no limits

In my post below about slavery discussion in the comments turned to limits.

Rose who described herself as a slave still has limits.

sweetmoana writes that she does not hold with "no limits" - that there really are limits in consensual M/s relationships.

I guess I agree with this - though I believe what this means is different in each relationship.

Perhaps a sub can give herself to a Master as a slave with no limits - because she trusts in him not to abuse that power, knowing he would never do anything to harm her.

So is "no limits", "being owned" or "slavery" just a public statement of that trust?

I can understand the seduction as a Dom of desiring that level of trust and commitment.

Limits are often pushed and extended. I have a blogging friend who is "owned". She revels in the fact of her slavery, the demands put upon her and the degradation of her situation. (In her vanilla life she is a self-confident professional woman with a responsible job - she might work in the office next door to you!) At one time she did split from her owner - so clearly she has that freedom - but she returned to him. I have noticed as the relationship has developed how limits that she would never have expected to pass at the start have now happened - if not quite become commonplace. Others are discussed as likely possibilities. She now gets a kick from recognising the possibility of being instructed to do things that she once could not have conceived.

I must admit a little concern about this - partly because I like this person and having seen her change worry a little. She though revels in these changes and her development as a sub. However I worry if it can be an abuse of power for a Dom to use his power over a sub to lead her into areas that she would at first have found very unacceptable. These could be potentially harmful psychologically and professionally. Some have included body modification which whilst not harmful as such are certainly unchangeable.

It is not for me to criticise another couple and I have at different times expressed my concerns directly to her. I am just using this as an example - to ask the question of whether it is acceptable for a Dom to extend the limits of his sub in such a way or whether that is an abuse of the trust that led her to accept "no limits".

slavery

Some submissives refer to themselves as slaves rather than subs.

For some this may just be how they like to perceive themselves. It may be an expression of their total commitment and submission to their Master. Many like to talk of being "owned".

Clearly if anyone was being held in slavery against their will any of us would be the first to inform the police. So in a sense this is voluntary slavery.

For many this is a genuine and total commitment. A sign that they love and trust their Master so much they would do absolutely anything for them. Would obey any command whatever it was and give themselves totally.

I worry a little though when some in a relative short term relationship describe themselves in such a way. It may be that they wish to emphasise the depths of their submission.

I wonder though in such circumstances what are the limits of their submission. Would they genuinely follow any command of their owner?

If they would, should a Master put himself in such a position of power over another? It must take supreme confidence to believe that one can always know the best interests of another and that their commands will always be right. Is there an arrogance in such a position? To believe one is moral enough not to abuse such power? Or is this arrogance?

I am sure such arrangements can work. There is a seduction in wanting to be involved in such. A greater love can imply a desire for the domination and the submission to be more complete - to become total.

But is it healthy for either party?

Or is this an ideal to strive towards?

Domestic abuse

A number of commentators to this blog (and thank you to all of you) are involved in "Domestic Discipline" relationships. Each of these will be different and all such relationships have their own dynamic. I know that the commentators to this blog in such relationships are self confident women who are clear about their relationships, what they want from them and what they are prepared to give. Some may even be feminists.

I am just wanting to emphasise that my following comments are not directed at a particular approach to D/s but are intended to raise some issues that I think are worthy of discussion.

I want to ask a question. It is not intended as critical but I am aware some may take it as such - in which case I apologise.

The question is this.

What is the difference between a 24/7 domestic discipline relationship and domestic abuse?

I can sense you all rushing to answer. Yes - of course - consent.

But there are those who are genuinely victims of domestic abuse who appear to consent. They love their partner and need his attention. They accept the violence that goes with it as part of that. It might be that they were abused as a child and associate violence with love. There are many vulnerable women trapped in such relationships.

There is the matter of love and trust. But these are so hard to define. Is a domestic discipline relationship only acceptable amongst those who are articulate enough to analyse and justify their situation? From the outside how do we understand the level of love and trust?

Perhaps there is also the issue of harm. Is that a damaged organ, a broken bone, a bruise? How does one define physical harm? There will be many reading this who have been happy to suffer bruising - but others may not like to be marked and damaged in such a way.

Psychological and emotional harm is even more difficult to recognise and define.

There are clear extremes at either end that are easy to define. However there is a middle grey area that is more difficult to define. Are there no "Doms" taking advantage of vulnerable women as "subs" who are really enjoying a relationship that without the D/s trappings might well be considered as abusive? What is the role of power in this and when does the transfer of power in this lead to abuse?

I would also like to add that I am aware that this is as much an issue in M/m, F/m and F/f relationships as in M/f. The issues I raise could apply equally to many bdsm relationships not just DD.

I know there is no easy answer to this. I feel I know the difference but can't put words to it. Perhaps others can help me.

recently

In case you have missed them there have been a few more interesting comments on the feminism and punishment posts recently.

Thank you to all who have commented. I am learning from your honest and thoughtful responses.

links

I'm aware that I have had a few more bloggers link to me recently. Thank you very much if you are one of them. I am very happy to link back to blogging friends and I am going to try to update my links this evening. If I miss you and you would like a link back then please let me know.

an email

"I miss you Pygar"

those four words
made me hard
with desire again
the power of love
and submission

secretary

For UK readers - Secretary is on Channel 4 tonight.

If you haven't seen it then do watch.

rape

As I got to know subs well enough to discuss their sexual history in explicit detail I discovered almost all of them had been raped. Many of them more than once. Rather than wondering if this was a common characteristic of subs - I began to fear that this might be a common characteristic of women.

One they do not like to share with the rest of the world.

What an indictment on us men - where force is used without consent.