Well! That was a helluva long trip to the mall!
Okay, my opinion on abuse in a no-limits M/s relationship. First, since the question of the definition of abuse came up, let me define it according to my view.
In the other post where I mentioned that what we do falls under the term abuse, I’m using it in it’s more general sense. Abuse, in it’s simplest definition is “to use harshly”. If I am not “used harshly” in this household, I don’t know what is.
But for the purposes of the question I asked, rather than get bogged down in a semantics war (again), let’s take it as it’s generally meant whenever a person says they were involved in an abusive relationship. I’d venture to guess that we all have some sort of commonly agreed upon idea of what that means when we hear it, no matter the capacity or form the abuse took on.
My opinion is that in a no-limits M/s relationship, abuse can NOT exist.
I disagree with the notion that a Master is obligated in any way to “take care of” or provide for the well-being of or has the responsibility of ensuring happiness or health or any other such niceties to his slave.
Because once you’ve put those conditions on the relationship, terms of what he *has to* do for his slave, you’ve fallen out of the realm of no-limits. Requirements, conditions, expectations… that’s not a willingness to accept any sort of treatment. That’s a willingness to accept a certain sort of treatment and nothing less. That’s a limit placed on what behaviors you expect from your dominant.
Which isn’t at all to say that’s a bad thing. I absolutely think people need to think and choose wisely before submitting in any capacity, with or without limits.
Sinn mentioned the parent/child analogy and while I agree there are a thousand similarities between M/s and parent/child relationships, I don’t think this is one of them. Solely because the child did not voluntarily enter into a relationship where the possibility of mistreatment exists. A slave does. Unless, of course, the slave puts limits on that mistreatment.
Now obviously, the Master’s decisions on treatment affect the outcome of his work. Depending upon the type of slave he wishes to end up with, he has to adjust his behaviors. But what is he *obligated* to do? In my opinion, in a no-limits situation, he’s *obligated* to do nothing. He’s obligated to do whatever he damn well wishes to do.
What irks me the most are those who come out of a supposed no-limits M/s relationship with the cry of having been abused. You cannot go into a situation with pleas of how you have no limits and you desire to be hurt and used and broken.. and then come out whining because you got what you asked for. No matter what opinion one might have of a dominant who chooses to take, and use, what is offered to him, the onus initially was upon the slave who claimed to be “no limits” when in fact, she was not. Don’t put your hand in boiling water and then be shocked that you got burned. I don’t subscribe to the notion that slaves are weak, blameless creatures who can’t possibly know what they are doing. Bullshit. I think cries of abuse are a smokescreen used to distract from the real issue. How stupid one might feel to have gotten into something they didn’t understand and couldn’t control.
So. That’s that. I had more but I’m running out of time and trying too hard to find a nice way to say what I think (and failing miserably). I suppose the shorter, and easier, answer is what rayne just said in a comment: “No limits means no limits. Neither of those words are ambiguous. So, in my opinion, no. Abuse cannot exist in a “no limits” relationship. Perhaps people should be careful claiming “no limits” if they actually have some?”