RE: Consensual slavery? Or not?

RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (Full Version)

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

Message

Wildfleurs -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 8:42:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Daddysprop (like myself) leads a life which is very risky 'if' her owner is a killer, a raving lunatic or maybe if he is just a clueless idiot. I know that I'm willing to take the risk that Himself is none of those things and if I'm wrong and one of his commands results in something catastrophic to my person, don't cry for me or pity me because its been a hell of a ride and I've enjoyed every crazy minute of it. So much consternation over no limits slaves but I don't recall a thread started on no limits Masters. Is that a fabled unicorn or has the depths of humanity sunk so low as to already prove their existance? Ah well, thoughts for another day. Celeste Thats one of the things I find bizzare about this thread and other discussions around limits and boundaries. The minute there is a situation where someone isn't putting up boundaries and fences around their dominant/master/insertappropriateterm around what they can or cannot do the dominant must of course be a serial killing, limb removing, put you in a freezer nutso. Up until that point the dominant is rational but if you stop telling them that you won't have sex with dead people, then they are just gonna go batshit crazy. And its always really funny, because its said with dead certainty by absolute strangers that they know for sure that your dominants gonna go batshit crazy and you are badshit crazy. C~

ImpGrrl -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 8:44:33 AM)
But see - Archer isn't saying that "all slaves have X as a limit", just that they have limits. What limit(s) the person has is individual. Some stop at murder - some don't. Some, who might allow their owner to amputate a limb, would stop at seeing their owner bottom to someone else. It's all individual. But there are limits. I believe that people who call themselves "no limits" really mean that they impose no limits on their owners that their owners do not hold for themselves. I think it's a disingenuous way to say it, but it's as close as people can come. quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble "All slaves have limits." What horror, in all the course of human history has not been done by someone, somewhere at some time? I have to wonder at a mind which is so evil that it could come up with something that no one would be willing to do it for any reason. Murder, rape, dismemberment, serial killings, mass murder, genocide, executions, cannibalism, child killers ... all done for greed, jealousy, faith, insanity, lust, attention etc ... and yet, a slave is above such actions? What makes us so special that we will 'not' do things the rest of humanity has been doing since the dawn of time? There is always an assumption made that those who practice BDSM are 'sane'. I would question such an assumption. I'd say that the % of sane people in BDSM is fairly equivalent to the rest of the world. I mean how often has it been written that 'we' are just like everyone else? Perhaps, if folks would change the phrase "All slaves have limits" to "All sane slaves have limits" it would be easier to swallow. Then we can debate the definition of sane. ::laughs:: As it stands though, I can't agree with it. Humanity has proven itself capable of incredible good.. and horrific evil, over and over and over again. Slaves are no exception nor are they immune to the vagaries of humanity. Now, I state quite clearly in my profile, that I'm not sure of my sanity, so how can anyone else be sure of it? I think ya'll should count your blessings that Himself doesn't have such evil within him so that he would command me to commit atrocities upon your person.. ::giggles:: It's one of the reasons I'm with him. Makes ya wonder, don't it? ::chuckles:: Just how much is TIC and how much is utter truth? "All slaves have limits." May I have a copy of the limits list, please? I love to read a good fantasy and besides, with that list, maybe I can help turn Himself to the dark and evil side. [8D] Celeste

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 9:06:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiteRadiance I would never presume to try to squash any opinion, Rover. As I said~ I meant no offense to you. My statement was only an attempt to point out to you that there are those here, whom you continue to judge and argue with- who are engaged in relationships that are consensual and loving. It is difficult to adequately judge anothers beliefs or lifestyle when you have not lived it. I guess this shows the danger of making assumptions, not that there's any great harm done. But for the record, I have most assuredly been consensual and loving power exchange relationships. John

ImpGrrl -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 9:16:12 AM)
As much as it seems that what I say contradicts what you say - we actually agree on this topic. We've had this discussion before. We just approach it from different semantical angles. I always find myself nodding with the jist of what you write on this topic - even though my words seem to say otherwise. Thank you. quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Daddysprop (like myself) leads a life which is very risky 'if' her owner is a killer, a raving lunatic or maybe if he is just a clueless idiot. I know that I'm willing to take the risk that Himself is none of those things and if I'm wrong and one of his commands results in something catastrophic to my person, don't cry for me or pity me because its been a hell of a ride and I've enjoyed every crazy minute of it. So much consternation over no limits slaves but I don't recall a thread started on no limits Masters. Is that a fabled unicorn or has the depths of humanity sunk so low as to already prove their existance? Ah well, thoughts for another day. Celeste Thats one of the things I find bizzare about this thread and other discussions around limits and boundaries. The minute there is a situation where someone isn't putting up boundaries and fences around their dominant/master/insertappropriateterm around what they can or cannot do the dominant must of course be a serial killing, limb removing, put you in a freezer nutso. Up until that point the dominant is rational but if you stop telling them that you won't have sex with dead people, then they are just gonna go batshit crazy. And its always really funny, because its said with dead certainty by absolute strangers that they know for sure that your dominants gonna go batshit crazy and you are badshit crazy. C~

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 9:18:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Thats one of the things I find bizzare about this thread and other discussions around limits and boundaries. The minute there is a situation where someone isn't putting up boundaries and fences around their dominant/master/insertappropriateterm around what they can or cannot do the dominant must of course be a serial killing, limb removing, put you in a freezer nutso. Up until that point the dominant is rational but if you stop telling them that you won't have sex with dead people, then they are just gonna go batshit crazy. And its always really funny, because its said with dead certainty by absolute strangers that they know for sure that your dominants gonna go batshit crazy and you are badshit crazy. C~ Actually, the issue of limits doesn't revolve around any other person, Master/Mistress or not. Nor does it have anything to do with their sanity or limb removal prowess (though reference to such is often made for situational example). Limits are innate. In the example of limb removal, it matters not whether the Dominant is sane but has an amputee fetish (a recognized fetish, by the way), is sane but an extreme sadist unconcerned with consent or consequences (the lack of which may enhance their sadistic pleasure), is the world's biggest klutz but enjoys knife play (that's why we judge some people capable of engaging in certain play with us, and others not... so as to ensure that, in the case of this example, our limbs remain intact), or is the crazed killer who enjoys boxing up limbs and sending them off for Mother's Day. The point is, regardless of who someone is or isn't with, limb removal is still a limit. It's their own limit, and not relative to any other external individual. John

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 9:26:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ImpGrrl But see - Archer isn't saying that "all slaves have X as a limit", just that they have limits. What limit(s) the person has is individual. Some stop at murder - some don't. Some, who might allow their owner to amputate a limb, would stop at seeing their owner bottom to someone else. It's all individual. But there are limits. I believe that people who call themselves "no limits" really mean that they impose no limits on their owners that their owners do not hold for themselves. I think it's a disingenuous way to say it, but it's as close as people can come. I could not agree more. And one of the issues I often have is that the number of things said disingenuously are allowed to flourish. In my view, that not only presents a danger to the less experienced and most exploitable amongst us, it also serves to trivialize the entirety of BDSM as a bunch of fantasy role players engaged in Dungeons & Dragons type games. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, and fantasy fulfillment. Everyone (even vanillas) can understand that and most engage in it themselves from time to time. But fantasy portrayed as reality is simply a lie. Now lies in and of themselves are not so uncommon, but rushing to the defense of each and every lie that someone wants to post on a bulletin board or spew from their mouths is simply foolish. John

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 10:11:30 AM)
Try as I might, I can't percieve a time when the BDSM community is accepted by the vanilla world in general, regardless of the level of semantic correctness. Just for the record, I do regard limb removal as one of my own hard limits. But then another of my hard limits is Aerobics, so what does that say about me?

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 10:56:07 AM)
It says that you're a couch potato. Pass the chips. John

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 10:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely Try as I might, I can't percieve a time when the BDSM community is accepted by the vanilla world in general, regardless of the level of semantic correctness. By the way, I wholeheartedly agree. To the extent that this was the central theme to my most recent article. John

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 10:59:34 AM)
Guilty as charged. Salted or Chese and Onion?

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 11:00:22 AM)
Oh, cheese and onion, please. I don't need all the extra sodium. John

Wildfleurs -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 1:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Actually, the issue of limits doesn't revolve around any other person, Master/Mistress or not. Nor does it have anything to do with their sanity or limb removal prowess (though reference to such is often made for situational example). Limits are innate. In the example of limb removal, it matters not whether the Dominant is sane but has an amputee fetish (a recognized fetish, by the way), is sane but an extreme sadist unconcerned with consent or consequences (the lack of which may enhance their sadistic pleasure), is the world's biggest klutz but enjoys knife play (that's why we judge some people capable of engaging in certain play with us, and others not... so as to ensure that, in the case of this example, our limbs remain intact), or is the crazed killer who enjoys boxing up limbs and sending them off for Mother's Day. The point is, regardless of who someone is or isn't with, limb removal is still a limit. It's their own limit, and not relative to any other external individual. John For you this may be the case, what I find bizzare and funny is when what works for one person is somehow what magically what must work for others who are for all purposes strangers. I wouldn't presume to know what works for everyone else, yet in limits discussions there does seem to be that assumption present. C~

adaddysgirl -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 1:27:13 PM)
prop, i hope you can understand my previous line of questioning. There were times when i found it necessary to use extremes to really get to the root of what you were saying. i have heard so many slaves claim they have no limits. Then when you push the point to some limit that they are not capable of, they stutter and stammer and make it sound like you're the moron for proposing such a ridiculous situation. They do this because i have touched on a limit, but they don't really want to admit to that. That is why i had to use the extreme example of the children. i needed to see your response. i mean c'mon. Anyone can jump off a bridge for their Master (that's a classic) because they trust him, trust that he would not hurt them, and that he must have good reason for them to do so...so i had to use something more drastic. But i don't hear anyone here saying that they would allow their kids to be taken away or allow their Master to set them on fire just because that is his will...period. First of all, those would be limits for the so called limit-less slaves, and even for the ones that say it's not, they would preface it with the fact that they would do so because they have complete trust in him and that he must have had a good reason for it. These are what i call qualifiers. And honestly, if a slave has ONE limit, then she is not really limit-less, is she? But you claim none of this...none of these qualifiers. Your service has nothing to do with either love or trust, or honor or commitment. And as you say, you have no self preservation nor morals. You blindly obey just because it his will. So i cannot fathom someone here even closely comparing themselves to your type of service.....but i'm sure they will try to. And then i will feel compelled to use the examples of the children, or being set on fire, then they will criticize that as ridiculous and still claim no limits, and then i would have made my point. It doesn't really have to be a big debate there. i think the irony here is that i do not call myself a slave (not even close), nor do i aspire to be referred to as one, and if you read my profile, i have several limits. i am not ashamed of that. i just wonder why some so fiercely fight to call themselves no limit slaves when that honestly is not the case. shrugs And that is what i challenge. i do think, however, that we should coin a new acronym in the lifestyle: "swnl" for slaves with no limits. At least then we can distinguish them from the "swl" type. i must add too, prop, that i find your conviction to your service quite admirable. You are young, intelligent and appear quite level headed. i've not heard you be derogatory nor condescending to others, nor have i seen where you try to come across as better or 'truer', or anything like that. i admit i am impressed. You seem very happy in your life and i can only wish you the best. i will admit you have piqued my interest with some other things you mentioned and out of curiosity, i would like to know more about them (at some point and if you wouldn't mind). There were just some things you mentioned about bdsm (or the lack thereof) that interested me. It's been a pleasure talking with you prop. The best to you and yours..... DG

KatyLied -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 1:30:23 PM)
quote: i just wonder why some so fiercely fight to call themselves no limit slaves when that honestly is not the case . It's the same reason that some insist they are "Masters". They like the way it sounds when it rolls off their tongue.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 1:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ImpGrrl As much as it seems that what I say contradicts what you say - we actually agree on this topic. We've had this discussion before. We just approach it from different semantical angles. I always find myself nodding with the jist of what you write on this topic - even though my words seem to say otherwise. You know, not just on this topic, but on others I generally find myself doing the same thing (nodding my head to your posts). I don't think I've ever described myself as being a no limits slave, because I think its just to simplistic. On the other hand I also know that I've constantly strived to adjust limits, preferences, and desires so that there are no fences up for him. But I view that process as being much more complex and nuanced and being about so much more than just limits. C~

ImpGrrl -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/4/2006 1:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs I don't think I've ever described myself as being a no limits slave, because I think its just to simplistic. On the other hand I also know that I've constantly strived to adjust limits, preferences, and desires so that there are no fences up for him. But I view that process as being much more complex and nuanced and being about so much more than just limits. Ditto, all the way through. I don't like the whole "no limits" argument, for reasons I've expressed. But I strive to hold no limits between myself and Sir, and have let go of and adjusted many things toward that end.

darksdesire -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/5/2006 9:38:33 AM)
With the exception of Daddysprop, it seems the arguement is a reflection of whether one prefers literal, black and white language or if one prefers the more figurative, abstract language. One thing i've learned as a writer is that there is literal truth and then there is emotional truth. The term "no limits slave" seems to be touching on that basic difference. In my opinion, both are valid truths. Rover seems focused on the literal meaning. Literal is simple, concrete, unimaginative. Others are focused on the abstract, which conveys more complexity, more imagination and heart. i consider myself a "no limits slave", and this term holds more of an emotional truth than it does a literal truth. So Rover, do i mean what i say when i call myself a "no limits slave?" Absolutely. For me, the value in that term conveys a deep emotional truth that has nothing to do with the question of whether i would burn my children or allow myself to be parted from my limbs. Instead, my use of the term communicates a whole host of complex ideas and emotions that truly cannot be captured in a simple term. What we generally do in that case, is try to capture those ideas in the best phrase or term possible. My personal experience is that "no limits" reaches into the spiritual realm, and it is impossible to capture this in concrete language. i don't believe those who use that phrase are caught in some sort of "fantasy" or "play". i don't believe they are being disingenuous. i do believe they are attempting to communicate the heart of an emotional or even spiritual truth that otherwise defies language.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/5/2006 9:51:06 AM)
dg, reading your last response i found myself nodding my head and thinking, "ah, okay, i hear you now". you are right, many who claim to have no limits truly do not mean it. either they refuse to think of the possibilities of extremes (death, loss of children, etc.)...saying, oh well, my Master would never do THAT, so that obviously doesn't count as a limit. or they have simply found a partner with whom they share all the same limits, and therefore feel secure knowing that their limits will not be crossed. things like trust and love are mentioned by such subs/slaves, as reasons why they do not have limits. the reality is that all of these people have limits, because if you have to have trust, love, compatible morals, a sane Master, etc., in order to always be obedient or accept your Master's will, then you do indeed have limits. i find the idea of there needing to be a separate acronym to refer to slaves with no limits sad, because as i've said before, i came into this way of life with the understanding that by very definition, a slave had no limits. but with reality being what it is, and with seemingly only a minority of slaves actually having no limits, then it may be necessary. sigh but thank you dg for your open and honest questions (and explanations of them), and for your kind words. you definitely have my support in your quest to make those who falsely claim no limits face the truth. and my inbox is always open if you ever have any more thoughts to share.

adaddysgirl -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/5/2006 1:24:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darksdesire With the exception of Daddysprop, it seems the arguement is a reflection of whether one prefers literal, black and white language or if one prefers the more figurative, abstract language. One thing i've learned as a writer is that there is literal truth and then there is emotional truth. The term "no limits slave" seems to be touching on that basic difference. In my opinion, both are valid truths. It wasn't with just the exception of Daddysprop. Others do fall under the literal category of 'no limits'. Yes, emotional truth is YOUR truth.....could be the same as literal but as i see in this case, it is not. They are valid truths because YOU want them to be. Rover seems focused on the literal meaning. Literal is simple, concrete, unimaginative. Others are focused on the abstract, which conveys more complexity, more imagination and heart. i consider myself a "no limits slave", and this term holds more of an emotional truth than it does a literal truth. Again, this is YOUR truth. So Rover, do i mean what i say when i call myself a "no limits slave?" Absolutely. Yes, in your mind. You were one of those i referred to that even though they do have limits, insist that they do not. And if i recall correctly, your Master is a 'Real Master' (according to his profile). Yes, i did ask him what made him a Real Master on another thread once and i never get an answer. So interestingly enough, we have a self proclaimed Real Master and a self proclaimed 'no limit slave' in the same relationship. Got a whole bunch of emotional truths going on there [8\|] For me, the value in that term conveys a deep emotional truth that has nothing to do with the question of whether i would burn my children or allow myself to be parted from my limbs. Again, for YOU is doesn't. That still does not make it a valid point. Instead, my use of the term communicates a whole host of complex ideas and emotions that truly cannot be captured in a simple term. What we generally do in that case, is try to capture those ideas in the best phrase or term possible. My personal experience is that "no limits" reaches into the spiritual realm, and it is impossible to capture this in concrete language. i don't believe those who use that phrase are caught in some sort of "fantasy" or "play". i don't believe they are being disingenuous. i do believe they are attempting to communicate the heart of an emotional or even spiritual truth that otherwise defies language. From what you say here, it sounds like you have limits. Therefore, literally, you are not a no limits slave. You are a slave with limits. (See my new acronyms in another post.) See the difference? And to insist otherwise is your fantasy, and perhaps your partners. It is perhaps what you would like it to be, but alas, it is not. Admit it, accept it, and move on. BTW....notice how many times you refer to 'i, me and my' in your post? Does that tell you something? [:-] DG

darksdesire -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/5/2006 3:15:04 PM)
adaddy'sgirl: why the anger? what an interesting heated and emotionally intense response to a rather benign post. the use of i, me, and my is a way of taking clear cut responsibility for my own opinions and ideas. In other words, there is no effort here to force those thoughts on others but to take full responsibility for those ideas that pertain to my own reality. Your post contained no i, me, or my, but lots of "you". That comes across as inflamatory and attacking. You sadly failed to acknowledge the point in the post...which is the difference between literal and emotional truth. If you will read carefully, you will notice that nowhere did i claim to be a "no limits" slave in the literal sense. i intend to communicate respectfully with you and others who post. Please extend the same courtesy to myself and others.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875