have ALWAYS taken a similar approach of "don't take what I say literally". I would enjoy starting with THEM in correcting that approach.

Regards,
EO

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

btw, believe it or not, i do agree with you on one point: the idea that one has no limits when in actuality they are only with a partner who shares the same limits. that has always bugged me a bit too, but i try to keep in mind, different strokes, different folks. when i say that i have no limits of my own, i do not mean that my Master and i share the same limits and therefore the limits issue is a moot point. there are many things that, if i had the freedom to set my own limits, i would choose not to do. there are plenty of things that tickle and delight him, that horrify me. and there are a couple of things that i would have no issue doing or engaging in, which are currently personal limits of my Master's. so, i did not get into this union knowing i had found someone who shared my boundaries/limits. quite the opposite actually...i knew we had many areas where we differed. but i understood that once i became property, any limits of my own would fly out the window. the only limits i have are those he sets for me, for his own personal reasons, and these are ever-changing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ava82

I think something that's getting looked over in this thread is trust.  A lot of us will have no limits with someone we trust.  They're not going to hurt us.  They love us.  They know what we're into, we know what they're into.  People with extremely different kinks-say, an extreme sadist and a pleasure slut-don't usually wind up together because their kinks aren't very compatible.  Neither one will get a lot of fulfillment.  But the people we do stay with, we usually have a lot in common with them.  Including worldviews about what is and is not acceptable.  So it's one thing to have no limits with a cherished Master or Mistress who we trust.  It's a total other (and frightening) thing to have no limits with anybody at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

As for saying what we mean and meaning what we say...does anyone truly do this anymore?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

That is, evidently, too literal and plainly spoken for some people's tastes.
 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExtremeOwnerIL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

That is, evidently, too literal and plainly spoken for some people's tastes.
 
John

Congratulations. You've made your point. Shall we move on now?

Regards,
EO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExtremeOwnerIL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

That is, evidently, too literal and plainly spoken for some people's tastes.
 
John

Congratulations. You've made your point. Shall we move on now?

Regards,
EO

You may move on whenever the muse strikes you.  I'll choose to engage in dialogue with anyone that wishes to continue the discussion. 
 
Your absence from the discussion will not offend me.  Presumably my future contributions will not offend you.  Gosh, life is easy when things work out like that.  :)
 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ava82

I think something that's getting looked over in this thread is trust.  A lot of us will have no limits with someone we trust.  They're not going to hurt us.  They love us.  They know what we're into, we know what they're into.  People with extremely different kinks-say, an extreme sadist and a pleasure slut-don't usually wind up together because their kinks aren't very compatible.  Neither one will get a lot of fulfillment.  But the people we do stay with, we usually have a lot in common with them.  Including worldviews about what is and is not acceptable.  So it's one thing to have no limits with a cherished Master or Mistress who we trust.  It's a total other (and frightening) thing to have no limits with anybody at all.

I understand that quite well, Ava.  You and I are in complete agreement, and you've made the essential point in this entire thread.  That we seek out and are compatible with those whom we trust to respect our limits.  Those limits are very real, and continue to exist.  But a partner is trusted not to cross them.
 
That is, evidently, too literal and plainly spoken for some people's tastes.
 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

[
this is absolutely true for many relationships, however not for all. for some of us, it is not about trust. or even love. but simply about the mere fact of ownership. sure, it may be nice to find someone with whom you're perfectly compatible, have developed infinite trust and all other such lovely things, however the lack of some or all of those things (compatibility, trust, shared morals, whatever) doesn't negate the possibility of a M/s union. the fact that i have no personal limits has nothing to do with how much i love or trust my Master. it has nothing to do with shared boundaries. the lines i used to have (before being owned), he's crossed and crossed again. i don't trust that he'll never do x, y and z. if i needed that sort of reassurance, i never would have chosen slavery as my path because 1. no two people are perfectly compatible, and 2. an Owner may change his own limits, boundaries, morals, or even lose his sanity, at any time. what he vowed 5 years ago he would never do to you, he may suddenly decide to make a part of daily life. that's his perogative as Owner. and that's a reality that one needs to understand is a possibility before making that final choice to be owned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExtremeOwnerIL

1. The etymology of "Master" and "slave" has come from their traditional use in the gayleather community.