Opinions?
Can abuse exist in a “no limits” Master/slave relationship?
I’ll lay out my own thoughts when we get back from the mall (God have mercy on my soul). It will no doubt piss people off. ;-)
Uncategorized | kaya | 
Thursday December 27th, 2007 1:40pm
You are going to the mall during the after Christmas sales? And you questioned whether or not you are a masochist? i don’t think there is any truer test of masochism than shopping the day after Thanksgiving and Boxing week. Good luck ;)
lol.. I went to walmart too. I was a glutton for punishment yesterday. ;-)
I guess that depends on what your definition of a slave is. If you take no limits to mean they are “meat” for their master, could they be tortured to death without it being unfair? Eaten as food? Or would that be abuse?
If your definition of slave still takes the person as a human being with feelings, yes there can be abuse. The same way a slave can abuse their master.
Now maybe you were looking for some examples of the grey area in between, where some slaves seem to want to go. Sort of lower than a person but not yet a slaughter chicken? But even there it all depends on what the couple gets off on. Even if the slave was taken so far that she can’t leave on her own there must be things that go to far for her, maybe harm to a loved one (real or threatened) or something. So that would be abuse (emotional).
~Iflie
No limits means no limits. If you enter into something with no limits then you put absolutely zero conditions on what it is you are agreeing to do or have done to you. So how can abuse exist in a place where nothing is limited?
What I was getting at was that the limits might be tied to the definitions of slave. That differs per person.
A no limit slave may mean they will do whatever he wants that still keeps them in a slave space. Dead is not slave space it’s (real) ‘cattle’ space. Animals are not slaves to us, they are not human. Killing one is not the same as killing a person. Even if you wish it could be true it isn’t in a psychological sense.
So your simpler explanation of no limits would mean you think there is no difference between a slave and a cow depending on what the master wants to use it for.
Not that not all things have natural limits so no limits is kinda impossible. And even with a tiny few limits I wonder about the couples sanity. Not all fantasies are meant to be lived. It can run into psychotic self destruction like that guy in Germany that got eaten by his lover, fully consensual, totally kink, totally insane.
I am okay with people doing things they like as long as no one else gets hurt but if they do get themselves permanently hurt on purpose for their fantasies I think they are ill and respect them less for their lack of selfrestraint. Not that they would care once they are in that state.
~Iflie
Yes, abuse can exist in a no limits Master/slave relationship.
Standardized legal definitions of abuse are meaningless when put in to the context of a “no-limits” relationship. However the onus is on the “abuser” to ensure the “abusee” is not in fact abused in the eyes of the courts. Good Luck with proving what we do consensually isn’t abuse to a jury of our peers. Unless your courts are selecting the juror pool from the registrants of your local munch, then everything we do is perceived as abusive.
Slave Contracts as legal documents are meaningless. For example, you can consent to no limits. but you cannot consent to permanent physical injury. Your cuttings for example are not what I would consider permanent physical injury. To overstate the obvious, I could’t shoot you as part of a scene and expect the courts to believe it was consensual TPE.
I know your question wasn’t asked in legal terms but I’m surmizing in moral terms. When is the line crossed from TPE to abuse. I doubt we can find ten people to completely agree where the fine line is. There are many other forms of abuse besides physical, emotional, economic, spiritual, but I’d suggest the one that gets everyone’s attention is physical.
One measurement I think was all can agree on when determining abuse is violence that endangers the individual. When TPE becomes physically violent to the point of endangerment then it is likely also abusive. Anger is another telltale sign things may be getting out of control. A dominant, even when disciplining should never be acting out of anger. (We are supposed to know this from disciplining our children). Past anger is rage. Rage is red light and a signal to get out and get out now, don’t stop and think – leave.
Past anger is rage. Rage is red light and a signal to get out and get out now, don’t stop and think – leave.”
I hope everyone understands that statement is a generalization and not specifically directed at kaya and S.
Well clearly if you’re going to bring the courts into it, it’s all abuse, limits or not. According to them, we can’t consent to what we consent to anyway.
But, and here I’ll disagree with you, if “acting out of anger” is a limit, then it is not a no-limit relationship. I’m not even saying that I am in a no-limit relationship, I’m merely establishing what no-limits means(to me). It means precisely what the words mean. No. Limits. So how does one cross a line when there are none?
I can agree with you that you can’t blur a line that doesn’t exist. If no limits means none (nado, zero, zip, zilch) then there can’t be a line to cross. The term “no limits” is as difficult to define as the word “abuse”. Perhaps, “limitless” has a better ring to it.
A limitless relationship could be a difficult if not impossible life to live but isn’t that what were all about anyway, pushing limits, both those imposed upon us by society and ourselves.
Sure there can. Think of a parent/child relationship, & take out the legal aspects. The child has no “rights” in that relationship. The parent holds all the power. But it’s the parent’s job to take care of that child; it’s an understood and implied part of the relationship. If the parent doesn’t take care of the child, through neglect or directly harmful actions, it is certainly abuse. Morally it is abuse even if there weren’t legal ramifications.
By the same token, it is an understood and implied part of the master/slave relationship that he is supposed to take care of the slave with no rights. The rest of the analogy follows.
Hm I don’t think it’s so much “all the power” the parent holds…it’s all the responsibility. When it comes down to it the child is more important than the parent after all and the parent just has the privilege (and obligation) to take care of it. Any restrictions put on the child are suposed to be in their service not that of the parent.
Aside from the don’t torture the parents clause after all, at least not without good reason hehe.
And as for the care a slave needs, that definition can change per couple. Maybe it’s just food and shelter for some and much more for an other.
~Iflie
I guess that’s where I see no-limits as the deal breaker. Because I don’t think that a Master is required/obligated/or has a responsibility to do any of the those things. I guess it’s *nice* and I guess one is lucky if, upon entering a no-limits relationship they have a Master who is naturally like that.. but putting those sorts of conditions upon the relationship takes it out of the no-limits arena. I think anyway.
Leaving out extremes (cannibalism and murder and such), the only thing I’ve really ever thought of as abuse towards a slave, is neglect.
Example: a master takes on a slave with the agreement that he understands that the slave needs to, lets say, serve him, domestically and sexually, to be his pain slut, and to occasionally be his puppy. The master then ‘collars’ or does something else to pronounce ownership, physically or mentally enslaves the person, and then gradually stops giving the slave what they need to be happy but still expects said slave to be a servant. The slave sought out said relationship because they needed more than they could find in a vanilla relationship in order to be happy. And now, they’re stuck being a housewife while the master is thinking about getting another slave when he can’t properly care for the first one.
Obviously this applies if everyone is healthy and nothing outside the relationship is adversely effecting it. I can understand that illness happens and operations and family emergancies and things that might put everyone’s needs on hold. However, ignoring the slave for months on end to the point that they have emotional issues, while still expecting them to be a servant… is abuse, in my opinion.
“takes on a slave with the agreement that he understands that the slave needs”
Right there you’re out of the no-limits area, in my opinion. And in that case, if the Master isn’t holding up His end of the “deal”, though I don’t know if I’d say it’s abuse, it’s certainly *something* unpleasant.
But what about when there were no such agreements or understandings? That’s more what I think no-limits means.
Why would anyone choose to get together with someone that neglected them? They might as well just stay single and clean their own house.
It might be a limit your mind, but in my opinion, it’s just common sense.
At this point in our relationship, my Daddy could neglect me and I would be unable to leave, but I knew from the start that he never would.
I do suppose that what you might be trying to get at is that someone saying they have no limits probably doesn’t know exactly what they’re saying. It would be a rather harsh lesson to have to learn.
You’ve really given me something ot think about as well, I hope you don’t mind if I take your leave and blog about my thoughts on this as well?
Not at all. I look forward to reading it.
I wrote on this very topic not too long ago after Brooke of PuppyTales had her blog deleted…
You can read all about it:
here.
This is why I specified “no limits”. because I do agree that abuse can exist in a relationship with preset limits and agreed upon obligations.. but what about when those aren’t present? Why is it that one assumes a Master is obligated to provide anything in a no-limits situation?
I’m not sure that true “no limits” relationships really exist. It would seem that all consensual relationships have some kind of limit imposed upon them by the very nature of what it means to enter into a relationship. To me, a relationship means that each party has certain obligations towards the relationship and to the other party. Am I making sense? Because I’m trying to say that a relationship without any limits probably isn’t a real “relationship” because of the necessity of communication in a relationship that would necessitate something like limits. Hrm, it’s hard to think coherently about sex and watch Futurama at the same time.
I believe first you would need to define “abuse.” Who’s definition of abuse are we going by? Society’s, mine, yours, etc?
Of course society would define much of BDSM as abuse. The law in Las Vegas says there is no consensual BDSM outside of educational or religious exemptions.
However, I think each person defines their own abuse. To me, not beating me is often more abusive than spanking me.
I tried to define it in the manner I wanted to use it in the next post.
Sure, in a M/s relationship the M decides for both, is responsible for looking after the well being of both. If the Master is not doing their best to look out for the best interests of the slave then by definition abuse is taking place. In that case the slave is responsible for making sure the abuse ends, by at least withdrawing some of the consent for the M/s dynamic, possibly all of it, and possibly by completely ending all relationship with the former Master.
In M/s abuse is tied up with intent, so it can be difficult to pin down what is abuse and what is not. Fortunantly there is no need to decide…if the relationship is not working for the slave then the slave must move to make changes, which can be decided and done with out the label of abuse being adopted.
Thats certainly one of the areas I disagree with. The Master’s responsibility. :/
My reply here became to long so I just posted it on my blog. :-) Thanks for the inspiration since I was struggling with what to write about today.
I’ll be over to read it. :D
Kaya,
Oh! MY! GOD! What a question! It hits me hard because I have already had to think about it, in more than one context. I first considdered the question when I first discovered your and Married man’s Fuck Toy’s web blogs. The things I saw had shocked and appalled me (as I explained in a private email). It was only by reading your achives that I began to understand just where you are coming from. Both you and Toy, as well as Blue, truly want no say what-so-ever in what happens to you, not really. Yes, you squirm and weep and plead and cuss when it its happening, but afterwards, all three of you are so totally fulfilled by the “abuse” that was done to you. Seeing that made me look at myself anew, to see things that I did not particularly like.
The other time I had to face this question was after reading, of all things, a work of BDSM fiction. The e-book is entitled “What if She Wanted?” The three female submissives and two male dominants are discussing the “rule” that no permanent harm should be done to the submissive in a D/s relationship or scene, and the question comes up, “What if that’s what she wanted?” in the scene/frelationship. In short order, all three submissives “give up” their safe words and their limits and the story goes on from there. By the end of the novel, all three women have been brnaded, all three have been violated by dildos that ***they themselves*** designed solely to cause as much pain and damage as possible, one had her pussy sealed closed with welded rings, one had her clit burned off with a brand and the third was crucified, literally. Throughout the novel, the women all accepted the “abuse,” rejecting numerous opportunities to back out from the no limits situation they had set up, out of the love they had for their masters. Each was convinced and accepted that they would be killed by their masters at soem near time in the future. The last line of the book was one of the women saying, “We can never go back, can we?” Were these women being abused? I fianlly had to say, no, they were not.
I don’t know if any woman in the real world would accept what those fictional women do, but I have seen what you and Toy accept from your Masters (and read what Blue accepts). I have read all of you describe how much the idea of having a safe word is repugnant to you. You truly do NOT want to have a say in what is done to you. In that respect, leaving the law aside (since most BDSM practices violate it anyway), I would say that it is NOT possible for there to be abuse in a “no limits” relationship. The whole idea is an oxymoron.
I guess the big question is just how true is a claim of “no limits?” In your case, Kaya, your long stated goal is to be a cunt in a box. To be reduced to being an object that Master uses for his pleasure. You want to be able to see yourself as nothing more than an object. I don’t know if this is possible, but it’s the ultimate in no limits that I’ve ever heard of. Whatever he does to you could only be abuse if you changed your mind. I guess that is the one limit there is. Ultimately, the nature of the limits is the slave’s decision, not the master’s. As much as you have said i the past that you have no option to leave, you really so. But it would take YOU making the choice to change the nature of the relationship, somehting I don’t think you are willing to do unilaterlly, hence, you do not have the “option” of leaving, because you choose to not have it.
One more note, a slave can only give no limits permission concerning herself. If a slave’s children were subjected to a no limits environment, that would be abuse. And no, I do not think for an instant that your Master would ever do such a thing, but there are what I refer to as “rules lawyers” in BDSM as well as gaming (yes, I’m a gamer). If anyone is interested in reading the e-book I talked about, it is available on my web site.
Dave
Yes! It is an oxymoron. But a lot of people refuse to see it that way.
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?
Heh. I quoted you. :)
Well…I’m pretty sure “no limits” is not automatically related to the questions of “abuse.” Abuse is about intent from the abuser. Just because someone gives up all limits doesn’t mean they can’t be abused by someone intending to do so. My dear late friend R. lived with her master for 8 years, during which she gave up her safeword and any and all limits. In return, he often threatened to dump her on the street (because her terminal illness was inconvenient for him). When she was comatose for two weeks, not only did he not visit her (because he doesn’t like hospitals), he didn’t tell any of her friends she was there. He isolated her from people. He treated her very much as if she was not there, insulted her to her face in front of others, told her that his son was allowed to treat her any way he wanted. I could go on. That is abusive behavior, limits notwithstanding.
An excellent question for the morning, Kaya. Thanks!
That’s a sad story indeed.
But I still maintain that if she went into it with no limits, then she consented to the possibility of it ending in the manner it did.
Which doesn’t excuse his behavior at all. He’s an ass of the first class sort.. but abuse? I’d say no. If she was with him for 8 years and he treated her in that way, she knew what is was and consented to it.
Of course my opinion counts for nothing of any consequence. ;-)
Of course your opinion counts! But this is what I meant by abuse and “intent.” SHE may have agreed to put up with any behavior, but that doesn’t mean HE wasn’t abusive. She just agreed to put up with his abuse.
But since I speak where I have no personal experience (we are most definitely not a couple with no limits!), it’s my opinion that doesn’t count!
Hmm.. interesting twist on it though. I need to think on that. :-)
And btw, I’m not in a no-limit relationship either. ;)
Then based on this post here, and speaking as a woman who claims a submissive role in relationships with men, I’d have to say that a female slave with no limits is not a slave worth owning in the first place and not someone I’d ever look upon with envy.
This woman has chosen to ceased to grow as a human being (and, truly, doesn’t seem to want to grow). She will never change over the decades, never learn or have new ideas. She’s just a piece of meat to be tossed out when whatever “man” she’s with is done with her.
She will have no personality, thoughts or opinions of her own. She has given up as a human being and has chosen to be a mentally dead, emotionally shutdown organic life form who only wants to be punished then thrown aside.
She is nothing.
What kind of a real man would ever want such a thing? And would he be the kind of person anyone else would want to be around?
I’m not sure if you’re responding to my comment to Kaya’s post. Are you suggesting that my friend chose to cease to grow as a human being?
I was responding to Kaya: But I still maintain that if she went into it with no limits, then she consented to the possibility of it ending in the manner it did. I’m not speaking about your particular friend, but about any woman who has said, meant, and lived through absolutely “no limits”. She has intentionally chosen to cease to grow as a human being. There cannot be personal growth when you’ve given everything, including your psyche, over to another human being.
Any woman who says “no limits” and truly means no limits, even to the point where he can break her bones, humiliate her in public, leave her for days without food or water and even kill her if that is his desire, has ceased to grow as a human being and becomes merely an animal.
You can choose to take that as an insult against your friend, although I’m happy to hear she’s left that relationship. But for those who take pride in their “no limit” relationship and wear it as some kind badge of honor, I’m saying that it is not an accomplishment to degrade yourself to the point where the only bastard who would want someone like you is the man who has no concern at all for anyone else but himself.
I believe that the “no limit” relationship doesn’t exist except in third world countries or the Middle East where a woman can be stoned to death just by looking at another man (or for any reason, really).
There is nothing erotic about those relationships; it’s just human degredation pure and simple. What real man would want that? And what real woman would willingly, eagerly, and longingly put up with that kind of man?
Harsh.
I disagree that anyone who has willingly given up all limits–and means it, and acts it–has ceased to grow. What a challenge it is to maintain that continual mindset–what uncommon strength it takes to give it all up and to keep on doing so. Perhaps “no limits” is a process rather than an accomplishment. (Certainly my friend, and the few other “no limits” folks I know, retained their own minds and opinions.) No limits need not mean blow up toy, and it need not automatically attract a parasitic dominant. But YMMV.
Well, to play the devil’s advocate here, the kind of man who would want that would be a sadist and the kind of woman who would allow, and like it, would be a masochist.
It seems a rather slippery slope to start judging anothers kink, no? Besides, why do you assume he’d want to “throw her away” once he finally got her that way? People don’t usually invest the time and effort into “training” someone that deeply if their interest in it is fleeting enough to toss away out of boredom or whatever. I think anyway.
kaya, you know i have a serious M/s dynamic here where i live. i know you have a srious one where you live. the question to me here is not the definition of abuse. it’s the definitio of “no limits”.
i am in a committed, M/s relationship. He owns me, and i am His property. but our relationships is NOT “no limits”..
there are things He would require of me that i would not do. in just about every real life M/s dynamic i know of, there are STILL things that would make the slave say, “i will not do this”, tpe, IE, whatever, it’s there.
personally, i think those of us who claim “no limits” just haven’t found them yet. for right now, he is my limit. He chooses where i go, but i know there are boundaries to that, and some of it shifts with time spent. after six months in an M/s dynamic, i would say having certain parts of me amputated would be a limit. after six months with a Master, i would not have my nipple cut off. after five years? it’s possible.
after twelve? probable. after 25? most likely.
but if after 25 years together, the Master chooses to cut off His slave’s nipple, or finger, then there is something there beyond just slicing off pieces of flesh. there’s a reason there.
no limits? there’s always a limit. i would guess you even have some. *smiles*
if you say “that is not a limit” then it is not abuse. sorry. if you consent to an action, then it is NOT abuse IMHO, no matter how extreme the activity may be.
if you are TRULY absolutely no limits, then there is no such thing as abuse. if you claim to be truly completely 100% no limits, then i would say you are consenting to any and everything including permanent body alteration (you can say “injury” if you feel like it) and even death. you are consenting to give someone control over your life, and the taking of it is included.
so no, in no limits, there is no abuse. period. but how many folks are no limits? i would say (hopefully) very very few. i am not no limits. and i am absolutely not ashamed to say that, nor do i feel it makes my submission of my M/s dynamic any less potent.
i hope i made sense.
~melly
Oh I agree. I have certain things that I require in order to maintain a degree of health and happiness. At this point in our relationship, I’m not sure I’d agree to go without them. Luckily for me, Master gives me what I need so it’s a moot point.
But… would I adhere to my own standards of no-limits were He to put me to that ultimatum? I *think* I would.
Which is why choosing wisely on who to submit to is pretty damn important.
Probably, because no one ever agrees on definitions, this is another issue that will remain up in the air. Not only is abuse an arguable term, so is no-limits (for some people)… but what the hell, I like to debate points. ;-)
*laughs8 i lik eot debate points too. but i think we might ACTUALLY be in agreement on this one! abuse is reliant on what are percieved acceptable behaviours for a relationship.
“no limits” removes ALL requirements of behavior, so therefore, “no limits” and “abuse” cannot exist in the smae place. and like you said, i think that some people who claimed to be “no limits” and then yelled abuse didint’ deal with not getting what they wanted, and they also had limits and just weren’t expressing them, or didn’t want to admit to them.
i actually know a person who lived “no limits” M/s, by her own words, mind you, and loudly and frequently proclaimed how happy she was in her “no-limits” slavehood… and when, after several years, she left her Master, she accused Him of, while she was His slave, raping her.
now how in the heck can you be raped if you have no limits? you can’t. period. you cannot rationalize that one to me, no way no how. you can’t be raped in no-limits.
and i think, too, that while i like to THINK i would agree to whatever Sir wanted, it’s really not so. we actually had a long talk in the truck on the way to (and from) His mom’s house, and during that talk, he asked, and i answered, His questions about some things that at this point in our dynamic, i felt that i needed. He agreed that He thought they were things i needed too, and things He wants to explore. at this particular point in our dynamic, this IS a limit for me. i have things i really need, emotionally and physically to be fulfilled.
will i ever be in a “no limits” relationship? i can say that by my own definition of “no limits”, i would say, no. i wouldn’t. at least i don’t see that now. it may change. but not right now.
and you know what? i don’t care. i’m NOT no limits… and i don’t care how “un-hard-core” that may make me. we do what works for US. and yes, He does things i do NOT like, and do NOT want. and that is okay.
Agree!? *gasp* Say it isn’t so! ;-)
Exactly *why* does admitting to having limits make one “un-hard-core” as you put it? Because it certainly does carry that “feel” doesn’t it?
I’m late in responding to this, but since I’m keeping your posting a surprise until after I write this (smile) I guess it’s ok?
I don’t believe it’s possible to have abuse in a no-limits relationship. But then again, I tend to think that “no limits” is not possible to begin with. Or actually, maybe I want to believe that it isn’t possible? The alternative is too scary to accept for me.
My own opinion on the topic:
If you go to a base enough level of communication, you’ll find certain concepts that are taken for granted For example, we agree that the color blue is, in fact, a color. There’s no real way to prove that blue is a color. We simply accept that blue is, in fact, a color.
Or that the number 1, is a number. Or, that the number 2 is followed by the number 1.
There’s simply a point where things like “proof” or “opinion” have no real bearing.
This is how it also is with the concept of “basic human rights”.
I support your right to enter into a TPE relationship. This is because I believe you have a right to persue what makes you happy. Nobody gave you this right.. This is simply a right that you possess, because you’re a human being.
You don’t need to believe in Government law to believe in basic human rights, because the Government, and society in general, grants nothing. It can only RESTRICT, and only for the purpose of preventing someone elses rights from being restricted (At least, in a Democratic government, or a just government.)
You also have the right to exist, and exist free of harm. Without a common assumption that every human has a right to exist free of harm, there’s really nothing to stop someone from harming you. Or, from harming your children, or others that you care about.
The ONLY thing stopping the Government from ending us, is a common belief that we exist by right, whether it’s by divine right to natural right or what have you.
Therefore, I can respect your right to seek your happiness, by giving up your power.
Therefore, I can say a master does NOT have the right to end you or harm you. Because, a master can’t make you stop being human, no matter what he believes. And for that matter, no matter what “I” believe either. It’s very important to have this concept of immutable rights, to recognize that NO ONE has the right to take them from you, no matter what your social contract. If you owe someone a lot of money, they can’t come and take your children away from you as payment. Nor can they take you away, and sell you into slavery..
Another common assumption is that no one in their right mind would allow themselves to be killed, or to be harmed. Self preservation is a natural trait of all life, so it’s a safe assumption that even in a TPE relationship, a slave would maintain their sense of self preservation. It’s simply not something you can give away along with your power.
So, we can go from there to assume that as “only” someone not n their right mind would enter into an agreement that would see them seriously hurt or killed, that person wasn’t in a state of mind to enter into such an agreement, thus invalidating it.
And a master holding the belief that they have own you to such a degree that they can end you, or harm you, still makes them wrong for this belief.
And, to argue that your consent extends to your human rights?
Well then, what gives you the right to persue your own happiness in the first place? Without this concept that we call “basic human rights”, you HAVE no right to be happy, and the Government has EVERY right to crash into your life and seperate you from your master.
But I don’t believe they have that right, because I believe you have EVERY RIGHT to be happy. ;)
I’m trying to process this comment.
It’s a good one.
Circular. Logical.
Damn you! ;)