I find the whole "no limits" thing a bit unrealistic.

[WriterDom]

When it's qualified with "I trust my Dom to always do the right thing." The basis of any relationship is trust. I think you can say "I know my Dom's limit's, and I'm comfortable underneath his umbrella of judgment." In my opinion, with that line of reasoning, a purely nilla wife in a vanilla marriage could also claim no limits.

 

[lilredwolph]

That is correct.

But

I had no limits, I belonged to him, I was his. At the time this was what I needed and it was what I got, good, bad or indifferant it was what was needed at the time. It wasn't like I woke up one morning and said "you know what Honey as of right now your free to do whatever you wish, I no longer have limits". The no limits came about because of a medical stituation where I was unable to do anything for myself and he was in complete control of every part of my life, this included food water bathing wiping my butt, he had to do everything for me, for a long period of time. As I got better and stronger I knew I could trust him with my life because he clearly cared about my life as much if not more than his own.

After that, I trusted my Dom not to harm me, but to do as he wished. Trusted him not to ask me to do anything illegal or immoral (by our standards), basically anything else was a go. He has/had limits yes, but were they mine? NO. Did I do things I wasn't truely thrilled about ? YES. Were certain things crossing my limits? YES. Often? NO

I didn't say I trusted him to always do the right thing, I said I trusted him with my life, there is a differance. I also didn't say that I trusted him to stay within the limits he knew where mine, I trusted him to only stay within his own moral code.

 

[WillowPuss]

When it's qualified with "I trust my Dom to always do the right thing." The basis of any relationship is trust. I think you can say "I know my Dom's limit's, and I'm comfortable underneath his umbrella of judgment." In my opinion, with that line of reasoning, a purely nilla wife in a vanilla marriage could also claim no limits.

Hmmmmm yeeeeeeeeees ... see your reasoning there ...

until, something different and unforseen comes up and they say "Hey, No way!" But limits have not really been discussed in the nilla relationship before the wedding (or whatever). I know that was not something that hubby and I discussed before getting married ... but there have been a couple of occasions when I have said the 'no way'. It was then a case of sitting down and trying to vocalise why.

I am sure that similar things happen in both D/s and nilla relationships - especially at the beginning.

 

[Etoile]

As I mentioned in another thread, my view is "no limits between us." Also, this does not mean there are no limits; instead it means that the top knows me well enough to know my subconscious limits and then makes decisions based on that. I would not want to be with someone who didn't know me well enough to choose properly for me. If I'm giving myself up, the person I'm giving myself to had better know what they're being given.

Hmm. This sounded better in my head, I think I forgot something between thinking it and typing it. Damn.

 

[pierced_boy]

No Limits is not realistic

I am with WD, everybody in any type of relationship has limits as to what behaviour is acceptable unless they are damaged beyond "human reason".

By that I mean abused to a point where they no longer make valid judgements, based on logic, about self preservation. Examples: abused wifes(& husbands I guess) or children, tortured prisoners ...............urk

H

 

[Snazzona]

Just thinking......

In my opinion I feel that each and every relationship, sexual or non-sexual has limits in some form or another. Some people can go much farther in their limits than others. For some it comes down to the *trust* between the 2 involved. Although I will say that if you have alot of strict limits then I'm not sure how much enjoyment you can recieve within the relationship. Because this type of sexual relationship is about pushing your limits in my opinion. Or do I have that wrong? Truthfully I am new to this side of sex and don't know much about it so I'm learningabout it slowly. Also this is my 1st time posting on this website so its kinda my test run to see how this all works. Well there are my thoughts. Do with them what you will.

 

[Lancecastor]

When it's qualified with "I trust my Dom to always do the right thing." The basis of any relationship is trust. I think you can say "I know my Dom's limit's, and I'm comfortable underneath his umbrella of judgment." In my opinion, with that line of reasoning, a purely nilla wife in a vanilla marriage could also claim no limits.

Aren't the words Safe, Sane & Consensual ...."limits"?

Lance "Never Say Never" Castor

 

[Never]

I find the whole of life to be a little unrealistic.

 

[RisiaSkye]

I think that everyone has limits. The fact that they may not have (yet) figured out what they are or how they might change doesn't erase them, nor does a person's inability or unwillingness to vocalize them.

A sub may choose to trust their Dom/me not to overstep the bounds of consent, and that trust may be well placed. But, if the sub hasn't articulated limits and/or doesn't have safe-signals in place for times when those limits are (perhaps unexpectedly) reached, even the most trustworthy Dom/me is essentially guessing. It may be very educated guesswork, based on knowledge of the person and shared past experiences, but it is still guesswork.

Your Dominant is not a mind reader.

 

[Never]

I understand the logic between saying you have 'no limits' it's nice to believe that you could totally place yourself in the hands of your Dom/me – even if it's not that realistic.

 

[cellis]

We all have limits whether we recognize them or not.

I trust Himself not to overstep my limits or to push me too fast or too hard.

He trusts me to tell if he has/is going too far.

 

[Pure]

Snazzona: Good point. An essential feature of an ds relation is the pushing of limits, and such a 'push' can only come from the
dom/me's side. In my opinion.

It's of course true, as several have said: Insofar as any interaction has a pattern, there are limits. So two issues arise:
who, if anyone, sets them and/or spells them out? who micromanages them?

Lilredwolph said she didn't ever set them or spell them out, and that, imo, is as it should be in a trusting relationship (including communication) with a non-psycho (known to be such).

Imo, the micromanagement of limits "you may do A, and today you may try a teensy bit of B, but not any of C" is an indicator that no submission is occurring. Diane Vera's designation this non-submissive person as "kinky sensualist" seems apt:

"spiced-up sensuality, on the masochist's own terms for the masochist's own pleasure" [quote from "Nine Degrees..."]

As Risia stated, a Master requires communication to know of a slave's situation; S/He can't read minds. What I would add, with all due respect, is that if the Master simply uses (or is expected to use) that knowlege for the arousal and entertainment of the sub, he's acting less like a Master, and more like an emcee or director for the kinky sensualist's desired drama and gratification.

 

[RisiaSkye]

As Risia stated, a Master requires communication to know of a slave's situation; S/He can't read minds. What I would add, with all due respect, is that if the Master simply uses (or is expected to use) that knowlege for the arousal and entertainment of the sub, he's acting less like a Master, and more like an emcee or director for the kinky sensualist's desired drama and gratification.

I see what you're saying, and I don't think we really disagree. The negotiation of hard limits vs. soft limits (those that can be pushed) has been a subject of discussion many times here. I'm referring to the articulation of hard limits. Soft limits, of course, are there to be pushed as pleases the Dominant partner (and likely, the sub as well).

Also, I think it's a mistake to categorize every BDSM relationship as though it's a Master/slave union. Such unions are actually quite rare.

 

[MLadyPain]

"no limits" relationship

My last bdsm relationship was a negotiated "no limits" relationship.

I was the slave in a master/slave situation. This was not a man I loved or was romantically involved in. But at that time I like him a whole of alot and I respected him. My limits were a large part of our 3 months negotiation. He was aware of my hard limits, and I agreed to trust him enough to go for "no limits".

My soft limits were pushed almost constantly. That wasn't a problem, added to the "spicy-ness".

It was when he began pushing on the hard limits that I had a problem. A couple of my hard limits stem from psychological fears or trauma. When I tried to discuss the situation, I was told that I was "damaged" and he was helping me to find my "true self". That I would be the "perfect" slave if only I would <insert hard limit here>. And didn't I need to be perfect? Didn't I need his approval to live?

Can we say "BULLSHIT"? LOL
MLP

 

[Sandia]

Snazzona: Good point. An essential feature of an ds relation is the pushing of limits, and such a 'push' can only come from the
dom/me's side. In my opinion.

It's of course true, as several have said: Insofar as any interaction has a pattern, there are limits. So two issues arise:
who, if anyone, sets them and/or spells them out? who micromanages them?

Lilredwolph said she didn't ever set them or spell them out, and that, imo, is as it should be in a trusting relationship (including communication) with a non-psycho (known to be such).

Imo, the micromanagement of limits "you may do A, and today you may try a teensy bit of B, but not any of C" is an indicator that no submission is occurring. Diane Vera's designation this non-submissive person as "kinky sensualist" seems apt:

"spiced-up sensuality, on the masochist's own terms for the masochist's own pleasure" [quote from "Nine Degrees..."]

As Risia stated, a Master requires communication to know of a slave's situation; S/He can't read minds. What I would add, with all due respect, is that if the Master simply uses (or is expected to use) that knowlege for the arousal and entertainment of the sub, he's acting less like a Master, and more like an emcee or director for the kinky sensualist's desired drama and gratification.

I think you make a good point. (Well, several of them.) The one about the Master acting like an emcee is one I'll have to think about some more.

I do think so much depends on the people involved. Like you pointed out with the Nine Degrees, there's a whole range of BDSM relationships. Some of them much more dangerous than others.

Sandia.

 

[Snazzona]

Who Decides?

At the beginning of a relationship the 2 involved need to talk about what is an absolute [no way] limit on down to what is an [oh heck yes] limit. Start with what is definitely acceptable and work your way up. Both individuals write down every thing they can think of that they want to explore. Write down on a piece of paper the following 4 categories:

[A] Definitely Acceptable {things you will do for sure}
Not Sure But Willing {things you think you are willing to try}
[C] Possibles After Time {things you might try after time spent
as a couple}
[D] Not Acceptable {things that you will never do}

Go through the list one by one and assign each thing to a category. Once this list is written up whoever it is decided to be the dominant one can refer to this list from time to time and decide what limit they may feel like pushing that day. Slowly over time working your way up and through [C]. This could serve to help in the pushing of limits and also help guide the dom. If you know what I mean. At least I feel it is a helpful tool in this type of relationship. Naturally its a given that the other factors are in place such as trust and agreement to explore this side of sex. Just my opinion.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

I couldnt have a sub with no limits.

I'd end up killing her, or tearing her apart, permanentally disfiguring her in some way. I'd hate to think if I was actually sadistic.

 

[monster666]

On "no" limits...

I'd say so. Ask anyone who professes to have no limits if they'd submit to body modification performed by a Dom/me wielding a large, well oiled chainsaw. I think once that baby fired up and howled for a moment they'd discover one limit pretty quickly. Now it's the long process of finding just where the lines are drawn that separate the okay from the god no, and then maybe adjusting them a bit.

I think that everyone has limits.

 

[Sandia]

I think the whole idea of no limits is that you're involved in someone you trust.

 

[SubbieHubbie]

I know, well oiled fiddle playing an old tune, but the whole argument can go round and round, depending where your head is. To say "I have no limits because I trust you to not do anything to damage me" is, I believe, to have a limit. In a good relationship, with a sane person, that is entirely viable - but what if, for any number of reasons, your dom acts in a way untrustable or insane.

While I entirely agree that it is innapropriate to believe that just because a slave/sub declares 'no limits' a dom will go insane, it is also incorrect to assume it is impossible for it to happen. One look at unexpectedly murdered spouses, mental breakdown in response to unexpected trauma (physical or mental), shows that it is not possible to reliably state any person will never go insane. If you cannot say that still, even at the cost of your life, your health, or your psychological well-being, you would have no limits then you have limites (I think).

I also was intrigued by the post by lilredwolf, declaring she had a no limits relationship due to a health problem where her partner had to do everything for her (gender assumed, apologies if incorrect). This, in a sense, is a no-limits relationship, however, it is no limits in the sense that any unstoppable assault is. If the worst was to happen, and you had the ability to prevent it, then if you would do so, you are not (I think) in a no-limits relationship. Your lack of ability to prevent the worst is no more a commitment to a no limits relationship than my relationship as a child to my abuser. I had limits, they were simply ignored, and if someone wants to argue the opposite way now, then I'll be happy to take you up on it.

Again, to re-emphasize. I have no interest in trying to piss anyone off or offend them. My thinking, as always, could be entirely wrong, and I am more than happy to apologise to anyone who is offended by this missive. Certainly, not declaring any limits can be a good thing, if that is where you are at. Certainly, the vast majority of doms in a RELATIONSHIP will not go insane, and so your hard limits of life, health and psychological well-being are safe. That being said, I doubt many of us, if capable of stopping an attack, would not choose to exercise that limit.

 

[Sandia]

I know, well oiled fiddle playing an old tune, but the whole argument can go round and round, depending where your head is.

(sigh) You're right, of course. Like a lot of arguments, it goes round and round. I have two thoughts about it:
1. As a practical matter, you're always responsible for your own actions. As somebody said, choice is inescapable. Even refusing to make a choice (or letting someone else make it for you) is still a choice.
2. "No limits," like love, or a lot of things, is an aspiration (I didn't say illusion). Perhaps asking if there are any scenarios where you'd refuse is sorta missing the point. Maybe the point is more about creating a relationship, or a psychological space within a relationship, and not so much about figuring out what kinds of things, in advance, might destroy it.

Hmm. I'm not sure if I'm making sense here, so I'll wait and see if anybody has any thoughts on this...?

Sandia.

 

[WillowPuss]

<snip>
2. "No limits," like love, or a lot of things, is an aspiration (I didn't say illusion). Perhaps asking if there are any scenarios where you'd refuse is sorta missing the point. Maybe the point is more about creating a relationship, or a psychological space within a relationship, and not so much about figuring out what kinds of things, in advance, might destroy it.

I understood that perfectly, Sandia (hope that doesn't worry you too much!).
In that I have been with my husband/master for almost 25 years now - we know each other so well that you could say ours is a 'no-limits' relationship.
However, when we first started to explore BDSM, we went through one of those play checklist things ... I found that I certainly had limits then.

For instance ... golden showers is a hard limit for me. Personally, I find the idea gross. When we had both completed our lists and comparedd them; virtually everything I had set as a hard limit, he had too. The one exception was because he hadn't understood one of the terms correctly - and once I explained what I thought it meant, that was changed too.
Soooooooooo (gawd, don't I go on!) I would have been quite safe saying 'no-limits' ... as he wouldn't have wanted to do any of the things I had put 'NO WAY' to, but we set them anyway, just to make things crystal clear.

Originally posted by SubbieHubbie
Your lack of ability to prevent the worst is no more a commitment to a no limits relationship than my relationship as a child to my abuser. I had limits, they were simply ignored, and if someone wants to argue the opposite way now, then I'll be happy to take you up on it.

Absolutely SH!
And I am sorry you went through that as a child (((hugs)))
It is the same as the teenage rape victim having their limits ignored.

 

[Pure]

Monster66 brings up the 'well oiled chainsaw' as eliciting a limit.

SubbieHubbie makes a similar point All these are excellent points, in my opinion. I don't know if these should be called 'hard limits', nor is it accurate to say they are set by the sub, or set in negotiation Dom/me and sub.

The area of agreement is this: A sub, even a slave, can have certain BASIC, legitimate expectations about preservation of life,
health, bodily integrity, vital functioning; and stearing clear of mental breakdown; inability to think, plan and execute a plan; and serious trauma. A basic half dozen. It's to be noted that the 'law' enforces many of these. The State charges a person who cuts off another's arm (except perhaps to save a life) or infects them with AIDS. The State, with rare exceptions, is right to view such harmful events as NOT ones that can be consented to.

Snazzona's proposal is quite different; Snazzona's "will never do" [D] category can include anything, such as sit nude in a sauna with several other nude people.

So my opinion is that the 'sub', **to the extent that s/he is such,** has no business **setting** hard limits outside the 'basic area' described (but the sub has a duty to inform of 'touchy areas' and how extreme is the sensitivity). If OTOH s/he is a game player after 'spicey' sensual treats, let her enjoy!

Then comes MLadyPain's situation. She set a hard limit about an area connected with trauma, the Dom/me violated it, seeking allegedly to make a perfect sub, and she bolted. Good.

Does this show it's fine to for the sub to announce and set 'hard limits'.? I don't think so. My view is that the Dom/me was clumsy; he apparently was informed, so he should have known where to tread lightly (not unlike a therapist). If 'his' sub bolts, he fucked up. In my view, the moral is, the sub should inform, not direct, the Dom/me about these areas; the dom. is expected to have--in the presence of information and in the *absence* of direction--a bit of finesse in dealing with them, or, so to speak, be out of a job.

But were the sub to direct the Dom/me, 'don't go here' (in an area less crucial than the basics), s/he is exercising control and is possibly on the slippery slope to micromanagement of encounters. Which is to say, the 'sub' is procuring entertainment, or perhaps dominating the so called dominant person.

The Dom/me is going to use power; is going after pleasure and delight. IF there is a degree of submission, power is genuinely ceded or surrendered to the dom/me for those ends. To set limits beyond the basics (in a known and relationship situation) is to avoid any but the most minimal cession or transfer of power.

 

[WillowPuss]

Pure, thanks for your post.

I am going to come back and re-read it in the morning, when my head is clearer.

On first reading, it seems contradictory, but I am sure it isn't.

more to follow ...

 

[Dragon Dreamer]

But were the sub to dictate 'don't go here' (going beyond the basics), s/he is exercising control and is possibly on the slippery slope to micromanagement of encounters. Which is to say, the 'sub' is procuring entertainment, or --more interestingly--is perhaps dominating the so called dominant person.

The dom/me is going to use power; is going after pleasure and delight. IF there is a degree of submission, power is genuinely ceded or surrendered to the dom/me for those ends. To set limits beyond the basics (in a known and relationship situation) is to avoid any but the most minimal cession or transfer of power.

Personally, I think this argument is flawed in the fact that everyone has hard limits. As a Dom, I don't give needle play, simply because I have had some personal nightmare experiences with needles, for me, it's a "hard limit."

If a Dom/me is informed of a subs problems with lets say ageplay, because the sub was molested as a child, then that is what is termed a "hard limit." You can wrap it up in different wording if you want, about mental trauma and all that, but nevertheless, in the vernacular of bdsm, it is a hard limit. I also think explaining hard limits and negotiating scenes is hardly dominating the dominant, it's just keeping the lines of communication open. I would rather a submissive tell me her limits before scening, rather than hit a trigger and have her flip out in the middle of the scene. SSC is paramount in any situation, and respecting someone's limits is mandatory.